Becoming Human

Becoming Human Ian Tattersall 9/10

Not much of a review is required for this excellent book on the history of human evolution. What can I say other than it was impartial, informative, and overall simply well-written. Tattersall runs us through the evolution of mankind from the earliest known fossils to modern homo sapiens, explaining the probable capabilities of each and the definite achievements. He doesn't get bogged down, as some philosophers seem to do, on the exact definition of words - most notably, the exact definition of language. He defines it in a (admittedly ethnocentric) fashion, and then proceeds to explain when (and how) in the evolutionary cycle we likely developed this capacity. Yes, one can argue that "grunts and pointing" are a language of sorts, but there's no reason to be caught up in the details that are really just (ironically) a problem of language.

Much of the book is written similarly - he clearly describes what he expects a word to mean, and moves on. Perhaps the only reason this is so refreshing is that I've spent so much time in the philosophy world that I've forgotten how people can simply be practical, non-hair-splitting writers who focus on what's important rather than on meaningless issues of definition.

If you're interested in a readable and concise history of human evolution (including a fair evaluation of its questions and shortcomings), this is an excellent book to read.

Catfish and Mandala

Catfish and Mandala Andrew X. Pham 9/10

Something about a book writing about familiar locations seems foreign - it feels like I'm cheating, or like I'm not really reading a book but a classmate's story. Catfish & Mandala was set in very familiar locations - Carmel, Santa Cruz, Crescent City, Portland, Seattle...even Nha Trang, Vietnam. These are all places I've visited, even lived at. This intimate knowledge of the places he describes (ie his friend's house in Southeast Portland, where you can party a little longer into the night without worry) felt odd and strangely comforting. Perhaps it has influenced my outlook, but I really enjoyed this tale of a man and his journey to understand his heritage.

Catfish and Mandala. The catfish are a staple food in Vietnam, strong symbolism for what the author feels the Vietnamese do very well: survive. Not only is the catfish capable of surviving, but the catfish also provides an amazing long-term sustenance for the poor who have to find something to eat. The Mandala, on the other hand, is representative of what his journey was to him. Buddhist monks will use the creation of the mandala as a tool for concentration, slowly placing the sand over a course of weeks before destroying the entire pattern weeks later. His physically strenuous journey allowed him this level of clarity - not because he was able to think so clearly while he exercised: quite the opposite in fact. The exercise cleared his mind of thought, it became a physical meditation.

The author was strangely condemning and disrespectful of the Vietnamese - he didn't see any beauty in his "home" country, only the ugliness of poverty and a beaten people. In his Vietnam the cops are corrupt, the poor shameless, all the women temptresses vying for an opportunity to leave Vietnam to America, the "golden land of opportunity". This was not what I saw in my visit to Vietnam, but there are other things he describes that I connected with. Mostly, just the description of life. The crazy driving, the strange way that every transaction is negotiable (I could never get used to this, I hate bartering to try and get the best price), the shops lining the street...it was all familiar and accurate, it brought back memories that were somehow already buried -- it's only been a few months, and already I'm forgetting.

I recommend Catfish and Mandala to anyone with an interest in Vietnam, but it's not just a book for Vietnamese. It is about a misplaced person on a journey to find his source, trying to find out what it means to be American or Vietnamese, and it's a journey worth reading about.

Conversations on Consciousness

Conversations on Consciousness Susan Blackmore 9/10

I was very tempted to give this book a 10/10, but I just couldn't. It was a great book and perfect for me (I would say it's perfect for anyone starting out exploring popular theories on the basis of consciousness and free will) but the book had it's problems.

Conversations on Consciousness details a series of interviews between psychologist and hard determinist Susan Blackmore and a smattering of well-known experts in the fields of philosophy and neuroscience. She does well at finding a variety of scientific viewpoints: you won't find any faith-based supporters in the book, only those who attempt to use our current scientific knowledge and theories as a base from which to make their speculations.

The interviews tended to center around four questions:

1) What is consciousness? Why is it so difficult to define and to study?
2) Do you believe we have free will?
3) Do you think that the Philopher's Zombie is an actual possibility?
4) This question varied, but was related to their specific field of expertise or their most well-known theory.

I didn't understand why Blackmore felt the thought experiment of the Philosopher's Zombie was so important. The question she was trying to ask was: "Do you think conciousness arises merely because of our capacity to behave the way we do?" but using the Philosopher's Zombie thought experiment to ask this question led to more problems than it solved. Too often, the answer was a criticism of the thought experiment rather than an answer to the real question. I agree with those who criticize the experiment: I don't see a lot of value in pure speculation that, at some level, has to be scientifically ungrounded. Of course, the way we live our life is partially through pure speculation, but that is through necessity.

The best thing I got from the book was an understanding of the controversy in the fields of consciousness. Dennett, author of Freedom Evolves, somewhat represents one side of the argument. He's certainly well-known - half of those interviewed used Dennett's views as a way to state their own through contrast. Dennett does not cohesively meld his viewpoint in a way that it represents "the determinists", but his viewpoint is well-known and clearly stated, which at least gives others in the field a way to contrast, a reference point from which to deviate.

Conversations on Consciousness fostered more questions than it answered. It's a book that I've read that's only shown me that I need to read more books. It has moved some authors to near the top of the list though. David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, and Daniel Wegner (well, he was already near the top) all piqued my interest enough that I will certainly read their books to better understand their viewpoint. I identified with Penrose more than any other philosopher, and I'm interested to read more about why he believes what he does.

Freedom Evolves

Freedom Evolves Daniel Dennett 8/10

This was a difficult book to evaluate. It's a philosophical exercise by Dennett - an attempt to point out the inadequacies in a number of commonly held philosophical perspectives, and a best-guess amalgamation philosophy given the body of scientific knowledge at the time of the writing. I separate the book as such because I believe Dennett's goals were only half-met. He faltered a bit in his explanation of the shortcomings of common perspectives while he very reliably and intelligently presented his own view.

Two-thirds of Dennett's book was convincing, fairly clear, and for the most part sensible and comprehensible. Unfortunately (for him) it's the latter two-thirds of the book. Getting through the initial couple chapters proved to be particularly difficult for me...quite simply, Dennett spent a lot of time trying to support determinism by using examples that were completely inadequate. In attempting to provide simple examples to prove his point he lost some of the inherent complexity that is human life. For example, Dennett uses a "game" called Conway's game of life (link). Conway's game of life shows us that in a limited plane patterns of amazing complexity can arise. Conceivably, notes Dennett, given a large enough plane we could mimic the functionality of any computer system. Naturally, this is the case: despite their apparent complexity, computer processors are simple extremely fast at processing 1s and 0s: that is, on and off. A processor simply reacts to strings of electrical current that is either on or off. The data on your hard drive is stored similarly: a byte (1/1024 of a kilobyte, which is 1/1024 of a megabyte, to gigabyte, etc) is 8 bits, and a bit is just a 0 or 1 value.

Anyway, the fact that a simple system can reach extraordinary levels of complexity does not mean it can be used comparatively with the "real-life" system. Dennett's argument is that in a fixed system everything behaves in a predictable and unchanging manner: this is a solid argument. The disconnect takes place when you try to prove that our universe is a fixed system.

Despite all my argumentation on the matter, my real opinion is that the discussion is a waste of time. Whether or not life is deterministic or indeterministic is truly unimportant, and should not have a real bearing on how we live our lives. This is Dennett's conclusion and while I don't agree entirely with the means, it is an end I can fully support.