Philosophy

  (out of 5 stars)

Planetary scientist David Grinspoon presents a robust presentation centered on alien life in the universe. An interesting and popular subject, this book was somewhat underwhelming overall, though it had some interesting and enjoyable passages.

While the book presumes to be a "natural philosophy" of the subject, the actual philosophy in the book is largely contained in a few sections of a few chapters. Most of the book describes historical or scientific fundamentals necessary for understanding the alien discussion, including histories of planetary science, alien philosophy, and biology. Except for the history of alien philosophy, which was the best part of the book for me, the history and science sections were good but not great. And while it is necessary to understand these basics, Grinspoon takes several hundred pages to get to his "philosophy". By that time, the decent narrative felt overly-drawn out.

Still, the book is a decent read for anyone with an interest in this sort of subject matter. But don't expect too much if you are an experienced reader, Grinspoon doesn't cover a great deal of original ground here, and except for the history of alien theories, I've read much better treatments of the history and science matters. Additionally, SETI dominates much of the discussion in a way which I found a bit off-putting, though I honestly can't say why. I like Grinspoon and love his enthusiasm, but I came away from Lonely Planets with a sense that it needed to be condensed and reorganized significantly. Three stars.

  (out of 5 stars)

Richard Dawkins has a knack for writing popular science books which offer poetic descriptions of the grand expanses and microscopic details. In Unweaving the Rainbow, Dawkins takes on the notion that science can be quite literally poetic. The book's title comes from the notion put forward by poet John Keats that Isaac Newton destroyed the beauty of rainbows by explaining its form. Dawkins turns that notion around and shows that the beauty and poetry of nature are greatly enhanced by explaining the details.

This wide-ranging book includes a strong mix of popular science (including biology, chemistry, astronomy, anatomy, and zoology) as well as Dawkins' characteristic philosophical thoughts. Unweaving demonstrates to the reader that the wonder of science is not that it destroys the beauty of nature, but that it allows us to gain an even greater appreciation for that beauty. From the nature of starlight and genetics to the ways in which humans are deceived by those claiming supernatural 'facts', Dawkins constantly expresses his awe of the natural world.

The latter parts of the book are centered on genetics and philosophy of mind. Here, of course, Dawkins is in his comfort zone, and the reader who has not read the authors' biology-centered books such as The Selfish Gene will explore some of the amazing characteristics of evolution and DNA. Experienced readers of Dawkins' works won't find much new information in this section, but should read it anyway since Dawkins incorporates a philosophy of science that is often skipped in the more clinical studies.

Unweaving the Rainbow is simply one of the very best widely-accessible popular science books out there. The discussion of coincidence is fantastic and should open the eyes of a reader who had never considered probabilities in this way. While it would help to have some exposure to science writing prior to picking up this book, Dawkins is very careful to introduce the nature of science softely and with much poetic contemplation. One of the best introductions to a wide-range of scientific thought and philosophy and very highly recommended to science readers at all levels. Four and one-half stars.

  (out of 5 stars)

Quantum Gods is physicist Victor Stenger's answer to the emergence of new age gurus who propose proof of God is available thanks to quantum mechanics. In this rebuttal, Stenger takes on the manifestations which range from ones resembling the Old Testament Christian God to those which are more on the traditional deist side (with a new age twist or six).

Having just read Stenger's previous book, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, I probably should have waited a bit before picking this one up. I was somewhat disappointed in this effort for lots of nit-picky reasons despite the fact that the book is actually fairly successful at debunking the physics-based arguments of the new age God theories. As much as I liked Failed, my expectations were likely too high going into this latest work.

Stenger's mode in this effort is much different as he is forced to launch into a 100-page explanation of basic physics and quantum behavior in order to ground the reader in the real facts as known to real physicists. Being one who has a good grasp of physics theories, I was generally bored by this section, especially since its aim was only to educate on the basics, not offer any new information. Great stuff for a reader new to physics (and undoubted well-appreciated), but tedious for me.

However, Stenger had no choice given the rebuttal he must make. The new age gurus claim that quantum theory supports ideas that aren't actually backed up by quantum theory. Stenger goes to great lengths to explain the important details of the various theories and what exactly they predict, but I'm afraid I'm not the only reader that lost the overall thesis of the book for long sections. Quantum physics isn't a subject easily summed up in a chapter, so his need to explain the ideas was a given, but I feel it could have been more readily integrated with his central thesis.

The last part of the book feels rushed, as if Stenger didn't really bother to use all that information he presented earlier to prove his points. Most of the rebuttal feels like an afterthought, one which should have been integrated into the discussion as he proceded rather than left for mopping up after the long section of basic intro to the quantum.

He does directly counter many of the specific cases he brings up, but despite a reasonable introduction at the beginning of the book which presents some of the new age arguments, I never got a very good feel for what Stenger wanted to argue. Yeah, I get that he is knocking down various quantum physics-based God 'proofs', but the effort felt quite scattershot and without much central narrative. In contrast to Failed, which was a straightforward assault on the basic assumptions of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, I feel Stenger took on too many opponents in one go, with too much basic information to explain to the reader, leaving his overall effort muddled despite his near-flawless logic.

Stenger doesn't even really address the 'search for cosmic consciousness' that is in his subtitle, leaving that mostly to the greater discussion of God. His inclusion of chaos and complexity theory was a good basic intro, but I thought of numerous ways that could have been used to explain things in a more direct manner.

Overall, I remain disappointed in this effort, but I applaud Stenger for taking it on. The Quantum Gurus are among the most successful at taking advantage of the public's ignorance of physics, and it is admirable that someone is willing to point out just how blatantly wrong the gurus are. I do wish, however, Stenger had presented his case more directly by explaining a bit of physics then offering why that bit of physics clearly refuted specific points rather than holding off most of the rebuttal until long after the physics arguments had drawn out for 100 pages.

I admit I might simply be basing some of this review and rating on the fact that I really enjoyed Failed, so please consider other reviews as they come in before deciding on passing on this book. If you don't have a basic feel for quantum physics but want to learn, you'll get much more out of this book than I did and it will be worth the effort to read. Three stars, but recommended to anyone who wants to understand just why the new age gurus claiming quantum physics proof of God are dreadfully wrong.

  (out of 5 stars)

Victor Stenger makes an empirical investigation of the God Hypothesis and delivers a geek-fest of smack-down to the theory that God can be anything close to what most theists believe. From the outset, Stenger establishes a baseline of characteristics that the God(s) in his experiment will have, populated largely with the often-stated abilities and preferences of the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh.

A challenge is issued in the first chapter to those who say that science has no ability to test the claims of the religious realm. As Stenger points out, many of the most compelling reasons to believe in God are the very events and characteristics which lend themselves to empirical science. Actions such as prayer, design, and fine-tuning of the universe are taken on with a scientific eye, and what Stenger finds is that in each case, we find exactly the results we would expect to find in the absense of God. His arguments for fine tuning and cosmology are some of the strongest in the book and make for an excellent primer against those arguing strong anthropic stances or who are otherwise insistent that our current laws of nature, position and composition of our solar system, and indeed our very carbon-based nature are somehow fundamental and thus require the careful hand of a diety.

One-by-one, Stenger takes on each God-like proposition, greatly ignoring the 30s (omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence), which he rightly states don't really need to be posited in order to test the hypothesis. Only rarely does the author deviate from his empirical model, and even then, he does so only to offer an alternative explanation which is at least as likely as any put forward by a theist. Christian apologist William Lane Craig is a frequent target of Stenger's rebuttals.

This straight-forward book offers a investigation into the basic claims offered as proof of the existence of God, and Stenger handily refutes each and every point. I have no doubt apologists will find gaps in his presentation and will find his use of science to be the wrong tool for the job of exploring the mystical, but as Stenger points out, there is absolutely no legitimacy to the idea that science cannot investigate any falsifiable claims made by the religious. Very well argued with no wasted efforts anywhere in this book, Stenger delivers a four and one-half star rebuttal of the God Hypothesis.

  (out of 5 stars)

I read Dragons of Eden many years ago as a teenager. I've got a couple of Carl Sagan's more recent works in the short queue to read soon, so I wanted to reread this classic to get a bit of a basis to work from. Dragons is Sagan's foray into the philosophy and science of human brain evolution, one which was groundbreaking at the time and is still largely applicable several decades later.

Sagan is considered a master of his craft, merging the often complementary but divergent subjects of science and philosophy. Dragons summarizes some of the cutting-edge science of the late 1970s with Sagan's own insights into evolution, function of brain, and various physiological changes in the human body.

The first half of the book lays down a lot of the biology, anthropology, and evolutionary framework Sagan uses later to speculate on brain development, psychology, dreams, and the future of human intelligence. Many of Sagan's speculations are well-founded in research that has since been conducted, although some of his less-central thoughts are still not validated (and are still sources of ongoing research and controversy in many fields).

Dragons is a book often referenced in a broad range of subjects, and has been a source of inspiration for countless scientists and writers, and after reading this book a second time after a couple decades since the first reading, there is no doubt why. Sagan's ability to mix hard science with philosophical considerations has very rarely been matched, and it becomes even more obvious just how much he is missed in the world.

Overall, I have to honestly rate this book at three and one-half stars, due largely to the fact that a great deal of the underlying science has been improved upon, and many of his technological references are now greatly out of date. At publication, this was easily a four and one-half star book, and only because of its age is it not so now. Still, highly recommended to anyone interested in human evolution, biology, philosophy, or on learning about Sagan's on thoughts on a wide variety of subjects. Well worth the time spent to read, just ignore some of the less timely information as you go.

  (out of 5 stars)

From the onset of this book, Dennett offers what amounts to one long argument about whether or not religion should be subjected to rational inquiry. A reasonable question, to be sure, but despite it being a legitimate point of conversation with the reader, Dennett unfortunately aims beyond the reader to a very small subset of people capable of conducting inquiries of this sort. He often asks the reader to consider questioning his/her own views and stances, but it is clear by the end of the book that his entire 'soft rant' is really directed at encouraging further research on the issue.

I like Dan Dennett a lot, and have spent many hours learning from his books, speeches, and insights, but I feel like this book was a mediocre use of my time. Granted, I accept that he was preaching to the choir on his central thesis (that we should indeed submit religion to rational inquiry), but the entire book is muddled and largely filler. He ends each chapter with two paragraphs--a summary of that chapter and a preview of the next. Each subsection of each chapter starts with several quotes more-or-less on target, and uses extensive (and large) quotes from other thinkers throughout the book. The entire work quickly begins to feel like a thesis-by-committee, of which Dennett is largely acting as managing editor.

Dennett is a philosopher, so you expect some redundant passages as he hones in on specific points, but often he spends several pages belaboring an argument that (by that point) would have already been accepted or not by the reader. As a bit of frustrated research, I read only every third paragraph in one chapter and jotted down what I felt were his main points. I then reread the entire chapter in full to see if it provided any additional insight. It did not. Dennett uses a lot of filler in this book that should have been condensed or left out entirely.

In parts of the book that deserved better scientific treatment, such as his theories of the origins and evolution of religion (and religious memes), he instead breezes over the details and offers that the necessary research had not yet been done. Gah, frustrating 'insights' from a guy I much respect.

I hate his use of the term 'brights' (as I detest when any other 'bright' uses that term-- it is ridiculous and distracting and forces the reader to swallow a bit of revulsion at what the term insinuates, even when Dennett clearly defines what he means by it).

Having dragged myself through to the end, it is clear in the last chapter that Dennett really was talking past me and instead directing his book at researchers and religious leaders, pleading with them to take up his challenge and start investigating religion's many aspects, both good and bad. Again, I find myself in very broad agreement with Dennett on almost every aspect of his thesis, but his delivery and substance in Breaking leave a lot to be desired. Three stars. Not a horrible introduction to the argument, but not Dennett's best work.

  (out of 5 stars)

I wish I had read this book many years ago, though after having read the book, I have to question whether my conscious self illusion had developed enough to know how handle the arguments Dr. Dennett presents. From the opening chapters, this book is a candy store for thinkers. Make no mistake, it is deep and will require concentration from most any reader. The rewards, like any good read, are worth the effort as Dennett makes a profound and intensely engaging argument about his philosophy of mind, consciousness, and self. He makes extensive use of the idea of Virtual Machines, software, and AI-style capabilities in building his model of mind.

Dennett opens up in Part 1 with an exploration of the groundwork for his theory, offering the reader some soft (but quickly advancing) concepts of hallucinations, 'mind stuff', and phenomenology (which he abstracts into heterophenomenology for use later). This section skirts some of the more basic philosophical arguments (of which there are general if not specific agreements) in favor of offering challenges to intuition and 'seems to be' type thinking.

In Part II, he breaks down his theory of Multiple Drafts as a more reasonable (and often, direct affront to) the traditional Cartesian Theater arguments. To put this simply, Dennett's theory argues against the firm existence of a Central Meaner (audience in the theater, ultimate decider, aka soul or top brain dog) while presenting his Multiple Drafts idea. He supposes that consciousness arises, not due to the presense of a specific observer/decider, but instead as the reflective consequence of multiple contributions to the mental state. These 'drafts', as he refers to them, are temporary versions of introspective narrative which are only true until they get edited (and these edits take place in a decentralized manner based on many factors). Because the information used to develop the self-narration comes from numerous sources whose functional-chains are often specialized and multifaceted, and because one cannot determine between two types of rewriting (Orwellian, which involves revisionist history, or Stalinesque, which includes more real-time 'made-up' explanations treated as if factual), the Multiple Drafts theory seems to satisfy these issues, as well as solve many of the problems of the tangibility and determinism found in the alternative theories.

The final Part of the book explores the numerous objections likely thrown up at this theory, and offers extended discussion of why Multiple Drafts both fits the evidence and offers the scientific advantage of being testable and falsifiable. Using many thought exercises and scientific studies of brain-damaged or abnormally-acting people, Dennett argues that the idea of quale (a rival explanation in the Cartesian Theater model) doesn't fit the evidence, is self-contradictory, and cannot be reduced in a meaningful and testable manner.

The most fascinating discussion in Explained is Dennett's thoughts on the creation and indoctrination of consciousness. His theory is basically the following: early creatures gained advantage by taking traditional basic instincts and abilities (like fight-or-flight, verticle symmetry detection, etc) and making them more active and available. Rather than only being called for under extreme conditions (or more specifically, only available when the instinct itself notices stimuli it is both equiped to notice and for which it 'cares'), an 'always-on' mentality allowed greater observation and more information collection. This lead to stronger, more efficient means of distributing observation-based data and acting upon instructions that are more likely to be advantageous. Primates in particular got especially good at saccadic eye motion (visual jumpiness that allows the eye to observe more points in its line-of-sight, thereby, collecting more data), which likely increased our ability to protect ourselves and to find food. Shortcuts were created in the brain at this point which began to lay the foundation architecture for the language to come later.

Early pre-language hominids likely used some audio mechanism to communicate very basic information in a one-directional sort of way. 'I'm looking for food' probably elicited no direct response, though it would have been a data point considered by anyone in earshot. At some point, this stopped being simply one-way, and a question/answer process evolved. 'I'm looking for food' might lead to 'I have a lot of food'. The asker, however, was likely unable to ask and then answer himself, leaving an efficiency gap to be filled. Later, a sole homo sapien likely started the process with a question, but no one else was around to answer. However, a surprising thing happened: he answered himself. 'I'm looking for food' might have been answered by his own voice (or perhaps internally) with 'Try the bush by the big rock.' Not consciously aware of self-talking (as we would define it), but in a 'I just asked about X' and 'I received an answer about X'.

While the process was inefficient, having had to be formulated, passed out the vocal chords and mouth, and received back in the ear and reprocessed, the invaluable addition of consulting one's self quickly became an advantageous Big Trick (Dennett's idea that social evolution can take place very quickly if a specific action or ability could be both possible due to genetics and available to learn from others who themselves would have developed or learned the Trick). From this point on, humans developed an efficiency we now call an inner monologue (although Dennett is careful to say that this is not just a textual 'spoken' monologue, but instead a multi-faceted creation from multiple heterogeneous contributors) which didn't require (but in many of us, still is exhibited as) vocally 'talking to ourselves'.

From this point on, the reader can infer that consciousness came about, not through a guided Observer or Meaner, but through the chaotic, pandemoniac contributions of various brain-functions and sub-functions. Consciousness is more of a bucket of interaction where subroutines can pay attention to both hardwired areas of interest (pain receptors looking for pain in the hands, for example) but also have the ability to contribute to areas of temporary interest (those same pain receptors might offer a concept of pain to the bucket in response to the information that a fire is near before a narrative leading to a hand being placed in the fire can be acted upon).

Dennett also contends that consciousness may well be taught to children (as a meme set) rather than inherited in a traditional genetically-driven manner, and consciousness is only made possible by our ability to use and understand language (at least the sort of consciousness as humans know it to be). 'Words do things with us' he titled one chapter. Dennett does argue that we have to be genetically predisposed to be able to be conscious, but that consciousness itself is only one possible arrangement of the various brain functions available to a human. One quote he uses really boils this down in a way that is both enlightening and haunting, in the words of Helen Keller:

"Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious time of nothingness...Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another.'

This review vastly oversimplifies Dennett's discussion and leaves out dozens of key points and sub-elements which make this book a very deep and rewarding read. Highly, highly recommended for the very curious mind, but I'd advise taking this book to a quiet room for a few days and really allowing yourself to disengage some of those constantly vigilant 'demons' of expectationalism and open up your mind (and self) to ideas you may never have dreamed could be true. Believe Dennett or not on these theories, this book will make you think deep and carefully reconsider many things you took as given in your own head. Five stars.