Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul

In his book Life Itself, this author concludes that the possibility of life forming on earth over the given period of time is impossible. He says it came from somewhere else… A space seed .Leaving the question of how did that other place have enough time? Anytime an author concludes that he’s not really there as a thinking, creative being with the freedom to think and be creative it poses the conundrum of Who came up with this idea and who wrote the book? It also raises the question of why? Why is he trying to convince me of this if he is not there and I’m not here?

In 1953 Francis Crick and James Watson discovered DNA and in so doing uncovered a key part of the mechanism by which Darwinian natural selection operates. Four decades later, in this book, Crick gives fight to the received tradition that our soul somehow exists independently of our biology. Though this news is clearly neither considered to be either astonishing or a hypothesis to members of the scientific community, it is certainly is such to the average layman. Considering the average level of scientific awareness, I think Crick has well positioned his book in the strike zone of ignorance. And so, when he says that our mind is created and altered by the physical features of our brain, that is news to most people. And there was a time not too long ago when it was news to the scientific community as well. Perhaps no more dramatically was the point made than when, in the middle of the nineteenth century, a railway worker named Phineas Gage was placing explosive charges. To Gage's misfortune, one of his charges exploded prematurely sending a metal spike through the front part of his skull. "After that," in an exteme understatement by a Gage co-worker, "Phineas wasn't the same Phineas anymore." Where once there had been a thoughtful and sober employee, the new Gage (brain could actually be viewed through the hole in the top of his skull) became sullen and irratible...more prone to drinking than working. What was significant was the wound helped fuel the first truly modern theory about the workings of consciousness...viz. that they emerged from the brain and therefore could be changed by the brain. In fact, the one Nobel prize so far awarded in psychiatry (Munoz' 1949 achievement) came when doctors would remove the connecting tissue between the brain's hemispheres to reduce siezure activity (a remedy that now thankfully is achieved with drugs instead of such invasive surgery). And what doctors accomplish through treatment, Mother Nature accomplishes through natural selection. Just like evolution impacts the development of limbs and internal organs and other anatomy, it also impacts brain development. While certainly all these developments can't help but throw cold water on traditional notions of a soul/body dichotomy, it nonetheless remains astonishing news to most members of the general public. However, far from from making us feel more common and purposeless, it should makes us feel more lucky, that from a process that usually produces bacteria, bugs or at best meandering animals, that we've been given the opportunity to really understand (at least as best we can) nature and in so doing truly appreciate its beauty. What a pity it would be to walk through an art museum with our eyes closed or attend a symphony with our fingers in our ears.

I'm not surprised to see mixed reviews for this book because it's as close to 'real science' as such books get. It's definitely not the compendium of gee whiz human cognition observations and not the philosophical musings that the audience for consciousness books seems to lust after. Re the philosophical side of things, I sometimes imagine that a certain proportion of the audience hopes we never figure out what consciousness is, because that would bring an end to that opium-like haze around the topic to which many are addicted. But as a science teacher of the subject, I loved it. Challenging to read if you're not already versed in the anatomy of the visual cortex, absolutely. But worth plowing through, absolutely. Crick was definitely correct that the visual cortex is key to what consciousness is about. He provides an in-depth review of what was known at the time about visuocortical organization and how it relates to human behavior. That body of knowledge was extremely spotty (is spotty still), which means a whole lot of loose ends. That's unsatisfying in a way, but hardly Crick's fault. Strongly recommended.

This is one of the top 10 science books I have ever read. Not a light read, but anybody with a basic grasp of biology and computers should be able to follow along. Francis Crick plays the quintessential scientist in this book. He puts forward a hypothesis about human consciousness that closely mirrors the philosophies of John Searle: there is no mind-body problem. There is only the body. You, your soul, is basically a complex pattern of neurons in your brain. Naturally, gathering supporting evidence for such a hypothesis is quite a daunting task. This book does not provide ultimate proof, nor ultimate answers. Rather it presents a large body of promising and highly interesting anecdotal evidence. Since its a huge subject, Crick focuses mainly on how vision affects consciousness. He discusses a good part about the human visual cortex, and neural network theory in computer science. The book is filled with fascinating stories about people with brain trauma, and how it affected their behavior, their personality... their SOUL. Did you know that there is a form of blindness, where the people don't know they are blind? Did you know that human free will is probably located in the anterior cingulate sulcus? If Crick is correct, this scientific journey to understand the soul is a long one: it might take a century. This book is the first step on a very, very long journey, and it might not even be correct. Readers and reviewers must keep this in mind. To emphasize again, its a HYPOTHESIS. Not a THEORY. So don't expect a ton of supporting evidence. Just a bunch of good ideas, some compelling data, and a good direction for future research.

A journey through the wonders of the Human Mind. A case for the ultimate question of what really makes us what we are. Dr. Francis Crick deftly handles the problem of human conciousness, exposing the real questions that could be tackled by scientific methods. Is there a metaphysical soul, or is our consciousness fully explained by the activity of neurons in our brains? Although Dr. Crick doesn't "directly" touch on this subject, but rather turn to "THE NEURAL CORRELATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS", thus avoiding addressing causality in case of neural activity and conciousness, he does a marvellous job in shaping the thoughts of whoever asks the questions.One of the most insightful books that I have ever read. Thank you Dr. Crick

Happens to be one of my tippy-top favorites among the books I've read in the last 10 years. Much of it is about experiments on the visual cortex of monkeys, described in a very reader-friendly way (though not always monkey-friendly). It's real science for non-specialists, highly engaging yet scrupulously unspeculative. The narrative theme is that our souls are reducible to biophysical processes in brain and body. Before I read the book I thought this was bloody obvious and not the least bit astonishing. Afterwards I had got the feeling for how it works, in part. The excellent account of some areas of brain research is the main reason to read this book. As a bonus you get Francis Crick's great scientific spirit.