Skip to main content

Being You - Anil Seth ***

The trouble with experts is they often don't know how to explain their subject well to ordinary readers. Reading Anil Seth's book took me back to my undergraduate physics lectures, where some of the lecturers were pretty much incomprehensible. For all Seth's reader-friendly personal observations and stories, time after time I got bogged down in his inability to clearly explain what he was writing about. It doesn't help that the subject of consciousness is itself inherently difficult to get your head around - but I've read plenty of other books on consciousness without feeling this instant return to undergraduate confusion.

There are two underlying problems I had with the book. One was when complex (and, frankly, rather waffly) theories like IIT (Integration Information Theory) were being discussed. As the kind of theory that it's not currently possible to provide evidence to support, this is something that in other fields might be suggested not to be science at all yet. But that's not the issue - it's that it is really hard to put across what these theories say and why someone thinks they are correct to a non-specialist, and for me, Seth fails to do so clearly enough.

The second problem is a lot more basic and straightforward - and it's the point at which I lost any enthusiasm for the book. This is when psychology comes up against physics - for me, physics has to win. Seth tells us 'colour is not a definitive property of things-in-themselves... When I have the subjective experience of seeing a red chair in the corner of the room, this doesn't mean that the chair actually is red - because what could it even mean for a chair to possess a phenomenological property like redness? Chairs aren't red, just as they aren't ugly or old-fashioned or avant-garde.'

This is just putting psychology above physics, which simply doesn't work. Of course a chair can be red. If it absorbs white light and remits light with wavelengths of 650 nm, plus or minus around 30, it is red. Of course whether a human being perceives it as red, or assigns red associations to it is a subjective assessment. But that doesn't take away the fact that the chair is red. Seth refers to Kant's 'Ding an sich' concept explicitly in that quote above - admittedly Kant doesn't allow for us to know the 'thing in itself' fully, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Although I struggled on, and found some bits more interesting, it was reluctantly. Some people will love this book. And Seth clearly knows his stuff. He is indeed an expert in his field. But Being You just didn't work for me as someone who should have been solidly in its readership profile.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

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

Comments

  1. I'd love to read a really good, intelligible book about consciousness. I liked Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained' but it was tough going. (Like Dennett, I don't believe consciousness really exists, but hey, that's just my opinion).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...