...related books:
...both are good. Crick is absolute hardline, Ramachandran thinks we've figured out the "why" of life already, but both are still good.
Quotes from the Ramachandran text:
"For your entire life you've been walking around assuming that your
'self' is anchored to a single body that remains stable and permenent
at least until death. Indeed the 'loyalty' of your self to your own
body is so axiomatic that you never even pause to think about it, let
alone question it. Yet these experiments suggest the exact opposite -
that your body image, despite all its appearance of durability, is an
entirely transitory internal construct that can be profoundly
modified with just a few simple tricks. It is merely a shell that you
have created for successefully passing on your genes to your
offspring." (pp. 61-62)
"So the first step in understanding perception is to get rid of the
idea of images in the brain and to begin thinking about symbolic
descriptions of objects and events in the external world." (p. 66)
"...perhaps we are hallucinating all the time and what we call
perception is arrived at simply by determining which hallucination
best conforms to the current sensory input." (p 112)
"Unlike other animals, humans are acutely aware of their own
mortality and are terrified of death. But the study of cosmology
gives us a sense of timelessness, of being part of something much
larger. The fact that your own personal life is finite is less
frightening when you know you are part of an evolving universe - an
ever unfolding drama. [...] In this revolution we have given up the
idea that there is a soul seperate from our minds and bodies. Far
from being terrifying, this idea is very liberating. If you think
you're something special in this world, engaging in a lofty
inspection of the cosmos from a unique vantage point, your
annihilation becomes unnacceptable. But if you're really part of the
great cosmic dance of Shiva, rather than a mere spectator, then your
inevitable death should be seen as a joyous reunion with nature
rather than as a tragedy." (pp. 156 - 157)
"...perhaps its time to recognise that the division between mind and
body may be no more than a pedagogic device for instructing medical
students - and not a useful construct for understanding human health,
disease and behaviour." (p 221)
-psypher
-[advocatus diaboli]