WHOS IN CHARGE???

---

He also annoyingly does not spell out his conclusions clearly, forcing the reader to do more work than necessary to make sense of what he is saying. Though "free will" is in the title of the book, he probably devotes less than ten pages to directly arguing about free will. These rest is just explaining neuroscience to a lay audience. Some of it is quite good, especially chapter 3 on consciousness where he describes how the "self" is really just a fiction created by the mind.

For this chapter I give the book two stars instead of one. This was a tough read because it it's highly technical and specific, but I'm so very happy that I took the time to get through it and learn so much about the mind and the brain. I believe that knowing and understanding more about free will, where it comes from and what it really is, makes me a better neighbor, friend, patent, and spouse. Scientifically fascinating and thought provoking. Gazzaniga gives us a wonderful, thought provoking book which forces the reader to examine complex systems and the ways in which they apply to brain function.

Although the book starts out a bit slow, it quickly becomes captivating and difficult to put down. I not only learned a great deal from this book, I chose to read more of Gazzaniga's works. I recommend his writings to anyone interested in learning more about split-brain effects and complex systems as applied to human psyche.

See all reviews. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Explore the Home Gift Guide. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers.

Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics. East Dane Designer Men's Fashion. Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands. Withoutabox Submit to Film Festivals. We do several In-house trainings each year. If you are looking for an In-House training please do contact us at: The structure of the programme consists of 8 two and a half hour sessions with a two-month follow up.

This has similarities to the content of mainstream parenting programmes, but there are important differences. Most parenting advice assumes that children are co-operative. In the group we explore the difficulty of identifying consequences that the parent can implement, is willing to control, and the child will care about at least a little. The third part of the programme supports parents to make changes within the home while working on a few advanced topics; anger; assertiveness; self-care. The order of these topics is important.

Until parents have made some attitude changes and become more empowered they are not usually ready to work on these topics. However, parents may not be ready to admit to, or work on their own inappropriate behaviour early in the group process. So, the structure aims to first support and empower, second to encourage practical changes usually in terms of rules and consequences and third to reinforce these changes and cover some advanced topics. There is a steady reduction in content during the course of the group — the idea being that the group becomes more positive and helpful and thus discussion increases and facilitator directed exercises reduce.

Practitioners who have attended training come from a broad range of agencies, both statutory, voluntary and private sector including: Prior to attendance at the WIC? It is expected that participants will have spent two hours minimum reading this document prior to attending the WIC?

Practitioners will have the opportunity to explore the programme in full, discuss the referral process, and setting up the programme. An insight into understanding the context of child to parent violence and experiential journey through programme weeks 1 — 2, beginning with uncovering family patterns and encouraging parents to identify goals for change; what are the causes or influences of child to parent violence and abuse, understanding the difference between entitlement versus responsibility and exploring what influence parents have over their children.

We move at this point from the therapeutic element of the programme towards the second part, the knowledge base and applying consequences to children who are uncooperative sometimes in the extreme and who may not appear to care very much about anything. Focus on the anger held by all family members involved. Here they can download all the materials needed to run the nine week programme. There are no further license fees, enabling practitioners to run programmes immediately.

It is expected that where possible newly trained facilitators take the opportunity to co-facilitate with an experienced WIC? A really good training, very realtive to my role with families. The three days were packed full of information. This was an informative, interactive and relaxed course with two very competant and friendly trainers. I would recommend this course to anyone working with families. Cathy and Carole were engaging and facilitated this training very well together. I instantly felt comfortable and found the training interesting and enjoyable.

My confidence has grown. I really enjoyed this training and look forward to delivering the programme. Really engaging and supportive trainers. Thank you both very much. It has increased my knowledge and understanding of CPV greatly. I think it's an intriguing point, but I don't think it proves anything about will or personal responsibility. The author does point out a possible evolutionary value of responsibility -- without society holding people accountable for their supposedly willed actions, human social order probably would not be able to exist, some studies suggest.

Still -- evolutionary value of BELIEF in free will and personal responsibility does not, to me, prove the existence of will. One interesting thing is that the author suggests the mind's intangible essence -- the mind emerging from the brain -- exists in the algorithms or protocols it follows, not just in tissue. And these happenings, these processes, are distributed and broken up into many modules running at once.

There is no little man or woman in each of our heads -- something I think neuroscientists have recognized for quite awhile. All in all, the ideas in this book that I value most relate to the unreliability of my brain's stories. As someone who meditates and tries to tell raw sensation apart from mental interpretation, I wonder if the interpreter process described here is what I see when observing mental interpretation.

Or I might be making NO sense. Also, I am not sure what to make of the fact that so much of our mental processing is preconscious. We react to things before we're aware of them. What does cultivating more awareness, through meditation or any other activity, really mean? Can we see more of what would be unconscious, or can we simply see better what would've been conscious anyway?

Does that question even make sense? I just liked it a lot. Jan 20, Caren rated it really liked it Shelves: This is not light reading or, not for me anyway , but it is extremely interesting and profitable.

Customers who bought this item also bought

Just last year, in "Incognito", David Eagleman indicated that some changes in legal procedures may need to take into account new findings in neuroscience. Toward the end of this book, Mr. Gazzaniga is more specific about the ways in which the unfolding findings of neuroscience are changing proceedings in the courtroom. By studying patients who have had the two hemispheres of the brain severed usua This is not light reading or, not for me anyway , but it is extremely interesting and profitable.

By studying patients who have had the two hemispheres of the brain severed usually to prevent seizures , researchers discovered that, while the right brain is quite literal in what it perceives, the left brain has an "interpreter" which will construct a story to make sense of the information it perceives. Eagleman recounted in "Incognito", the brain does most of its work on autopilot, outside of our conscious control.

In fact, a person may feel he has made a conscious decision, but he probably has acted first and later felt that he decided to act. From such discoveries, the idea of determinism has taken hold in our culture including in the courts. Gazzaniga's understanding of the research goes deeper. After spending much of the book showing how the research has led to determinist conclusions, he expands the scope of our view by showing the ways in which the culture in which we find ourselves influences the tendencies of our individual brains. He says that we in the West have evolved from the ancient Greeks to focus on the individual, while those in the East evolved from the culture of China, in which the individual is seen as a part of the whole society and the goal is harmony, not rugged individualism.

Hence, the brains of those living in these cultures have evolved in different directions. He also says that the human brain was able to grow larger than those of other primates when agriculture allowed for a more sedentary rather than nomadic culture, with greater calorie intake. There is a limit to the size of the surrounding society that any individual brain can handle. The author says is the top number of people a brain can keep track of in forming relationships.

As an example, he notes that people who have more than 1, friends on Facebook only really keep up with or fewer. Oh my, there are so many interesting avenues Mr. Gazzaniga explores with us. In the end, his real point if that he does not agree with determinism when considering human consciousness and free will. He wants us to see that we are a part of a bigger picture, that we can indeed be held accountable because, in his words, " More on the Gifford lecture series can be found here: Mar 03, Andris rated it liked it.

Mar 29, Andy Oram rated it really liked it. This book offers interesting observations on two levels. Scientifically, the author as a leading neuroscientist lays out a sophisticated theory of how we make decisions. Although each individual decision is driven by a complex, interacting set of "modules" in the brain, Gazzaniga does not give in to a reductionist, deterministic philosophy.

He calls for "a unique language, which has yet to be developed," to help us understand how our decisions affect future brain interactions and how social forc This book offers interesting observations on two levels. He calls for "a unique language, which has yet to be developed," to help us understand how our decisions affect future brain interactions and how social forces affect each of our brain's behavior, right down to the level of genes. Ethically, this book wades into current debates over how much responsibility can be assigned to criminals Harvard, for instance, recently created a Center for Law, Brain and Behavior.

Gazzaniga criticizes the current overuse of brain scans in deciding court cases and punishments.

Working with :

He believes that criminals can generally be held responsible for their actions, intriguingly suggesting "accountability" instead of punishment. Note that there is no particular neurological behavior that clinches any argument. It is interesting to see how much the scientists have learned, and how big the gaps in our knowledge are. Dec 08, Ed rated it really liked it Shelves: My advice for anyone who reads this book is to be sure and read the entire book carefully. In the first few chapters, Gazzaniga presents neurological determinism so convincingly that a careless reader might mistake it for the author's final position.

Gazzaniga may also invite misunderstanding by titling Ch. Gazzaniga agrees with other neuroscientists in rejecting a pre-scientific notion of free will, the idea that "YOU, a self with a central command center, are in charge, are free from causation, and are doing things The modern perspective is that brains enable minds, and that YOU is your vastly parallel and distributed brain without a central command center. But unlike many of his colleagues, Gazzaniga does not jump to the conclusion that causality is solely from the bottom up, from brain to mind, so that conscious thought is inconsequential.

That would seem to eliminate moral responsibility, an awkward conclusion considering the research suggesting that people actually act better when they believe they are free and responsible! Gazzaniga does not believe that science has to undermine our humanity or moral worth. Gazzaniga points out that much of science has moved beyond determinism, embracing ideas such as unpredictability in complex systems, quantum indeterminacy, and emergence of qualitatively new properties at higher levels of analysis.

The musician relies on the deterministic mechanics of the instrument, the brain and the body, and all the necessary causes they entail. But analysis at those levels is insufficient to explain THIS note in this musical context; that requires a more aesthetic and cultural analysis. The lower level enables but doesn't entirely determine the emergent higher level.

Similarly, why do I type these words in preference to all the other words I could type without violating any physical laws? A complete answer requires an understanding of the cultural conversation in which I am participating. Gazzaniga rejects neurological determinism because he takes seriously the emergent sociocultural level which constrains individual minds and brains.

He rejects bottom-up causality in favor of a complementarity in which the neurological and sociocultural levels influence each other. Within that framework he finds it appropriate and necessary that societies hold individuals responsible for their actions.

Follow the Author

The book will be most challenging for two groups: The many philosophers and social scientists who never liked either of those extremes in the first place may feel more vindicated than enlightened. While I'm glad that at least one neuroscientist is trying to move beyond determinism, I actually wish he had gone a little farther.

Gazzaniga still seems to me to be too much under the spell of the mechanistic metaphor that has dominated so much of our thinking in the Machine Age. In the Afterword he suggests that developing a new vocabulary may be the "scientific problem of this century," but he doesn't express any interest in going beyond mechanisms and algorithms to explore something more creative and aesthetic.

One scientist whose reflections on agency and self-organization have taken him much deeper is biologist Stuart Kauffman, who argued in Investigations that we need a new synthesis of science and art in order to understand living things. I would think that a serious reflection on freedom and responsibility would require some discussion of creativity.

Kauffman criticized the standard "random variation and natural selection" model of evolution as not accounting sufficiently for the emergence of novel organization; selection only trims forms, but doesn't create them. Is Gazzaniga's model, which emphasizes neural variation and social selection, creative enough? He acknowledges the emergence of a social level in general, but he may be overlooking the little emergences of novel thoughts that are going on all the time, and which create culture as opposed to just conform to it.

I suggest that regarding freedom and responsibility as participation in the creative construction of the world may turn out to be just as compatible with good science as seeing them as responses to societal feedback. I think it may be robbing freedom of too much of its meaning to see it essentially as social constraint on the brain. So while I see the book as a helpful first step beyond neurological determinism, a much deeper understanding is needed. Sep 30, Eliza rated it it was amazing. But overall I can say this is a very interesting work, both dense in academic references from which one can build on later i'm personally interested in "niche constructions" as well as a clear presentation for people with zero background in neurobiology.

So it's a masterful diffusion of science to a larger audience interested in the inner workings of the brain and it's evolution. Nov 29, Shiloah rated it really liked it Shelves: A thorough argument, well delivered. Much was added to my knowledge on the subject. I enjoyed all the narrative-based examples. I especially enjoyed learning what possibilities the future holds for neuroscience. Nov 30, Will Simpson rated it it was amazing. This is a book heavy on neruoscience but the author does a great job of carrying me forward.

I didn't realize Michael Gazzaniga was the researcher involved in the first "split brain" patient studies. His perspective on brain mapping is fascinating. How evolution is tied to brain modules is explained. I was hoping for more on brain modules and how we interact with them but, oh well. His discussion of free will is a bit confused. There is a lot to yet be discovered.

And who knows what will become This is a book heavy on neruoscience but the author does a great job of carrying me forward. And who knows what will become of this thing we call free will. The last couple of chapters focus on the legal system and it's relationship to out understanding of neruoscience.

This part I found depressing as to how backward our justice system is. Jun 05, Peter A. Very interesting book on the issue of the deterministic view biological, fysical and chemical,processes determine decisions you take. The empirical evidence shows that decision making is done before issues come to a conscient level in the brain.

This suggests the deterministic viewpoint. But especially interesting was the reference to the study of Brass and Haggard. In the article of they in summary state that " In the present study, we investigate the neural correlates of intentionally inhibiting actions using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Our data show that a specific area of the fronto-median cortex is more strongly activated when people prepare manual actions but then intentionally cancel them, compared with when they prepare and then complete the same actions.

Our results suggest that the human brain network for intentional action includes a control structure for self-initiated inhibition or withholding of intended actions. Gazzaniga concludes that probably both are true and that there is an interesting interface between the two downward causation and upward causation. Further he states that we are people not brains "the mind interacts with the brain" points to dualism as I see it. He explains that there is interaction of the layers mind and brain that privide us conscious reality. Contrarely to Brass and Haggart he further states with John Doyle that our left logical brain half suggests that there must be some central controlling element we should be able to find.

Doyle states that it also can be in the protocols, rules and algoritms. It need not be hard ware in that sense but can also be soft ware. For me this all supports my common sense idea probably due to my back ground that there is free will and personal responsibility.

Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain

I can very much appreciate the point of view of Gazzaniga that he states that "downward causation meets upward causation". As often in life reality is more complex and not black and white. His view offers a good and balanced view on free will which helps again one sighted views on determinisn as described for instance by the Dutch brain surgeon Dick Swaab. Apr 17, Patrick rated it it was amazing Shelves: The father of cognitive neuroscience and author of Human offers a provocative argument against the common belief that our lives are wholly determined by physical processes and we are therefore not responsible for our actions A powerful orthodoxy in the study of the brain has taken hold in recent years: Since physical laws govern the physical world and our own brains are part of that world, physical laws therefore govern our behavior and even our conscious selves.

Free will is meanin Amazon review: Not so, argues the renowned neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga in this thoughtful, provocative book based on his Gifford Lectures——one of the foremost lecture series in the world dealing with religion, science, and philosophy. We are responsible agents who should be held accountable for our actions, because responsibility is found in how people interact, not in brains. Nov 09, James rated it it was amazing. Unlike the fantastic philosopher Daniel C.

Dennett who carved out a bit of elbow room for free will in a deterministic world, Gazzaniga blows past the idea as miscast and arcane. So while the title does say "Free Will" it's a bit misleading. This is a good neuroscience book that plays upon the notion of emergence to talk about personal responsibility and crime and punishment. V Unlike the fantastic philosopher Daniel C. Nov 18, Michal rated it it was amazing. Michael Gazzaniga can talk about the brain from the position of authority as he was there when most of the recent breakthroughs in neuroscience were made.

In particular, I liked the part where he was talking about the functions of the interpreter module. I found this book stimulating, captivating and in places liberating. It is a must-read. Just the introduction to neuroscience was amazing. If you want an accessible overview of our modern understanding of the brain, this is the place to start.

The author's discussion of how we consider guilt and innocence in the context of our evolving understanding of the brain is also fascinating. A fun and enlightening read. Excellent book; probably among the best I have read all year. I found the ebook on a bargain on Amazon, and thought it looked interesting. As I was reading it I happened to mention it to a professor of neuroscience and he informed me that Gazzaniga is a well-respected name in the field of neuroscience, which I had not known before I started.

The book provides an engaging history of how we have come to understand what we do about the brain, from theories about a homunculus, to the idea of equipoten Excellent book; probably among the best I have read all year. The book provides an engaging history of how we have come to understand what we do about the brain, from theories about a homunculus, to the idea of equipotentiality or mass-action, through to the modern understanding of the brain as a modular organ.

There is a fascinating summary of Gazzaniga's work with split-brain patients. He talks about the different strengths and weaknesses of different parts of the brain, and how there is an 'interpreter' module in the left brain that does its best to make sense of all of the sensory inputs, regardless of whether or not they are, in the strictest sense, true.

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

A central theme of the book is the interplay between determinism, which is, to a degree, the prevailing understanding of how our actions and decisions are fundamentally the result of physical laws, and our ingrained idea of 'free will' - that we have complete autonomy over our actions.

Gazzaniga places these topics in context: Determinism in complex systems has been demonstrably foiled by Chaos Theory - it is theoretically impossible to accurately predict the outcomes of systems with many variables. And Free Will is a bit of a misleading moniker - what exactly do we want to be free from? If we wish to fly but are unable because of our biology, is our free will encumbered? Gazzaniga presents a holistic solution, suggesting that the mind and hence our free will is an emergent phenomenon from the complexity of our brain structure, but that the mind can constrain the action of the brain, in a circulating feedback loop.

This is a much more satisfying explanation than other authors I have read e. Sean Carroll that suggest that free will is a mere illusion but all that matters is that we feel like we are free. The final chapter is a discussion of the legal implications of free vs determined action and the concomitant responsibilities that should be assigned. Here the author talks about the three main approaches to justice retributive, incapacitative and rehabilitative and makes an important distinction between scientific standards for evidence where proofs need to be rigorous, with ample evidence and legal standards where merely a 'reasonable doubt', however well-founded scientifically, is sufficient to derail a conviction.

The author frames our legal systems in our evolutionary backstory, discusses differences in approaches between the East and the West and the problematic aspects of admitting averaged brain scans as courtroom evidence. There are no hard conclusions drawn on these topics, but the discussion sheds valuable light on the important issues. Overall, I learned a huge amount from this book, and it has satisfied my search for meaty engagement with these questions. The book is thoroughly well researched, with citations throughout.

I will certainly be returning to this book in future. Oct 02, Suncerae rated it really liked it. Neuroscientist and Gifford Lecturer Michael S. Gazzinga explores the implications of the latest research in brain research, namely, that we live in a "determined" world, that our brains are governed by the laws of the physical world and not our conscious selves.

If our conscious selves are not in control, we may not be responsible for our own actions. Despite the title, this book isn't really about free will. But it is a fantastic explanation of how our brains fill in gaps and make guesses, back- Neuroscientist and Gifford Lecturer Michael S. But it is a fantastic explanation of how our brains fill in gaps and make guesses, back-filling memories and sensations to create a seamless world in which we live. Studies from patients with "split-brains" clearly demonstrate how our conscious awareness, and justification and explanation of our own actions take place well after we have already acted.

Gazzinga discusses the ramifications of modern neuroscience, including some psychology, ethics, and law, in addition to proposing his own theory of how and why he thinks our conscious minds are accountable. Gazzinga's postulation is that the conscious mind "constrains" the brain, just as cars are constrained by traffic. Our brains are comprised of distinct and separate physical processes of neurons firing, but the brain as a whole, and especially multiple brains together create an emergent property of mind.

A murderer cannot argue that he is not responsible for his actions because he lives within a society in which human interactions create the idea of responsibility. There is also a significant comparison to physics, specifically quantum mechanics, because the laws of determinism that work so well in classical mechanics fall apart on such a small scale. Although I follow his comparison, I do not think his interpretation of the laws of physics, which are mathematical models of the behavior of objects of different sizes and at lower temperatures, is correct, nor that they support his theory.

Setting aside the physics talk, Gazzinga's postulation that we are responsible for our own actions because we know right from wrong, lawful and unlawful in practice, is a discussion more appropriate to social science, not neuroscience. There is absolutely no science to back up a theory of collective consciousness or that from multiple brains emerges a higher mindset of social responsibility. His argument is philosophy and speculation. Personally, I do not find determinism such a scary notion, but I must be in the minority, as more than half of this book is dedicated to convincing ourselves that we have some sort of free will.

Even though I do not agree with the author, I find the subject matter compelling, and his arguments engaging. Highly recommended for fans of the neurological sciences! Aug 12, Jan vanTilburg rated it it was amazing Shelves: First chapters describes how the brain functions according to the current knowledge From there the main question as given in the introduction is explored: This is for sure a concept that I would like to be true!

I am not special after all This is a well written book. Co First chapters describes how the brain functions according to the current knowledge Conclusions are based upon research and many examples are given. I enjoyed reading it and it gave me more understanding how the brain functions. Interesting to read how he concludes that the mind, which is somehow generated by the physical processes of the brain, constrains the brain.

That is the premise of this book: How the mind relates to the brain, with its implications for personal responsibility, is central for understanding what we humans are experiencing as sentient. The mind is embodied in the brain! Even as the brain is parallel and distributed we feel as in charge and as one. It may be because the brain functions as a complex system. Chaos Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Emergence closed the door to determinism. Gazzaniga thinks conscious thought is an emergent property. He ends that chapter as he begins it: Responsibility is a dimension that comes with social interaction.

• Naomi
• Check Points on How to Buy Oriental Rugs
• Communication in Eastern Europe: The Role of History, Culture, and Media in Contemporary Conflicts (Routledge Communication Series)
• Administration Fiscale et Contribuables au Cameroun (Droits africains et malgache) (French Edition)
• The Economics of Money and Financial Markets in New Zealand