Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.7 AVERAGE
3.7 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Moderate: Cancer, Terminal illness
Into the Silent Land was really interesting. It's Oliver Sacks-esque, though I found Broks to be more philosophical, more interesting, and easily 100 times more pretentious than Sacks.
Too often the little case studies in psychology books are neutered, faceless statistics and circumstances detached from life. Someone hits their head and wakes up with a different personality. Someone is born with a photographic memory and near-impossible math skills. Their brains are scanned and their behaviors are noted and medical professionals learn something clinical about how the brain works. Into the Silent Land does wonders to remind us that these case studies happened to real people, that there are human beings and families living these realities. Treated with warmth and good humor, Broks's narrative restores the personhood to these otherwise impersonal medical curiosities. He tackles the thorny question of Self: reframing the age-old questions of consciousness, of mind-brain dualism, and ghosts in machines. Sometimes solemn, sometimes whimsical, and interspersed with fanciful, inventive pieces of fiction and poetry to better illustrate the subject at hand, it's a delightful repast of phenomenology, philosophy, and neuropsychology.
5 stars out of 5. I was engrossed from start to finish. All nonfiction should be so readable!
5 stars out of 5. I was engrossed from start to finish. All nonfiction should be so readable!
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
What an interesting book. Not at all dry, like some of the other brain books I've read, nor is it overly facile and commercial like some medical memoirs. Part case studies, part philosophy, part....speculative fiction, Broks tries to answer his own questions about consciousness and the self - to what extent do they exist? But he does this not as a scientist, but as a human.
I won't do it justice to try to summarize, because these are hard ideas to talk around, requiring a mental and verbal gymnastics. Essentially, there is the idea of the "mind-body problem" and the question of the "self" and whether it is a thing that exists separate from the brain and separate from the mind. I *think* that the conclusion he draws -- for himself -- is that the answer is fundamentally unknowable to science primarily because of the individual subjectivity of experience. That no matter how much we can learn about the brain and how the mind words, that we will never "find" the source of the self, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (<-- it's entirely possible I've gotten this wrong; I said it was tricky stuff).
Apart from the philosophical and existential questions explored in the book, I appreciated it for another key reason in that Broks -- as a scientist -- recognizes and validates the subjectivity of individual experience when it comes to the functioning of our brain/mind and the impact that has on our lived experience of the "self." Just over two years ago I discovered that I had a not-small brain tumor in my left frontal lobe and that almost the entire left half of my brain was compressed and filled with fluid being secreted from the tumor. Surgeons successfully removed (most) of the tumor and the swelling went away. They also had to remove some of my brain tissue and other brain tissue that surrounded the tumor died. Although my brain mostly "bounced back," I have an empty hole in my brain about the size of a golf ball filled with cerebrospinal fluid. For the most part, I am "the same" as I was before; I have maintained a continuity of my self across the experience, but I am not unchanged -- and not only because I went through a traumatic experience -- my brain, the source of my mind, and also my self, experienced actual physical changes and I am altered. But I have not always had success in convincing people (certain medical professionals) that these changes have had a real and lasting impact on my subjective and objective lived reality. But Broks gets it - he acknowledges that this matters and that it isn't necessarily restricted to the most severe cases, and for that acknowledgement I am grateful, and for lack of a better expression, I feel "seen."
I won't do it justice to try to summarize, because these are hard ideas to talk around, requiring a mental and verbal gymnastics. Essentially, there is the idea of the "mind-body problem" and the question of the "self" and whether it is a thing that exists separate from the brain and separate from the mind. I *think* that the conclusion he draws -- for himself -- is that the answer is fundamentally unknowable to science primarily because of the individual subjectivity of experience. That no matter how much we can learn about the brain and how the mind words, that we will never "find" the source of the self, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (<-- it's entirely possible I've gotten this wrong; I said it was tricky stuff).
Apart from the philosophical and existential questions explored in the book, I appreciated it for another key reason in that Broks -- as a scientist -- recognizes and validates the subjectivity of individual experience when it comes to the functioning of our brain/mind and the impact that has on our lived experience of the "self." Just over two years ago I discovered that I had a not-small brain tumor in my left frontal lobe and that almost the entire left half of my brain was compressed and filled with fluid being secreted from the tumor. Surgeons successfully removed (most) of the tumor and the swelling went away. They also had to remove some of my brain tissue and other brain tissue that surrounded the tumor died. Although my brain mostly "bounced back," I have an empty hole in my brain about the size of a golf ball filled with cerebrospinal fluid. For the most part, I am "the same" as I was before; I have maintained a continuity of my self across the experience, but I am not unchanged -- and not only because I went through a traumatic experience -- my brain, the source of my mind, and also my self, experienced actual physical changes and I am altered. But I have not always had success in convincing people (certain medical professionals) that these changes have had a real and lasting impact on my subjective and objective lived reality. But Broks gets it - he acknowledges that this matters and that it isn't necessarily restricted to the most severe cases, and for that acknowledgement I am grateful, and for lack of a better expression, I feel "seen."
Into the silent land discussion
I like the anecdotal stories and his own blunt personal opinion
Interesting mentioning about HM and familiar case studies but also how they are old now
topics mentioned I have studied
Functional asymmetry/split brain studies (p32)
Stuff I want to look up
- Alexander Luria (p34)
Makes you think about the self, are you your brain or your memory or your mind, where is your personality? Your body is different to your mind and brain?
Words I googled
Phials
Pharmacological (p32)
Gargantuan (46)
I like the anecdotal stories and his own blunt personal opinion
Interesting mentioning about HM and familiar case studies but also how they are old now
topics mentioned I have studied
Functional asymmetry/split brain studies (p32)
Stuff I want to look up
- Alexander Luria (p34)
Makes you think about the self, are you your brain or your memory or your mind, where is your personality? Your body is different to your mind and brain?
Words I googled
Phials
Pharmacological (p32)
Gargantuan (46)
Other reviewers have noted it's unfair to compare Broks to Sachs, and I agree.
That said, per the "philosophy" angle he brings, I will compare him to somebody else - Dan Dennett.
Some of the essays in this book remind me of some of Dennett's early stuff, like in the book co-written and co-edited with Douglas Hofstadter, "The Mind's I."
Broks' tales in here are less about the patient, in part being a clinical psychologist, and more along the line of philosophical Gedankenexperimenten, or, to use Dennett's phrase, "intuition pumps."
That said, Broks is far more a poet than Dennett, and may just surpass Sacks in that regard too.
I note that this won a Guardian "First Book" award.
Please, Mr. Broks, let's follow up with a second and more.
Comment
That said, per the "philosophy" angle he brings, I will compare him to somebody else - Dan Dennett.
Some of the essays in this book remind me of some of Dennett's early stuff, like in the book co-written and co-edited with Douglas Hofstadter, "The Mind's I."
Broks' tales in here are less about the patient, in part being a clinical psychologist, and more along the line of philosophical Gedankenexperimenten, or, to use Dennett's phrase, "intuition pumps."
That said, Broks is far more a poet than Dennett, and may just surpass Sacks in that regard too.
I note that this won a Guardian "First Book" award.
Please, Mr. Broks, let's follow up with a second and more.
Comment
some really sad and introspective moments in this book, but overall it wasn't for me.
it was kind of like the author was trying too hard to be poetic and deep, to make the reader feel these poignant situations. but neurological disorders don't really need any literary tricks to get across their poignancy and sadness, so mostly i ended up rolling my eyes or skimming over his poetic musings.
harold klawans and oliver sacks are waaaaaay better at writing this kind of neuro-case study.
that being said, i want to repeat that there are some beautiful parts of "into the silent land."
it was kind of like the author was trying too hard to be poetic and deep, to make the reader feel these poignant situations. but neurological disorders don't really need any literary tricks to get across their poignancy and sadness, so mostly i ended up rolling my eyes or skimming over his poetic musings.
harold klawans and oliver sacks are waaaaaay better at writing this kind of neuro-case study.
that being said, i want to repeat that there are some beautiful parts of "into the silent land."
With your feet in the air/
And your head on the ground/
Try this trick and spin it/
Your head will collapse/
But there's nothing in it/
And you'll ask yourself/
Where is my mind?
This might be a dangerous book for those with a fragile sense of self, but required reading for anyone with a big ego. It is certainly an incredible achievement. Paul Broks manages to elucidate current ideas surrounding the brain/mind dilemma in a provocative style sometimes reminiscent of a novel or innerspace travelogue. If you like to think about the big questions in a rational way, read this book and prepare to lose (or loose) your mind.
And your head on the ground/
Try this trick and spin it/
Your head will collapse/
But there's nothing in it/
And you'll ask yourself/
Where is my mind?
This might be a dangerous book for those with a fragile sense of self, but required reading for anyone with a big ego. It is certainly an incredible achievement. Paul Broks manages to elucidate current ideas surrounding the brain/mind dilemma in a provocative style sometimes reminiscent of a novel or innerspace travelogue. If you like to think about the big questions in a rational way, read this book and prepare to lose (or loose) your mind.
I had high hopes for this book. I work in the field of neurology and find neuropsychology fascinating but I was left disappointed. The case studies were the most interesting but by the end I was flicking through it and couldn't wait to finish it.