Evan Thompson
Author of The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience
About the Author
Evan Thompson is professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
Works by Evan Thompson
Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy (2014) 167 copies, 5 reviews
Dying: What Happens When We Die?: A Selection from Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy (2014) 6 copies
The Mind-Body-Body Problem 1 copy
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1962
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Amherst College (AB|Asian Studies|1983)
University of Toronto (PhD|Philosophy|1990) - Occupations
- writer
professor - Organizations
- Royal Society of Canada
University of British Columbia
Lindisfarne Association - Relationships
- Thompson, William Irwin (father)
- Nationality
- USA
- Associated Place (for map)
- USA
Members
Reviews
I don’t remember where I came across this book but I was curious because I’ve explored and examined Buddhism and rejected it as untenable, so what would be someone else’s reason? I also decided to read it in parallel with Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, which I never finished forty years ago. Where Russell is cogent and succinct, Thompson … is not. I’ve seen that Dawkins’ Law of the Conservation of Difficulty* certainly applies to the social sciences. But there has show more to be a stepped up version on steroids when it comes to philosophers. Jeez, they can sure take a simple thought and complicate the hell out of it. With less than no value added. So, is my problem with Thompson or philosophers in general? Both. Thompson clearly has the academic chops to analyze his subject, but he also is firmly stuck in the peat bog. I may get trolled on this, but while I agree with Thompson's end result, his arguments are mired in, well, stuff like this: "Mindfulness meditation isn’t a kind of private introspection of a private mental theater. Meditative introspection isn’t the inner perception of an independent and preexistent, private mental realm. Mindfulness meditation is the metacognition and internalized social cognition of socially constituted experience."
I'm not going to go into all of the highlighted sections where I had issue... there are too many. I will share a few of the parts that made sense but bottom line, this is languaged up, à la Dawkins's Law.
[on the attempts to tie Buddhism to science} ... the point is that our familiar division between religion and other areas of human activity—art, philosophy, politics, and science—reflects a recent way of thinking that we should be careful not to project onto other times and places.
[on the scientists who investigate mindfulness meditation] These scientists, and not just the journalists who report their findings, bear responsibility for the meaningless mantra that mindfulness “literally changes” or “rewires” your brain. Anything you do changes your brain. Despite the hype, scientific evidence that mindfulness practices induce long-lasting, beneficial changes in the brain is still tentative.
[and, right after that, he notes} Indeed, one recent scientific study suggests that there may be a bias toward reporting positive findings in clinical studies of mindfulness and that negative results may go unreported.
{good... he didn't identify it, but that is the halo effect}
[on whether Buddhism is true] In my view, “Is Buddhism true?” isn’t the right question to ask. Instead, we should ask: What does Buddhism have to teach us? What can we learn from Buddhism? What do we find in Buddhism that we don’t find in other traditions? And, my favorite one: How can debating with Buddhists—past and present—invigorate our thinking?
* Dawkins’ Law of the Conservation of Difficulty from A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Writings
I'm not going to go into all of the highlighted sections where I had issue... there are too many. I will share a few of the parts that made sense but bottom line, this is languaged up, à la Dawkins's Law.
[on the attempts to tie Buddhism to science} ... the point is that our familiar division between religion and other areas of human activity—art, philosophy, politics, and science—reflects a recent way of thinking that we should be careful not to project onto other times and places.
[on the scientists who investigate mindfulness meditation] These scientists, and not just the journalists who report their findings, bear responsibility for the meaningless mantra that mindfulness “literally changes” or “rewires” your brain. Anything you do changes your brain. Despite the hype, scientific evidence that mindfulness practices induce long-lasting, beneficial changes in the brain is still tentative.
[and, right after that, he notes} Indeed, one recent scientific study suggests that there may be a bias toward reporting positive findings in clinical studies of mindfulness and that negative results may go unreported.
{good... he didn't identify it, but that is the halo effect}
[on whether Buddhism is true] In my view, “Is Buddhism true?” isn’t the right question to ask. Instead, we should ask: What does Buddhism have to teach us? What can we learn from Buddhism? What do we find in Buddhism that we don’t find in other traditions? And, my favorite one: How can debating with Buddhists—past and present—invigorate our thinking?
* Dawkins’ Law of the Conservation of Difficulty from A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Writings
states that obscurantism in an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity. Physics is a genuinely difficult and profound subject, so physicists need to – and do – work hard to make their language as simple as possible (‘but no simpler,’ rightly insisted Einstein). Other academics – some would point the finger at continental schools of literary criticism and social science – suffer from what Peter Medawar (I think) called Physics Envy. They want to be thought profound, but their subject is actually rather easy and shallow, so they have to language it up to redress the balance.show less
A necessary book challenging concepts taken for granted in any number of Western dharma centers you’d walk into.
Does science “prove” the Dharma to be worthy of elevation over other spiritual traditions? Is the “unconditioned mind” not just a different, maybe useful, kind of conditioning? What’s wrong with treating Buddhism as a religion rather than trying to validate it through some other, more culturally prestigious means?
Thompson’s arguments absolutely need to be entertained show more by practitioners. I just wish the text was a little more of a joy to read. show less
Does science “prove” the Dharma to be worthy of elevation over other spiritual traditions? Is the “unconditioned mind” not just a different, maybe useful, kind of conditioning? What’s wrong with treating Buddhism as a religion rather than trying to validate it through some other, more culturally prestigious means?
Thompson’s arguments absolutely need to be entertained show more by practitioners. I just wish the text was a little more of a joy to read. show less
Although this not an easy book to read, I found it thought-provoking and well-written. Perhaps this is only because I had been thinking about some of the issues raised in the book and the vague descriptions of enlightment, the role of criticsm vs. authority, karma, the nature of mindfulness, . . . that appears in Buddhist literature. I do think the book could have had a more descriptive title,for instance: "A critique of Buddhist modernism and erroneous conflation of neuroscience and show more Buddhism," or something on that order. The book is not a diatribe against Buddhism and does not parallel Russell's "Why I am not a Christain." I found both his discussion of neuroscience and Buddhist doctrines, dare I say it, enlightening. It is not the easiest book I've ever read, but far from the hardest. I had to read a few chapters a couple of times. The first time to get the broad scope of the argument and a second to follow the details in the construction of the argument. The second reading was generally worth it.
The book is not hostile to Buddhism. He does make a good case for Buddhism being a religon that cannot be substantiated by neuroscience. He also spends a good deal of time on the concept of "mind" and presents the thesis that the brain state, as studied in neuroscience, is only one component of the mind.
I would (and have) recommended the book to readers already familiar with a smattering of Buddhist literature or interested in the prospects of a secular Buddhism. The author raises a variety of interesting questions that I found to be worth thinking about. (No answers yet.) show less
The book is not hostile to Buddhism. He does make a good case for Buddhism being a religon that cannot be substantiated by neuroscience. He also spends a good deal of time on the concept of "mind" and presents the thesis that the brain state, as studied in neuroscience, is only one component of the mind.
I would (and have) recommended the book to readers already familiar with a smattering of Buddhist literature or interested in the prospects of a secular Buddhism. The author raises a variety of interesting questions that I found to be worth thinking about. (No answers yet.) show less
Broad study on cognitive science that is unapologetic about its range of sources, from philosophy (Merleau-Ponty to Nietzsche) to colour theory (including art) to artificial intelligence to Buddhist meditation practices to neurology to social criticism (and the idea of commonage). Somehow the authors pull together a book that is not only interesting but also very engaging and legible. Great insights, a little dated, but still relevant for the breadth of research that went into the book.
Lists
Reading list (1)
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 14
- Members
- 1,015
- Popularity
- #25,389
- Rating
- 4.0
- Reviews
- 16
- ISBNs
- 33
- Languages
- 3
- Favorited
- 2