Scan barcode
A review by bogdanbalostin
Consciousness: An Introduction by Susan Blackmore
5.0
This may be one of the best textbooks. Ever. No matter the subject topic.
Even though it's marketed as a textbook, I think it fits better as just a book about consciousness. Remove the activities and class suggestions and you have a book on consciousness. The first half deals with real questions, based on philosophy and neuroscience, but the second half starts dabbles into esoteric and spiritual matters, and then never gets to the point. What is the connection between that paranormal stuff and consciousness? I was honestly pissed when the authors started taking serious the experience of drug users.
Why was that?
Because while in the first part of the book, we treat consciousness as the thing that is subjective, "why things feel to us a certain way", in the second part consciousness is a super ability that connects us all and gives us the ability to manipulate (supposedly) the radioactive decay. Basically, I'm pissed because the author didn't respect one definition of consciousness.
Nevertheless, I understand the decision. She wants her book to act as the foundation of consciousness studies, a starting point for different directions. And after all, we still don't know a lot about the nature of consciousness, we can't rule out some existing theories, no matter how outlandish they sound. Not yet, anyway.
Even though it's marketed as a textbook, I think it fits better as just a book about consciousness. Remove the activities and class suggestions and you have a book on consciousness. The first half deals with real questions, based on philosophy and neuroscience, but the second half starts dabbles into esoteric and spiritual matters, and then never gets to the point. What is the connection between that paranormal stuff and consciousness? I was honestly pissed when the authors started taking serious the experience of drug users.
Why was that?
Because while in the first part of the book, we treat consciousness as the thing that is subjective, "why things feel to us a certain way", in the second part consciousness is a super ability that connects us all and gives us the ability to manipulate (supposedly) the radioactive decay. Basically, I'm pissed because the author didn't respect one definition of consciousness.
Nevertheless, I understand the decision. She wants her book to act as the foundation of consciousness studies, a starting point for different directions. And after all, we still don't know a lot about the nature of consciousness, we can't rule out some existing theories, no matter how outlandish they sound. Not yet, anyway.