Scan barcode
A review by libellum_aphrodite
Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain by David Eagleman
2.0
The first half or so read like a grab bag of vaguely interesting, but not very memorable, articles about the human brain (vision, gut decisions, automatic versus conscious actions, various disorders, dreams). The second half became much more memorable when Eagleman skied right down the slippery slope of the brain, free will, criminals, and culpability: from weird brain issues can cause formerly law-abiding folks to commit terrible deeds, to no criminal can really be held at fault for a crime, as brain chemistry ultimately dictates everything, straight into overhauling the entirely of sentencing to account for this.
The last chapter was spent almost in entirety backpedaling those free will assertions with all the caveats to what we have yet to understand about the brain and consciousness. These acknowledgements were too little, too late for me, following some pretty bombastic claims which brought the movie Gattaca [destiny according to genes, minus the eugenics part] to mind. It seems sane to use what we know to better rehabilitate people, but we don't understand enough to validate big bold statements like no one is really responsible for their actions. We may not get to choose our circumstances, which may indeed include chemical imbalances or tumors or genetic predispositions, but should have the opportunity to exceed (or waste) them.
My opinion versus Eagleman's aside, the book had much wanting in terms of structure. Eagleman fails to connect all his content clearly towards the free will discussion or acknowledge the gaps and counter arguments throughout, instead giving us random brain stories --> big free will statement --> "by the way" vague acknowledgement of complexity and unknowns.
The last chapter was spent almost in entirety backpedaling those free will assertions with all the caveats to what we have yet to understand about the brain and consciousness. These acknowledgements were too little, too late for me, following some pretty bombastic claims which brought the movie Gattaca [destiny according to genes, minus the eugenics part] to mind. It seems sane to use what we know to better rehabilitate people, but we don't understand enough to validate big bold statements like no one is really responsible for their actions. We may not get to choose our circumstances, which may indeed include chemical imbalances or tumors or genetic predispositions, but should have the opportunity to exceed (or waste) them.
My opinion versus Eagleman's aside, the book had much wanting in terms of structure. Eagleman fails to connect all his content clearly towards the free will discussion or acknowledge the gaps and counter arguments throughout, instead giving us random brain stories --> big free will statement --> "by the way" vague acknowledgement of complexity and unknowns.