I found a lot of the book difficult to get through, especially the technical middle chapters describing experiments, when I experienced boredom and confusion all at once. But the subject matter is so interesting that I'm glad I persevered, especially since I liked a lot of what was covered in the latter chapters. ( )

The book did not meet all my expectations but it did meet many.

Pros:

His theory of a global workspace is very entertaining and certainly insightful.
The experiments he carries out to support his theory are quite elaborate and provide a lot of understanding of where we stand in this field.
I learned a lot about locked in patients and that terrifying condition. It's certainly nice to see how this research is applicable in the field of medical science.

Cons:

- I did not find the chapter on simulations particularly convincing of his theory since features can be built into such simulations. ( )

Despite having read about some of these studies when they were published I am still astounded by the progress in reading our brains. The writing is a bit overenthusiascilly all over place and the author is understandably emotionally invested. Concentrates on reporting their findings, giving too few pages to explaining the science. ( )

Da dove provengono e come si governano i nostri pensieri, le nostre emozioni e i nostri sogni? La mente umana è davvero così intelligente da comprendere la propria stessa esistenza? Per millenni filosofi e scienziati sono stati disorientati dall’enigma dell’esperienza cosciente. Ma Stanislas Dehaene ci invita nel suo laboratorio per farci constatare come sia oggi possibile analizzare le basi biologiche della coscienza, usando le migliori teorie disponibili, a cominciare dall’evoluzionismo neodarwiniano, ma anche tutti gli apparati di ricerca per il cervello, dalla MRI funzionale alla elettroencefalografia. L’autore mostra come si possano determinare i marcatori fisiologici che rivelano massicce variazioni quando un soggetto diventa consapevole di un’immagine visiva, oppure di una parola o di un suono, e mira a scandagliare “firme della coscienza” persino nel buio del coma. Una nuova disciplina scientifica potrà giovare ai pazienti paralizzati ma coscienti o a coloro che sono caduti nel cosiddetto stato vegetativo? La risposta, dice Dehaene, “è un esitante e incerto sì”. Ma nella prospettiva di un serio illuminismo scientifico, possiamo scommettere che le neurotecnologie del futuro cambieranno radicalmente il trattamento clinico dei disturbi della coscienza.

In my opinion, the only good chapter in this book was "The Ultimate Test" which explores consciousness in people in vegetative or other minimally conscious states. It was definitely interesting, although made me wonder how somebody who can't communicate can consent to being included in studies that sometimes include having wires surgically implanted into the brain.

In general, this book was filled with "my group", "my lab", "my studies", "I discovered", "blah blah I'm awesome." I understand that this book is going to be composed of much of Dehaene's research, however, I'm sure it's possible to write books without sounding like you have a massive ego. (Although scientists tend to be really bad about that.) He also comes across as a totally privileged, douchey, cisgendered, hetero white guy. In particular, when he discusses the "dichotomy" of "defenders of the sanctity of human life" and "rationalists." Um, what? Do you mean people who are anti-abortion and those who are pro-abortion? And using Peter Singer as the best exponent of this so-called "rationalism" makes me want to throw up. I guess it must be nice to be able to conduct experiments that could potentially be used to take away women's already eroding rights without worrying about it having any impact on your life. (Actually, I can't imagine how it would be nice.)

Also, a lot of the studies in this book seem to suffer from sample size issues, among other things. While I'm not going to go and read any of the papers in detail, a lot of his sentences carry subtle caveats such as being tested on only three patients, or not really explaining how much experimental group results differ from control group results, etc. I also have a hard time understanding what the broader implications for a lot of his research is. ( )