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

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

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