The Frontal Cortex

1

Could you elaborate on what's so bad about The Age of Spiritual Machines?

Posted by: James | November 22, 2006 12:04 PM

3

I agree that Penrose's positive argument in The Emperor's New Mind is wothless, but I actually like quite a lot the book despite that. The expositions of Turing machines, the Mandelbrot set, Godel's theorem, quantum mechanics, the arrow of time and many other subjects are inspiring and largely accurate. And when Penrose's opinion diverges from the mainstrea consensus he usually says it explicitly. So even if all his personal opinions are wrong (which I think is likely) the book is valuable as a popularization. At least, there are many much worse ones around.

Posted by: Alejandro | November 22, 2006 12:27 PM

5

I'm interested in why you chose Miller's The Mating Mind. Thx.

Posted by: Gordon | November 23, 2006 12:08 AM

7

Alejandro, I quite agree. In fact I even said much the same thing on Horgan's blog. Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality" is another such book that presents a brilliant and mind-opening exposition of well-grounded science before going off the deep end in the later chapters.

Posted by: csrster | November 23, 2006 2:53 AM

9

The Emperor's New Mind, Roger Penrose's awkward fusion of quantum physics with the neuroscience of consciousness, is another worthy nominee.

I'll second that, since a couple other people seem to be ambivalent. I thought it was terrible. I never even quite finished it, because it got so ridiculous I couldn't continue.

Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | November 25, 2006 4:22 PM

11

Thanks for all your comments and questions. Why don't I like The Mating Mind? Well, I've never been a fan of that sort of evolutionary psychology, and Miller's book is the grandaddy of "just so" stories. Miller's main claim is that ''the human mind's most distinctive features, such as our capacities for language, art, music, ideology, humor and creative intelligence,'' are due more or less exclusively to mate choice and sexual selection. Needless to say, Pablo Picasso comes up again and again. (Of course, this thesis neglects the significant percentage of gay artists. For every Picasso, there's an Oscar Wilde.) While Miller admits that his sexual selection theory is really just an idle theory - there is virtually no supporting evidence - he still wants to use the mantle of science to make his theory seem scientific. This annoys me. Miller is a working scientist, but this book is pure philosophy, a grossly oversimplified view of human nature and evolution. Ian Tattersall, reviewing the book in the NY Times, got it exactly right:
Evolution is, thus, a complex multilayered process that is largely immune to the simplicities of the fine-tuning notion. "Exegeses like Miller's are often fun to read; and despite its sometimes plodding prose, one can't deny that this book is an impressive work of the imagination. But in the end we are looking here at a product of the storyteller's art, not of science."

Posted by: Jonah | November 27, 2006 11:09 AM