Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

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

Michael S. Gazzaniga

3.99 · Rating details · 2,861 ratings · 231 reviews

“Big questions are Gazzaniga’s stock in trade.”
—New York Times

“Gazzaniga is one of the most brilliant experimental neuroscientists in the world.”
—Tom Wolfe

“Gazzaniga stands as a giant among neuroscientists, for both the quality of his research and his ability to communicate it to a general public with infectious enthusiasm.”
—Robert Bazell, Chief Science Correspondent, NBC ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 260 pages

Published November 15th 2011 by Ecco

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales by Oliver Sacks

This Is Your Brain on Music by Daniel J. Levitin

97 books — 4 voters

The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge

Explaining the Mind

133 books — 52 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.99 ·

Rating details

· 2,861 ratings · 231 reviews

More filters

Sort order

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

Apr 25, 2012 Will Byrnes rated it really liked it

Shelves: psychology-and-the-brain, brain-candy, nonfiction, psychology

Do people really have free will? There are those who contend that since the brain is a physical object, subject to physical laws, human behavior is pre-determined, and thus the antithesis of free. Does a lesion in one’s frontal lobe give credence to a defense of “The Devil Made Me Do it?” Where lies personal responsibility?

description

Michael S. Gazzaniga - image from 89.3 KPCC - NPR

Michael Gazzaniga contends that we are more than the sum, or volume, of our parts and, in the system of human interactions, w ...more

flag 211 likes · Like · see review

Dec 19, 2012 Trevor rated it liked it

Shelves: evolution, science, social-theory, psychology

The start of this book is pretty much the same as Sam Harris’s Free Will. But this guy comes to the opposite conclusion. A tad frustrating, I guess, but no less interesting for that.

Let’s have a look at the problem. In the middle of this book he has a really lovely analogy explaining the barriers that reductionism places in front of our understanding of free will.

Let’s say you wanted to understand the problem of traffic congestion. To what extent would understanding the workings of a car’s spark ...more

flag 40 likes · Like · see review

Feb 18, 2012 David rated it really liked it

Shelves: biology, philosophy, psychology, science

Michael Gazzaniga is a leading neuroscientist, and he has written a fascinating book on the subject of free will. Interestingly, we want to have free will ourselves, but we don't want others to have it. We want other people to act efficiently, and basically to think the same way that we do.

The book examines consciousness and free will from many different perspectives; emergence, evolution, epigenetics, neurons, quantum mechanics, morality, the justice system, split-brain patients, sociology and ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Jan 17, 2015 The Pirate Ghost (Formerly known as the Curmudgeon) rated it really liked it

Shelves: audio-book, good-read, kindle-book, non-fictoin, reference-material, inspiration, recommended

4.5 Stars

This is a very good read. Gazzaniga explains the workings of the brain in terms that rarely get technical. He puts modern understanding of the neurology of our minds into context with history, free will, evolution. Though neurology is a complex subject, Gazzaniga does a very good job of keeping it understandable. It is non-fiction and it is not a story like an autobiography. Gazzaniga does as good a job as he can at telling the story of our brain in a way that is entertaining and easy t ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Dec 13, 2011 Kaethe Douglas marked it as to-read

Added to my list with some trepidation. For one thing, Tom Wolfe blurbed it, and Wolfe is a reactionary assberet, so that's hardly a glowing recommendation. And then the snippet says "counters the common wisdom that our lives are wholly determined by physical processes we cannot control. " And I think, "Oh, really?" That "wholly determined" looks like a strawman to me, thrown up to give the author a very low standard of proof. Not to mention that "free will" is so rich in religious connotation. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Dec 22, 2011 H Wesselius rated it it was ok

Gazzaniga provides a succinct enough summary of current research into the brain. However, its when he addresses the notion of free will that the book falls flat. In attempt to find room for free will, he takes a detour into quantum physics and probability theory. Even if one accepts his argument, this only grants free will within a limited range offer by a list of probabilities. To contend that free will on this basis is rather difficulty so he also provides the common sense idea that we do empl ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Sep 03, 2019 Elizabeth rated it it was amazing

Here is a book to give your brain a workout! Wow! I listened to it being read by Pete Larkin. He was an outstanding narrator. I only understood a fraction of the content and I would need to read it several times to catch on, I think.
The big explode your head premise is that the concepts of free will and responsibility may be fallacies. And our civilization is based on these ideas.
Other “subplots” in no certain order were:
Your primitive brain is still there;
Tension between developing societal s ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2012 Book rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, neuroscience

Who's in Charge: Free Will and the Science of the Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga

"Who's in Charge: Free Will and the Science of the Brain" is the thought-provoking book about the fascinating topic of free will and neuroscience. Neuroscientist and gifted author Michael S. Gazzaniga provides the latest insights into the science of the brain and offers unique perspectives. This 272-page book is composed of seven chapters: 1. The Way We Are, 2. The Parallel and Distributing Brain, 3. The Interpreter, ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 18, 2011 Aaron rated it liked it

Despite the author's initial claim that some vestige of free will could be salvaged from the jaws of determinism, he does a pretty good job demolishing that claim. All the while, he mucks around in the many very interesting weeds. In fact, the interesting weeds were what propped up this rating to three stars.

The author's premise seems to be a form similar to "god of the gaps," wherein the uncertainty of not knowing something or not being able to measure something leaves room for other sorts of d ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 27, 2012 Joseph Monaco rated it it was amazing

While searching for an appropriate stage setter for the next block of instruction at the School of Advanced Military Studies--Morality and War--I stumbled upon this fine book. I was pleased to discover that Gazzaniga’s metacognitive approach in describing the role of the brain as a complex “systems of systems” overlaps quite well with the evolution of art and science inherent in SAMS. In fact, Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain overlaps quite well with the creative theorizi While searching for an appropriate stage setter for the next block of instruction at the School of Advanced Military Studies--Morality and War--I stumbled upon this fine book. I was pleased to discover that Gazzaniga’s metacognitive approach in describing the role of the brain as a complex “systems of systems” overlaps quite well with the evolution of art and science inherent in SAMS. In fact, Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain overlaps quite well with the creative theorizing necessary to understand, adapt, and solve any complex problem within any body of knowledge.

The best way I can describe the book is a cross between key concepts of Retired Colonel John Boyd, Peter L. Berger (The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge), undergraduate Physics (Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Theory), and neuroscience. My bias is undergraduate Physics and military (operational level) problem solving so I appreciated his sub-atomic, yet simple approach to outlining the human brain and decision-making.

Is there innate moral behavior, and how does reason influence Moral Sentiments? What is the role of the brain as a decision-making device?

The brain is clearly not homologous, and is not complex simply because of a lack of knowledge. The brain is complex because it is a complex adaptive system with emergent (“weak” and “strong”) and “conscious” properties. Hello John Boyd (Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd)! The brain’s systems are “distributed,” “layered,” function in parallel, and specialize in tasks. Functioning as a “dynamic chaotic system,” linear models fall short in understanding a “dissipative system” such as the human brain.

Conscious thought is by itself an emergent property. However, conscious thought is slow and expensive. Cues and perceptions drive our explanations even when faced with a lack of information, or even worse, faulty information. Insert that long list of logical fallacies studied at institutions of higher learning here too.

The non-conscious is where one “makes their money” because these actions are fast and rely on heuristics. These habit patterns drive decision-making. In essence, “control” is an emergent property. However, how does control relate to moral imperatives? Do deterministic laws apply in complex systems? If so, why are there groupings and why is there seemingly a unity in human thought?

The interpreter module brings unity and it is only as good as the information it gets. The brain creates a temporal map and is subject to dualism. It is also possible to hijack the interpreter for good and bad, desired and undesired effects. Insert virtual reality and visual illusions here. In any case, through the interpreter, a human brain’s output is a unified and coherent personal narrative. Thus, free will and determinism, outside the context of religion and spirituality, of course, are not found in the brain, but in the social construction of reality.

Virtues are not universal. This drives differences in morality between cultures. Studies show that culture and genes affect cognition.

Unless you are an aspiring neuroscientist, I recommend a read for gist. Perhaps an audiobook version played at 1.5x while driving across Kansas (hint, hint). This book would be much more painful as a hard copy for the average reader. However, it is loaded with cognitive wealth. I found the following to be the most valuable takeaways: the brain as a complex system of systems, the relationship between the brain’s decision-making and free will (determinism), and how the human brain shapes moral sentiments. I also recommend this book for the “Boyd and Beyond” reading list if it is not already on there. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Dec 08, 2011 Ed rated it really liked it

Shelves: biology, philosophy, my-reviews

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. 4 "Abandoning the Concept of Free Will," when a careful reading of the chapter shows that he really wants to "reframe the question about what it means to have free will." By the end of the ch 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. 4 "Abandoning the Concept of Free Will," when a careful reading of the chapter shows that he really wants to "reframe the question about what it means to have free will." By the end of the chapter, he has recast freedom and responsibility as emergent properties of a complex, multi-layered system.

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." Most of what goes on in the brain is unconscious, and our brains are already initiating actions before we are aware of what we are doing. 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 ones left sitting at the 'hard' determinist table are the neuroscientists and Richard Dawkins." To illustrate how emergence alters one's perspective, consider a musician playing a note. 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.

The book will be most challenging for two groups: those who have a pre-scientific idea of free will, and those at the other extreme who have bought into neurological determinism. 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. When he talks about complex multi-leveled systems, he uses the language of hardware & software, algorithms and feedback loops. For example: "The social environment is just another factor contributing to the overall environment that is selecting in a downwardly causal way, with a feedback mechanism at work"; and "...the rules and algorithms that govern all of the separate and distributed modules work together to yield the human condition." Often he talks as if freedom and responsibility are nothing more than obedience to social feedback, no different than a furnace's obedience to feedback from a thermostat. 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.
...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Aug 25, 2012 Bob Nichols rated it did not like it

The author's argument is that reductionist theories about the brain are wrong. Gazzaniga is not a determinist. The mind emerges from the physical brain; that mind is a whole that is greater than its parts. The end result is a feeling that "someone is in charge." We have free will and we are responsibile for our actions.

Gazzaniga starts out in a way that suggests his alignment with the reductionist and deterministic viewpoints. He divides our mind into its unconscious and conscious roles and stat The author's argument is that reductionist theories about the brain are wrong. Gazzaniga is not a determinist. The mind emerges from the physical brain; that mind is a whole that is greater than its parts. The end result is a feeling that "someone is in charge." We have free will and we are responsibile for our actions.

Gazzaniga starts out in a way that suggests his alignment with the reductionist and deterministic viewpoints. He divides our mind into its unconscious and conscious roles and states that "whatever has made it to consciousness has already happened" so that we build theories of ourselves after the fact. Interestingly, in illustrating these two roles of the brain, Gazzangia in this otherwise heavily cited book does not mention Joseph LeDoux's The Emotional Brain (1996) that uses this very same example to illustrate the role of the amygdala and fear in the specific situation involving whether a shadow on the ground is a snake or a stick.

How does Gazzaniga get beyond this "post hoc process" to free will? Emergence is the central concept. He starts out easy enough, stating that we are the products of genetic and epigenitic backgrounds. The former provides the "large-scale" plan but the specific actions are "activity-dependent" so that external factors, not hard-wired genes, influence and modify our behavior, i.e., we have free will. From here he traces our socialization from our ape past with the end result being that we increasingly formulate and follow rules outside the brain. Social rules, laws and norms now govern us, not genes. Then he goes on to say that we are now co-evolving in the sense that the social environment forces us to be even more social and that this in turn affects our survival and reproduction. From that sweeping statement he deduces that we are becoming more social and less determined by genes, that we have choice, and that we are personally accountable to follow social expectations.

This is one way to weave together scientific evidence. But there are questions. Gazzaniga gives an account of a brutal murder by a person with an IQ of 59 and argues that "an abnormal brain does not mean that the person cannot follow rules." This of course presumes that the low IQ person not only is aware of the consequences of his actions but also presumes that the person cares enough to follow the rules. Again, he says that if a criminal is smart enough to not commit a crime in front of a policeman, "that person can follow social rules and not commit a crime." Yes, people can follow the rules but the salient question is why they won't and why they don't. Something is going on that is deeper, much deeper, than the perspective that Gazzaniga puts forward.

Finally, Gazzaniga's central point on emergence involves co-evolution. I believe he is correct about the impact of the outside environment on behavior, but I don't think he's accurate in how he accounts for that impact. His argument about our free will hinges on the impact the social environment has on transforming our behavior. Why is that environment different than the physical environment? The social environment is part of the external physical environment. It is something "mind" has had to deal with throughout our evolution. The environment, physical as well as social, has forced us to make changes in the way we engage it and has transformed us as a result. We change our behavior (what we do, how we do it) to fit what the external physical as well as social world requires. Isn't this transformation "emergence?" We have a dialectical interaction with the whole world, physical as well as social. We go into the world; the world reacts to our action and we then modify our behavior. The resultant synthesis was present in what went before yet is different from each. The emergence of mind, in other words, is not the product of just our interaction with the social sphere. Apart from the evoluton of our mind, that same dialectical interaction transforms species over time, changing them so that they can survive (and reproduce), which is the fixed "End" of all life. These transformations, while fixed in genes, might also be seen as expressions of emergence.

Our destinctive human quality is this free choice about how we maintain our lives and well-being, but the underlying question is why we choose one way as opposed to another. Gazzaniga has us destined to be good social beings, choosing to accommodate others. That picture flies in the face of history. Our choices serve an underlying core that might be socially good (other-oriented, respectful) or might be the opposite (overly self-oriented). Emergent mind, per se, says nothing about which way we will choose. The criminal uses information to make choices that allow him to do the crimnal act. That's why the criminal does not commit his crime in front of a policeman. That's why a criminal is a good criminal. Core, in the sense of fixed character traits, human nature varies across a continuum. Again, the question is not that the criminal can't follow social rules, but why he does not. Rather than progression to social goodness as Gazzaniga argues, we may have a fixed (biochemically) human nature for a good part of human kind who are fundamentally self-oriented and who do not change over time. This may explain why history tends to repeat itself, even now. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 20, 2012 Caren rated it really liked it

Shelves: adult-nonfiction

This is not light reading (or, not for me anyway), but it is extremely interesting and profitable. 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. 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 (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. Just as Mr. 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). But Mr. 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. (The brain, he says, uses 20% of our caloric intake.) There is a limit to the size of the surrounding society that any individual brain can handle. The author says 150 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 1,000 friends on Facebook only really keep up with 150 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, "...we now understand that we have to look at the whole picture, a brain in the midst of and interacting with other brains, not just one brain in isolation." (p.215)
This book was written as a result of a series of lectures, the Gifford lectures (which is a Scottish lecture series that has been sponsoring preeminent thinkers for over 100 years to discuss "natural theology"), which the author gave in Edinburgh in 2009. More on the Gifford lecture series can be found here: http://www.giffordlectures.org/ ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 03, 2013 Andris rated it liked it

this book is a wonderful collection of interesting facts and glimpses into probably very complex theories, told by a brilliant neuroscientist in an actually pretty good and easy to read language. and that is very nice.

however, the book also slightly suffers structurally because of its "collection-like" nature. the arguments are stretched out between descriptions (that are necessary - book is written in a relatively popular language, thus, little knowledge can be assumed on the part of the reader this book is a wonderful collection of interesting facts and glimpses into probably very complex theories, told by a brilliant neuroscientist in an actually pretty good and easy to read language. and that is very nice.

however, the book also slightly suffers structurally because of its "collection-like" nature. the arguments are stretched out between descriptions (that are necessary - book is written in a relatively popular language, thus, little knowledge can be assumed on the part of the reader) and humor (some of it's not that bad, actually - story about how Gazzaniga decided to build his own house is pretty cool ^^). so sometimes it is kind of hard to see the relevance of all this to the question of free will, and what is the scientific position on that which Gazzaniga could've presented us.

and he actually does that, it's just that his answer might be a little different from what the reader had in mind, when he asked the question about free will. he dismisses any metaphysical aspects of the question (and that is the way it should be done, imo :> ), and gives us a more realistic way of thinking about what it means to have free will.

if I dared to try and sum it up, I'd try to condensate it into two points:
1) thinking about human action and motives behind it requires several levels of description of the physical system that humans are - thus, human choices and other kinds of behaviour, while essentially being made up by the activity of lower levels - neurons and stuff, can not be properly described by only describing and looking at this lower level.
2) responsibility, a core part of the "free will", and, arguably, the most important due to its importance in law and to the possibility of human society as a whole, should be thought of not as grounded in some metaphysical considerations, but as based on the social reality - Gazzaniga thinks of responsibility as a kind of or a consequence of a social contract humans have.

but since I don't dare pretend I know this book that well, you should take what I have just written here with a pinch of salt.

there are also some problematic suggestions by Gazzaniga - the desire for a different language to describe our decisions etc in brain-terms etc is very ill-founded in this book, it is only backed by references to no less mysterious scientists who expressed the same desire for a different language, but actual arguments remain hidden. but perhaps it is only my objection as a person, who is acquainted with philosophy and who thinks that the existing language can be adjusted and redefined to preserve some of its functional and moral value, but replacing metaphysics, hidden in these words, with science, that would be no less hidden than the old metaphysics, but a lot more accurate, when made explicit.

none the less, it is a good and interesting read, but it is not and it probably can not yet be conclusive on the topic, but what it does say could be said slightly more accurately and in a more focused manner.
3.5/5. rounded down to 3, since I have to rate it like that? ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 17, 2012 Patrick rated it it was amazing

Shelves: ideas

Amazon review:
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 ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jun 01, 2020 Nadine rated it liked it

This was kind of a slog of a read. It's technically popular science, but Gazzaniga write more as if he is writing for entertainment to an audience in his field, or at least field-adjacent. I certainly got some perspective on the inner-workings of the mind and a few things to puzzle over regarding consciousness and self. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 16, 2020 bup rated it really liked it

Shelves: consciousness, science, 2020

I keep hoping to one day really understand that leap from "we're computers made of meat" to consciousness. Gazzaniga got me really close, and went through a lot of the same things other books I've read do: consciousness moves around in the brain constantly, and there is a part of the brain that decides which one or two of the hundreds of processes in the brain goes into the conscious 'slot', and consciousness often is post-facto (we do something, then become conscious of it).

Then, it seems like ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 29, 2018 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 ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 30, 2017 Eliza rated it it was amazing

I attentively read about 1/3 of this book and skimmed the rest, for the sole reason that i had little time and needed specific information. 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 b ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 29, 2017 Shiloah rated it really liked it

Shelves: adult-non-fiction, science, psychology

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.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 30, 2017 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 ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 05, 2017 Peter A. van Tilburg rated it really liked it

Shelves: brain-and-thinking

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. " To do or not to do" Their data suggests that a specific area in the dorsal fronto-medial cortex is related to a kind of self c 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. " To do or not to do" Their data suggests that a specific area in the dorsal fronto-medial cortex is related to a kind of self control. In the article of 2007 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. The mental control of action has an enduring scientific interest, linked to the philosophical concept of “free will.” Our results identify a candidate brain area that reflects the crucial decision to do or not to do".
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. 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. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 29, 2018 Bill rated it really liked it

Gazzaniga discusses a lot of interesting psychology and neuropsychology research that is more-or-less relevant to the question whether our apparently voluntary behavior is a product of free-will versus being the inevitable result of a chain of causes over which we have no control. Sometimes the thread of his argument gets lost in the details. He suggests that emergent mental process (the result of complex brain processes) can exert downward control on brain processes to change their automatic co Gazzaniga discusses a lot of interesting psychology and neuropsychology research that is more-or-less relevant to the question whether our apparently voluntary behavior is a product of free-will versus being the inevitable result of a chain of causes over which we have no control. Sometimes the thread of his argument gets lost in the details. He suggests that emergent mental process (the result of complex brain processes) can exert downward control on brain processes to change their automatic course and thus change the behavior that would have occurred without this downward mental control. In other words, we can make choices. Nonetheless, it is clear that our choices are heavily influenced by a complex set of interacting causes stemming from our experiences in our social environment, which influence our attitudes and beliefs and opportunities.

The most important practical application of the free-will issue concerns how we attribute responsibility for criminal actions. Political and religious conservatives tend to believe that human actions are the product of an independent, free will, and thus criminal behavior should be punished as a retribution for wrongdoing in proportion to the seriousness of the wrong. Liberals acknowledge that our choices are heavily influenced by external causes, and thus society has a responsibility to try to change and improve the conditions that are associated with criminal behavior. One aspect of this involves ensuring that criminal behavior has negative consequences. But rather than inflicting punishment as retribution for criminal behavior, the main goal of punishment should be to protect society by reducing or preventing future criminal behavior. Incarceration prevents the individual from harming society for as long as they are in prison. I would argue that in order to protect innocent people, in some cases violent criminals should be incarcerated for life, even when their crime was not murder. Psychologists and psychiatrists cannot reliably predict which criminals will or will not commit violent acts after they are released from prison. However, this argument should not be taken as justification of the death penalty. Life in prison is more humane and it is sufficient for protection of the public. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2011 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. In other words, minds interacting with minds through the social contract > the false notion of dualism or free will. Very ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 03, 2013 uosɯɐS rated it really liked it

Recommended to uosɯɐS by: Jorge Gomez

Shelves: neuro, emergence

Good book! I was expecting an overview/summary/introduction to the current state of neuroscience in regards to consciousness and free will. I did get that, but also some focus on what this means for the legal system, which was interesting but not exactly what I was looking for. Next I will have to look into Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 18, 2015 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.
"Who's in charge" gives a brief overview of recent research explaining some of the common questions about brain functioning. 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. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 13, 2012 Kevin rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

A great book. 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. Highly recommended. A fun and enlightening read. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 15, 2013 Steve rated it really liked it

Plenty to be found here that is interesting. However, it did more to convince me of a lack of free will than prove we our autonomous agents who are free to choose.

The chapter dealing with neuroscience in the courtrooms was especially interesting.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 09, 2016 Cassandra Kay Silva rated it really liked it

Shelves: psychology-sociology, science

This book didn't answer any questions about Free Will for me but I can't say it was uninteresting. I enjoyed each of his points in turn, it was worth the read as long as you are not expecting finality or a conclusion. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 28, 2020 Chris Esposo rated it really liked it · review of another edition

"Who's in Charge" is an intriguing thesis on a neuroscience theory of the modular functionality of the brain, and it is written sufficiently clear for a general audience. Gazzaniga's claim on the modular functionality is provocative. He claims that the neural matter that form the components of these “functions”, the neural network of dendrites are partitioned in space, though not all necessarily homogeneously concentrated in space, and these “functions” can be mapped to "higher order" concepts r "Who's in Charge" is an intriguing thesis on a neuroscience theory of the modular functionality of the brain, and it is written sufficiently clear for a general audience. Gazzaniga's claim on the modular functionality is provocative. He claims that the neural matter that form the components of these “functions”, the neural network of dendrites are partitioned in space, though not all necessarily homogeneously concentrated in space, and these “functions” can be mapped to "higher order" concepts recognizable by common people. These concepts include personality, including inhibitions (or lack thereof), propensities in habits, manners, or actions, and modes-of-thought etc. Gazzaniga believes these concepts arise (or ‘emerge’ in the formal sense) from these ‘modular functions’ working individually, or in concert, and that this functionality can explain "most" (or all, it's unclear what % of attribution the author claims empirically from the material here) of what most societies call agency in individual human beings, colloquially referred to as ‘free will’.

One especially interesting implication of this thesis is that individual rationalization of past-behavior is itself also a function of another “governor” mechanism, that seeks to “smooth” an otherwise (purported) discrete nature of the workings of our minds. In effect, our perception of ourselves, as individuals, is partially an illusion of this governor-function. This notion feels uncomfortably close to validating the historical “people-as-atoms” meta-concept, which had permeated the quantitative social sciences in the 20th century, manifesting most profoundly in the subject of economics.

Where the author himself falls in that debate is not clear from these writings, though he does mention some game-theoretic analysis to help explain away individual-behavior, he also mentions results from several experimental bargaining games that show that people do not achieve ‘optimal results’ predicted by the basic game theory of negotiating and bargaining (at least under controlled conditions). Though, I do think the results in some controlled-cases are closer to “theory” for certain kinds of repeated-games as observed by previous researchers like Axelrod.

Not all of the ideas are well explained or convincing (the detriments of having a short book), Like other books that involve an understanding of a biological system, and how it got the way it is, Gazzaniga leverages the notion of Darwinian selection to explain the evolution of the latent biological mechanisms that inform the operations of our “pseudo-agency” as a competitive adaptation. Yet, as many careful thinkers in this field have observed, including John Tyler Bonner, in his book “Randomness in Evolution” https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..., not all alleles or morphologies observed in nature can be understood as coming about through the selection-process first described by Darwin. In fact, many morphologies are “neutral”, arising mostly out of randomness. If that is the case however, the author’s argument that these latent machineries which are the real “cause” of many of our sociological/psychological behaviors, and not our free-will, can be seen as propitious for us (since they arise from some sequence of competitive adaption), is much less potent.

The book doesn’t just dwell on the science of this matter, however, but also goes into the ethical implications of these ideas, if found to be true or plausible. These include a description of the eponymous trolley scenario of it’s ethical dilemma, where a train-conductor must quickly make a choice to kill either one person or many, that hinges on his choice of rail-switch. This issue has since become an essential question in the subject matter of AI ethics with respect to autonomous vehicles and drone-warfare.

The book serves its purpose, which is to make one think deeper about these issues, and although I came in (and go out) more skeptical than not of these notions, I appreciate the author’s informed writings on them. An easy recommend.
...more

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Brain Science Pod...: No Gazzaniga in 2012	6	41	Dec 30, 2012 01:42PM
Brain Science Pod...: BSP 82: Review of Who's in Charge?	26	36	Jun 24, 2012 01:05PM
Past Episodes	1	5	Mar 08, 2012 02:55PM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Psychology

192 users

Science

185 users

Nonfiction

145 users

Biology > Neuroscience

116 users

Philosophy

82 users

Neuroscience > Brain

23 users

Science > Biology

13 users

Audiobook

8 users

Science > Popular Science

7 users

Self Help

5 users

See top shelves…

About Michael S. Gazzaniga

Michael S. Gazzaniga

299 followers

Michael S. Gazzaniga, one of the premiere doctors of neuroscience, was born on December 12, 1939 in Los Angeles. Educated at Dartmouth College and California Institute of Technology, he is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he heads the new SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind.

His early research examined the subject of epileptics who had undergone surg ...more

Books by Michael S. Gazzaniga

Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique

Tales from Both Sides of the Brain: A Life in Neuroscience

The Ethical Brain: The Science of Our Moral Dilemmas

The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind

More…

Goodreads' Staff Recommends Their Favorite Audiobooks

Listen up, because our colleagues here at Goodreads have some excellent audiobook recommendations for you! Of course, the books they've...

Trivia About Who's in Charge? ...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Who's in Charge?:...

“Chaos doesn’t mean that the system is behaving randomly, it means that it is unpredictable because it has many variables, it is too complex to measure, and even if it could be measured, theoretically the measurement cannot be done accurately and the tiniest inaccuracy would change the end result an enormous amount.” — 6 likes

“Baruch Spinoza, who said, “There is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity.” — 4 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga

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

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Michael S. Gazzaniga

Books by Michael S. Gazzaniga

Related Articles

Trivia About Who's in Charge? ...

Quotes from Who's in Charge?:...

See a Problem?

Preview — Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain by Michael S. Gazzaniga

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

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Michael S. Gazzaniga

Books by Michael S. Gazzaniga

Related Articles

Trivia About Who's in Charge? ...

Quotes from Who's in Charge?:...

new topic
Discuss This Book