I am Not a Brain

I was excited by the title. Someone who promises to convince me that my consciousness is not reducible to a cloud of neurons firing away under my skull, that's exciting. I really wondered what alternative he offered to this idea.

I would divide the book into two main parts: the first is devoted to an account of the different philosophical conceptions of consciousness, which is interesting for someone like me who doesn't know much about philosophy. These first chapters made me realize how an idea as abstract as the human mind could be treated in depth by dozens of intelligent people. But what the author does with it left me perplexed: most of the conceptions he exposes, he rejects quite aggressively, denouncing fallacious bases, logical errors, outdated worldviews, or simply the obvious absurdity of the statements.

The problem was that most of the time I was not convinced at all. I didn't understand why this thesis is so absurd, or outdated, or why it is so obvious that the world doesn't work the way these brilliant people claim it does. The author seemed frustrated, desperate to make his point, and not having many tools at his disposal to actually persuade his readers. (I can't believe this is the case, and I find it more logical to think I didn't understand because I'm just a poor ignoramus.) But mostly, I didn't understand what the author was proposing in return. If he is so convinced that these widely spread theses are ridiculous, it must be that he has a much more brilliant model in mind? I waited patiently for him to take a few pages to give me another conception of the world to think about. Very patiently...

The second part is devoted to the concept of freedom. The author defends the idea that humans are masters of their own decisions and actions, as opposed to the thought that we are in fact guided by purely evolutionary imperatives, i.e. that our neurons (which are only functional and therefore stupid) direct us. On that, no problem: I am free, to think otherwise is depressing and, indeed, quite absurd. This was, I thought, the easy part, a bit sweet: the arguments he gave about it were convincing, amusing (I laughed out loud in some places), and an easy idea to digest. But then the book concludes as if its entirety could be resolved into this final concept of freedom, as if the fact that we are free makes it unimaginable that our brains are the seat of what makes us human. Which, even after a complete and careful reading of this book, is not at all obvious to me. I just needed to be convinced, and I didn't have much to go on.

If among you there are philosophy buffs who feel sorry for my poor little head that didn't understand anything, please enlighten me. Perhaps I will be able to enlighten others in my turn.