Damasio's Error and Descartes' Truth: An Inquiry into Consciousness, Metaphysics, and Epistemology

I am just shaking my head, seeing all the neuroscientists .. Damasio, Ashcroft, ..., telling us that mind is nothing but the electricity in the brain. I expected a rant, but Gluck is very fair-minded.Gluck is a professor of philosophy and he kindly explains why physiologists cannot validly tell us what does NOT exist. It is invalid for a physiologist to say, "because we can measure electricity in the brain, therefore no soul continues after death." Science isn't for that.Gluck tells us what science is for, and how it can be used more productively. He suggests that we have certain ways of viewing ultimate truth, that may involve theology, and that we have one or two other ways to do useful research that helps people with their aims. For example, Gluck says that Damasio's brain research is very helpful to many people.I think Gluck's message is, We need to keep the helpfulness of science, but not allow science to tell us what to believe and what not to believe.The book is not as easy to read as Damasio's books.. Gluck is a professor of philosophy and he writes in long sentences with lots of independent and dependent clauses, like someone who reads heavy philosophy books and expects everyone else can read them. I guess the subtitle already told you that; "An inquiry into consciousness, metaphysics and epistemology.."I will write a longer review when finished.Also reading another great book on Descartes' Theory of Mind by Clarke Descartes's Theory of Mind Clarke shows even better than Gluck, I feel, how modern scientists and popular writers mistake what Descartes was trying to say about mind and body.

I was looking forward to what I hoped would be a great and enlightening read. What I found was what could be considered a good outline for what I was hoping to find. The Author could have and should have developed what he is attempting further before ever approaching a publisher. Great ideas... Poor effort. Especially when comparing it to Damasio's well written, readable and insightful Descartes Error. Clearly, Gluck is intelligent and knowledgeable sadly he didn't convey what he intended to. I hope he is able to develop this further and make another attempt.

This is a must for everyone reading on consciousness, describing soberly the evolution of concepts since early times. This is enough relevant in that no one writing on consciousness may ignore those evolutionary concepts, as they're struck to them in the same way as someone building a car however powerful it is must be struck to everything that was made before since their beginning in the subject of car engines. This is not a definitive work in my opinion, as no philosophical work is definitive by definition (if any work is). Professor Gluck, unlike most philosophers unfortunately, writes in in a crystalline clear way with scientific logic and connection between ideas. His only controversial idea was the hypothetical person who was unconscious but could think (page 75), however a recent work by Adrien M. Owen published by Nature and perhaps better read in Scientific American (May 2014) demonstrated astonishingly that it could happen. I hope that Professor Gluck will some day publish an updated edition or some more work on the subject of consciousness.

As I am always interested in the pros and cons in this (or any) field of science I bought this book in the hope to get good counter arguments after reading Damasio's books. The book itself was for me somewhat dry reading as I am a non native English reader: Gluck likes to use difficult words and phrases. On the content itself, where Damasio tries to elucidate emotions, feelings and consciousness in a (neuro-) scientific way, Gluck tries to demur that with philosophy to tell science its place. It thus reads to me as a somewhat creatonists-like answer to Damasio's book. Gluck's reasoning can be read as an interesting alternative line of thinking, were it not that he positions it in its title as the proof that Damasio is wrong. That is to my opinion Gluck's error because do not expect a counter argument other than "there is more to life than science can proof". Because Gluck as a religious person so naturally places man above all species I recommend as an interesting next read "are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?" to place our superior mind somewhat in perspective.

This is a must for everyone reading on consciousness at a philosophical level. It describes soberly the evolution of concepts since early times. This is enough relevant in that no one writing on consciousness may ignore those evolutionary concepts, as they're struck to them in the same way as someone building a modern car however powerful it is must be struck to everything that was made before since their early beginning in the subject of car engines. This is not a definitive work, as no philosophical work is definitive by definition (if any other work is). Professor Gluck, unlike most philosophers unfortunately, writes in in a crystalline clear way with scientific logic and connection between ideas. His only controversial idea, in my opinion, was the hypothetical person who was unconscious but still could think (page 75). However, recent work by Adrien M. Owen published by Nature and perhaps better read in Scientific American (May 2014) demonstrated astonishingly that this could happen. I hope that Professor Gluck will some day publish an updated edition or some more work on the subject of consciousness.[edited review originally published at amazon.com, however without verified purchase status]

I read this book expecting to come across a new illuminating epistemological approach to the nature of consciousness informed by philosophical insights into the current findings of neurosciences.The author's thesis of pluralistic approach to ontology is poorly argued .Whereas he accepts physical monism for natural sciences and idealism for religion,he advocates dualism for the study of consciousness and social sciences.While one has to agree that a lot of the contentious issues in consciousness studies are not purely methodological or scientific I do not accept that we have to bring in religious belief to enrich our understanding,as the author implicitely suggests in his disguised theology.The best parts of the book are the historical overview of medieval philosophy including the exposition of the metaphysical views of Ibn Gabirol,a Jewish philosopher in Muslim Spain who attempts to integrate the multiple aspects of reality in a complex hierarchical ranking of substances that includes divine will and essence,universal matter,intellectual substance,soul substance and corporeal substance.The author appears to succumb to this medievalist approach and rejects the ontological parsimony of modern empiricism initiated by Ockham.He states that metaphysical systems are complex and simplicity,while a virtue, often needs to be sacrificed in order to achieve adequacy.The author fails to convince that a dualistic approach to social sciences and consciousness is epistemologically superior simply because it takes into account 'meaning' which depends on phenomenal consciousness.A number of these arguments needed to be developed further.The reader would have benefited from a more logical sequencing of the chapters through grouping together at the start the historical reviews i.e. chapters 2,4 and 5 which are interspersed in the text between the more technical chapters.For alternative books tackling similar issues one would recommend Neuroscience &Philosophy by Bennett and Hacker and the brilliant 'Unsimple Truths' by Sandra Mitchell who advocates integrative pluralism to expand our conceptual frameworks.