My Unconscious Mind Has Preconditioned Me to Disagree With This Book... Or Something Like That

Man it took me a while to finish this one - took me a while to get it too.  Back in I don't know when, Google had an Author@ for David Eagleman, whose latest book is Incognito.  This was right around the time (I guess that' when :)) when I read Joshua Foer's book, Moonlighting with Einstein, that I found so unexpectedly fascinating.  So I was more than a little open to another neuroscience title.  Plus there were lots of reserves on it, always a goodish sign :) So I put it on hold... and it was the same old story - hold expired, got it out, couldn't renew it... etc. until now (or a few weeks ago) when I finally managed to get a hold of it without reserves and actually had time to read it.  I was slightly hampered by tiredness, since, I have started to go to the gym in the mornings (yes I had to say this, of course I did :)) which means I feel like sleeping, not reading on the bus in the mornings (though it's morning right now and I am writing my blog, that's how dedicated I am :))

So about the book... well in the beginning, I was just unimpressed.  He kept going through all these examples of how what we see isn't reality and how our brain does so much unconsciously for us.  He said these things like they were a revelation, instead of which, almost all of what he said was familiar to me.  I suppose his framing of it was something new in a few cases - that we really don't tend to realize the role the brain plays in composing our view of the world.  But mostly it was like, uh yeah, our brain processes a lot unconsciously, that's what it's there for.  And along with his dramatic reveal of the unconscious, Eagleman continuously refers back to evolution as the cause and impetus of all this - evolution dictates that this was better for survival, this was advantageous... Without offering one iota of proof or even acknowledgement that evoking evolution as a magical force does not cement its place as the most logical explanation of how intelligent life (us) came about.  I mean it's not like I expected the guy to launch into a defense of evolutionary theory, but given the utter lack of any backup when he mentions that this or that was better than some other scheme for survival and that's why it has survived, why mention it at all?

Ah, because my early annoyance at his constant noddings to that origins of life theory was, in fact, a pick-up on his not-so-hidden agenda.  Because once the book finishes showing us how our conscious minds are the smallest, most unimportant, and late-to-the-party part of our brain, it launches into the next phase of Eagleman's exploration of the psyche.  Given that so much of "us" is unconscious, do we even have free will? Well he posits this - the conscious mind is that which decides between warring factions in the unconscious - and in that, I think he's pretty much on the nail.  Why aren't we animals? We have the ability to choose between right and wrong.  But my agreement with his theory of consciousness notwithstanding, I diverge quite far from him at the next juncture.

And that is twofold - 1) that our ability to make decisions is influenced by innumerably many factors that are out of our control and 2) we haven't found a place in the brain that isn't looped in with other parts, making an independent, self-reliant conscious mind impossible.  Now as far as the first point, he is undoubtable correct - we are put into this world with a given set of circumstances about which we have no say - but we all know the big but, and that is that every person has the ability to choose right and wrong *within his personal circumstances.*  No one gets let off the hook just because they had an alcoholic mother or grew up below the poverty line - if you do something wrong, you are culpable.  Of course, we know that we're not the ones who can judge what's wrong (or at least what's a wrong choice) for any one person, so there's no question he has some point - more on that anon.  His second point is the one that really irks me (not surprisingly).  So here's my first needle poke in his balloon - have you isolated the area of the brain that you claim constitutes the conscious mind, that is, the place where arbitration between dueling unconscious processes takes place? I think not.  Which means you haven't explored the whole brain yet, so there very well could be a place that doesn't "take orders" from anywhere else.  And, more importantly, what if you don't find such a place? Well it just proves (or ok, not proves, but indicates strongly) exactly what I (and lot of other people) believe (know) - the seat of the unconscious is the non-material, intangible soul.  It's actually beautiful in a way, to see the scientific arguments in favor of a spiritual consciousness :)

In any case, I really can't expect Eagleman to know all this, I just need to vent when I hear him spewing ideas that are to me so very wrong.  And when it gets down to the practical, I don't think there's anything *very* wrong with his ideas.  He points at that the current criminal justice system, with its notions of blame, is fundamentally flawed.  Well we all know the criminal justice system is fundamentally flawed, and I actually, I disagree with him that it's all based on blame. I think far more of sentencing is based on two things - get 'em off the street and make sure no one ever does this again.   But yeah, jail time isn't the best way to accomplish this in all cases, and I think we're all in favor of rehabilitation over incarceration, if we knew rehab could work.  So as far as neuroscience can help rehab, I'm all for it.  Am I as sanguine as Eagleman when it comes to the possibilities? Well, obviously not, but who knows? We certainly are gaining a better understanding every day of the inner workings of the mind.

Which brings me to my last (side) point - whatever the mind is like, it is not a computer and I find it patently ridiculous that Eagleman attempts to explain its myriad functions as a series of subroutines, that get programmed in some vague manner.  I don't think that's how the brain works, and I don't think we're going to achieve AI via modeling it that way.  But he probably knows  more about AI than I do, and I'm sure they've gotten somewhere with that approach :) In any case, I found this book to be mostly hand-waving in the important parts (that is, the science) and, unsurprisingly, mistaken in its conclusions.  Disappointingly enough, I don't feel like I learned anything much at all from this book... but I suppose it made me understand my own faith just a little bit better - so there's something to be said for that :)

Verdict: 2.5/5

A Biographical History of Science

Two nonfiction in a row! Well what can I do? I am but a cog in the wheel of the library reserve system... and at the same time GH's Regency World was ready, so was The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.  But what was I doing reserving a book on the story of a black woman whose cells were developed into the first, and most successful, cell line in the world? Well the long and short of it is that it was recommended... by Naomi G (that's abg's aunt, if you couldn't figure it out :)) when she saw me reading Intuition.  It was an If you like... then you should read... The problem of course, is that I didn't exactly *like* Intuition :) But it was highly recommended, and there were lots of reserves on it at the library, so I knew it couldn't be all that bad, so there it went, right on my reserve list.  Though I didn't get around reading to read it for quite some time (see previous post for my good reasons :)), Huvi read it almost right away.  Her comments did not encourage to think I'd particular enjoy the book, since she was talking about how horrible it was the way black people were mistreated in medical experiments.  Not that she's wrong, of course Tuskegee was horrifying, but I didn't find it *that* inhumane to use someone's cells without his/her knowledge for medical research.  But Huvi did seem to find the book interesting enough, so I didn't think it'd be torture or anything.

The book, as it turns out, is in part social commentary, in part biological history, but mostly biographical.  Rebecca Skloot sets out to recreate the life and personal legacy of Henrietta Lacks, to remind us that there was a person behind the HeLa cells.  It's a laudable enough purpose, but not a topic of general interest (general being me, of course :))  The most compelling aspect of her personal life story was how absolutely not pretty it was.  These were people with some family structure, but no education, and no money.  There's jail time, infidelity, multiple forms of abuse, mental illness, STDs, and a general unpleasantness with which I do not recall coming often into such close contact.  The state of the black population in the fifties was sorry indeed if the Lacks are any example (I think they probably are not).   And the Lacks of today (or of the nineties) are not much better.  There's still a lot of crime and a lot of anger, little education and no sophistication.  I almost wonder if Rebecca Skloot means to portray the Lacks so unflattering - they seem to blow off the handle at nothing and exhibit little understanding of the complicated affairs surrounding their mother's cells.

Which is what keeps the book from getting too preachy.  Yes, scientists did not treat blacks well in the fifties.  But it's not like anyone really thinks they perpetrated a huge wrong against Henrietta Lacks when they cultured her abandoned tumor cells. Her family thinks they deserve monetary reward, that their mother might have suffered, but her family doesn't appear all that credible.  And there is plenty of evidence on the other side that the scientists would *still* be legally mostly in the right (with the exception of exposing HeLa's identity) and that morally, they really did very little even questionable.  The greater ugly story of black and other minority experimentation is explored, but not with any aim toward villifying the greater community of scientists, and particularly not condemning those involved in HeLa cultivation.  It is horrifying that in the 1950s scientific research was so primitive with regards to subjects rights, but it's gratifying that we have come a long way.   And regarding the moral issues that still plague research, and in particular tissue research today, The Immortal Life is quite balanced - I find myself mostlhy in agreement with Ms. Skloot, with the exception of a few bouts of scare-mongering which I think are there mostly to argue towards the book's relevance.

What I wish the book had more of is the actual science.  I really know nothing about cell culture and I had never heard of HeLa cells.  I (along with I'm sure everyone else who reads this book) find it fascinating that one single cell line has spread so pervasively throughout the cellular research world.  And tracing the track of scientific and medical discoveries since the '50's feels miraculous - the advances of biology and genetics are made concrete through the careful timeline of HeLa through history.  I don't know if I would have been able to read a book that emphasized the science more - Rebecca Skloot's talent is certainly adding human interest to the story and I can't imagine her getting enthusiastic without that angle.  And I can guarantee that the book flows a lot faster because half of it is tales of the Lacks and of various other human players.  I guess this book really is similar to Inutition in that there's a lot of interesting science and research methodology mixed with a human tale - but unlike Intuition, the science is the reason I read the book.  And the truth is, maybe I felt it was dumbed down by all the other stuff, but I think I actually learned quite a lot - and not only that, I think it will stick in my head, and that's because of the book's vivid and sympathetic style.   I have to say, there's a reason it's a bestseller - compelling, easy reading and something for quite a few folks.

Verdict: 3/5

A Serious Study of Serious Study

Remember way back when, I reviewed Allegra Goodman's latest, The Cookbook Collector? I heard about it on Austenprose, but was laughed at when I asked Sarah Sp. and Chava if they had heard of her.  Apparently, I was a little late to the party celebrating this great author.  Since Sarah Sp. owned her other books, I borrowed them from her… and, of course, promptly abandoned them to more pressing materials.  Everyone said Intuition was the best one, but Sarah Sp. told me to save it for last, and that was the original plan.  But however many months later, when S.b. read Intuition and bothered me to read it too, I thought it was time to abandon that careful formulation and at least get the best one read.

So, having exhausted my supply of library books, I looked forward to reading the Allegra Goodman that was the Allegra Goodman to read.  S.b. hadn't loved it, so I knew it wasn't incredible, but I liked Cookbook Collector well enough, and this one was supposed to be far superior.  CC was mildly romantic, so that should mean a substantial romance in this one, right? When I read the jacket flap, I couldn't really see a romance off-hand.  The book seemed pretty serious, tackling the not especially grave subject of academic life, but apparently delving into the discomfort arising from exposure of its dirty underbelly.  Or something like that anyway.

The truth is, though academic life isn't September 11 or the dot-com bubble, it's not a subject that lends itself to the lightest of tones.  First of all, I don't know if there exists a more competitive and tense atmosphere than that of post docs and professors fighting for recognition.  Personally, I never could get up enough ambition to stomach the constant pressure of a life in research.  So it's not suprising I wouldn't enjoy reading about it.  And besides that, there's my not so secret pang of regret at not going for that right to be a Dr :) So even more than for most people I'd say, the academic life holds less allure and more anxiety for me. 

So it's not to say the book wasn't well crafted.  It was exceeding so, with all the characters well developed, the plot moving along at a sedate but steady pace, the writing a pleasure without too much pedantry… but what a serious book! Not that CC didn't have elements of seriousness (and actually was quite serious in tone) but I thought this one was the fun one! The one everybody loved! I understand why Chava loved it, I'd say it's right up her alley - well thought out, interesting territory, and not too happy go lucky :) But I thought Allegra Goodman was my kind of writer, or at least had some of that in her.  I couldn't find a squigeon of fun, of light-heartedness, of simple pleasure here.

The characters, especially the main ones, were deliberately unlikeable.  Even the more sympathetic ones had their, not minor, faults.  The themes, at least, I would say were unobjectionable - it wasn't like the book was a doomsday prophecy or anything, the right values  - family, honesty, loyalty - were squarely championed.  But on the subject of doomsday, the ending was actually much the same as CC - in that it was disappointing.  She just doesn't like to give us what we want, does that Allegra? No one ends up in a particularly good place (I'd say Marion is the only one  who maybe ends up better off) though mostly they end up more enlightened about themselves.  But I guess that's the point of the book.  Academia is a long, hard road,  and the most one could hope for is acceptance of the way forward.  And I guess the same could be said for me and Intuition - at the end of the day, the trek wasn't bad, and I can't say I regretted it at the end, though I don't know what I got out of it :)

Verdict: 3/5