Skip to main content

Do Zombies Dream of Undead Sheep? - Timothy Verstynen and Bradley Voytek ***

When I first opened this book I was a little unsure. My idea of a great horror film is the 1945 classic Dead of Night, which is not just genuinely spooky and unsettling but is surely the only horror film ever to inspire a major cosmological theory (the steady state theory). There is no gore in the movie, and as far as I'm concerned that makes it a much better film than any zombie tripe. I don't want to see blood and guts, thank you. The only zombie movie I've ever seen was Sean of the Dead, and though, like all Simon Pegg's output, it's entertaining, frankly the violent bits make me feel sick. 

 I don't understand the appeal of zombies per se. So given that, the authors' idea that they can make biology more appealing by using zombies as the way of explaining the interactions between the brain and the body isn't really my cup of tea. It's not even the first biology-via-zombies book I've come across, following on from (though not acknowledging) Dr Austin's Zombie Science 1Z. But having said all that, Do Zombies Dream of Undead Sheep isn't half bad.

 What the book does is to take us through many of the brain's significant systems, showing how they deal with various aspects of keeping us going, from movement to memory. The context in which this is done is to look at the ways in which zombies appear to have problems with various aspects of their brains, which could produce, for instance, their shuffling gait, or their usual inability to vocalise beyond a grunts and groans. However, Timothy Verstynen and Bradley Voytek do this in such a way that around three quarters of what we read is actually about normal brains, so providing the 'real' educative part of the book, leaving a fragment dealing with zombies to keep the title afloat. This is helped by the way that a lot we have found out about brain function is through patients who have various problems with and damage of the brain - making parallels with the zombie condition easier.

 Although bits of it were fascinating, I couldn't help reflect on the great physicist, Richard Feynman and his experience while taking biology as a side course while at university. Feynman had to do a presentation on the nervous system of the cat, and started off displaying a 'map' of the cat, giving names to various parts. He was told he didn't need to bother, because they had to learn the names. Feynman mused that this must be why it took three years to get a biology degree - because they had to spend so much time learning labels. And when it comes down to it, an awful lot of the content here is telling us the labels for various bits of the brain and nervous system that don't really matter to us. But when we get a feel for the remarkable complexity and sometimes counterintuitive operation of the brain, we can see beyond this - even if it is often to discover the shuffling approach of a brain-eating zombie.

 Overall, then, I was never going to be totally thrilled by the book, but I was pleasantly surprised on a number of occasions. It won't persuade me to start watching zombie films, though.
Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more