The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness
- Downloads：5012
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-05-31 10:51:40
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Mark Solms
- ISBN：0393542017
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
For Mark Solms， one of the boldest thinkers in contemporary neuroscience， discovering how consciousness comes about has been a lifetime’s quest。 Scientists consider it the "hard problem" because it seems an impossible task to understand why we feel a subjective sense of self and how it arises in the brain。
Venturing into the elementary physics of life， Solms has now arrived at an astonishing answer。 In The Hidden Spring， he brings forward his discovery in accessible language and graspable analogies。
Solms is a frank and fearless guide on an extraordinary voyage from the dawn of neuropsychology and psychoanalysis to the cutting edge of contemporary neuroscience， adhering to the medically provable。 But he goes beyond other neuroscientists by paying close attention to the subjective experiences of hundreds of neurological patients， many of whom he treated， whose uncanny conversations expose much about the brain’s obscure reaches。
Most importantly， you will be able to recognize the workings of your own mind for what they really are， including every stray thought， pulse of emotion， and shift of attention。 The Hidden Spring will profoundly alter your understanding of your own subjective experience。
Venturing into the elementary physics of life， Solms has now arrived at an astonishing answer。 In The Hidden Spring， he brings forward his discovery in accessible language and graspable analogies。
Solms is a frank and fearless guide on an extraordinary voyage from the dawn of neuropsychology and psychoanalysis to the cutting edge of contemporary neuroscience， adhering to the medically provable。 But he goes beyond other neuroscientists by paying close attention to the subjective experiences of hundreds of neurological patients， many of whom he treated， whose uncanny conversations expose much about the brain’s obscure reaches。
Most importantly， you will be able to recognize the workings of your own mind for what they really are， including every stray thought， pulse of emotion， and shift of attention。 The Hidden Spring will profoundly alter your understanding of your own subjective experience。
Reviews
Christopher Madsen
，
In his discussion of conscienceness Solms deftly moves from science， philosophy， and even skirts into the mystical。 He is both reductive and universal in his explanations。 He does not dumb down the science or concepts which makes for very dense prose at times。 It has me thinking on a whole new level about what makes me a sentient being。
Elbrackeen Brackeen
，
To paraphrase a favorite movie quote: Sometimes you just have to let the science flow over you。
Barry Karlsson
，
SwedishNeuropsykoanalys & neurofilosofi & empiriI början av 2000-talet fick Mark Solms och Oliver Turnbull internationell uppmärksamhet med boken "The Brain and the Inner World" （på svenska ”Hjärnan och vår den inre världen”）， som var en syntes mellan neuropsykologi och psykoanalys = neuropsykoanalys。Nu är Solms tillbaka med en fördjupning på samma tema。 Jag har läst den nyligen publicerade ”The Hidden Spring” där han utifrån en fenomenologisk och neuropsykologisk teori argumenterar att människa SwedishNeuropsykoanalys & neurofilosofi & empiriI början av 2000-talet fick Mark Solms och Oliver Turnbull internationell uppmärksamhet med boken "The Brain and the Inner World" （på svenska ”Hjärnan och vår den inre världen”）， som var en syntes mellan neuropsykologi och psykoanalys = neuropsykoanalys。Nu är Solms tillbaka med en fördjupning på samma tema。 Jag har läst den nyligen publicerade ”The Hidden Spring” där han utifrån en fenomenologisk och neuropsykologisk teori argumenterar att människans intentionella och prediktiva system inte uppstår i cortex utan i pons， i övre delen av hjärnstammen och VTA， där det retikulära aktiverings-systemet är startmotorn för medvetande och， för att tala med Panksepp med som ett SEEKING-system， medan PFC organiserar och styr upp alla dessa medvetet upplevda impulser （feelings）。 Det som är extra intressant är prediktionsfelen i dessa energiflöden; framförallt ur ett inhibitions- och uppmärksamhetsperspektiv。Han är， även om han inte helt avvisar det， delvis kritisk till strikta top-down modeller såsom "high-order-theory" （HOT） á la Joseph LeDoux och Elisabeth Phelbs。 Och han ger sig ut på en neurofilosofisk vandring med bland andra David Chalmers och Thomas Nagel och diskuterar dualism och the hard problem och essentiella emotioner （dvs basic emotions， typ rädsla， ilska， glädje。。。）。 Hans ingång går delvis på tvärs med Lisa Feldman Barrett's emotionsbegrepp， även om han inte avvisar vare sig konceptualism， konstruktivism eller interoception， så anlägger han helt egna aspekter över vilka de neuroanatomiska korrelaten är som styr upp vad känslor egentligen är。Efter en lång upptakt i boken med en ojämn redovisning av olika emotionsteorier， neuroanatomiska korrelat och psykoanalys， så diskuterar han balansgången mellan entropi och homeostas - mellan sönderfall och balans – detta i ljuset av intentionalitet att vilja och vara och finnas i världen: vad är det att vara människa？ Detta sätts i ett neurofilosofiskt sammanhang med prediktionsteorier á la Andy Clark， och Karl Friston’s teori om ”fri energi”， och med en statistisk djupdykning i Bayes sannolikhetskalkyler， som enligt Solms resonemang har direkt bäring på just medvetande och riktad uppmärksamhet （resting state och salience network） och vad som händer när något， även trivialt， motiverande uppenbarar sig och som vi måste förhålla oss till med emotionella reaktioner för överlevnad och med medvetet upplevda känslor。Han avslutar boken med en närmast reduktionistisk utvikning kring artificiellt medvetande och säger att han bytt uppfattning att det han tidigare ansåg omöjligt att olika materiella media skulle kunna utveckla självmedvetande， så varför inte ett framtida AI-system， som nödvändigtvis inte behöver vara biologiskt？FREUDNär Sigmund Freud startade sitt projekt för en vetenskaplig psykologi i slutet av 1800-talet var idén att skapa en naturvetenskap psykologi för att upptäcka de neurala mekanismerna för mänskligt beteende。 Hans teorier hade en lång vetenskapsfilosofisk tradition som byggde på praktisk filosofi och akademiskt teoretiserande snarare än på empiri – en tradition till vilken Freud anslöt sig， dock med reservationen att han sade sig prova och fann stöd för teorierna i behandling。 Validiteten， replikerbarhet och låg falsifierbarhet i hans omfattande spekulativa begreppsbildning har alltid varit en akilleshäl och föremål för omfattande kritik， inte minst från Karl Popper。Freuds förslag om kopplingen mellan undermedvetna minnen och den synaptiska klyftan och senare hans psykologiska teoribygge var dock en kreativ （men på den tiden ännu en spekulativ idé） om en fysiologiskt neural konstruktion av medvetande。 Ur ett neuroperspektiv kan Freuds bidrag historiskt sett inte överskattas。 Han pekade på hjärnan， men främst cortex， som ursprunget till psykisk ohälsa。 Och han funderade över om det i den synaptiska klyftan fanns källan till minnet， och om synapsförbindelser i själva verket beskrev utvecklingen av psykisk sjukdom。Att studera de relativt nyupptäckta nervcellerna var vid slutet av 1800-talet ett pionjärarbete。 Nobelpristagaren 1906 spanjoren Santiago Ramón y Cajal （1852–1934） hade tidigt under 1880-90 talen visat att hippocampus var en särskilt viktig struktur för minne， och det var rimligt att också utforska hippocampus i mer cellulära termer。I sina böcker och texte för Mark Solms resonemangen vidare och knyter samman högre kognitiva funktioner såsom styrfunktioner av tänkande， problemlösning， inhibitions-förmåga， tal- och språkförmåga， episodiskt minne， symboliseringsförmåga – med jagkänsla och personlighets-aspekter （ego）。 Lagringsfunktioner， såsom arbetsminne， och perception knyts ihop med basal medvetenhet och omedvetenhet。 Startfunktioner således med det retikulära systemet， som knyts samman med salience network， det vill säga riktad uppmärksamhet， vakenhet， medvetande och drömmar。 Det emotionella systemet binds samman med driftskomponenter och limbiska korrelat。 Och frontallobs-skador med sänkt exekutiv förmåga， förlorad initiativ-förmåga， skadad integritetskänsla， bristande hämningar， ansvarslöshet， hänsynslöshet och motorisk rastlöshet。 Eller att vissa personlighetsstörningar har likheter med vissa prefrontala skador。 Och att ”bortträngning” är fenomen som i vissa avseenden går att förena med hotsituationer och molekylär rekonsolidering eller aspekter av vissa högersidiga hjärnskador; etc。Solms är väl medveten om validitetsproblemet i den tidiga psykoanalytiska teoribildningen， med problem som till exempel medvetandets funktion och dess neuroanatomiska korrelat: Var sitter ”medvetandet”？ Vad är ursprunget till ”jagupplevelsen”？ var frågor som inte den mest strukturerade observationsmetodik tidigare kunde besvara， skriver Solms， men i The Hidden Spring lutar han ändå åt att medvetandefunktioner har sitt fäste i övre Pons och VTA。Andra områden som kritiserats är de psykoanalytiska påståendena att felhandlingar har en drift-skuld-konflikt-bakgrund， eller att drömmar har något att säga om det ”omedvetna”。 Här försöker nu de nya neuropsyko-analytikerna med Solms i spetsen att vederlägga studier av bland andra Jouvet på 1960-talet och Hobson och McCarley på 1970-talet， som menade att drömmar och REM-sömn var sidoeffekter av hjärnstamsfunktioner och helt enkelt bara var att likna vid en neurologisk artefakt， och att man därför borde utesluta teorier om högre cerebralt styrda kognitiva funktioner， och att drömmandet därmed är en slags neural restprodukt。Hobsons och McCarleys forskning och kritik var ett av bidragen till den upptornande krisen inom psykoanalytiska rörelsen som ledde fram till den berömda konferensen inom amerikanska psykiatriska förbundet， APA， år 1976， där man med en omröstning direkt ifrågasatte drömmen som en ”kungsväg till det omedvetna”。Idag visar Solms’ studier åter att drömfenomenet är betydligt mer neuroanatomiskt komplext än vad som fanns kunskap på 70-talet。Dagens fMRI-forskning visar， enligt Solms， att det finns ett samband mellan kärnor i pons – som agerar startmotor och tycks fungera som en slags drömgenerator – och söksystemet i prefrontala cortex， som styr tankeinnehållet i drömprocessen。Inom neuropsykoanalysen talas ännu i linje med Freuds hypotes om förträngda minnen att dessa tillstånd skapas vid en konflikt där individen en gång inte kunde hantera eller härbärgera smärtan som mellan två disparata behov eller krav， exempelvis ett överlevnadsmässigt behov av anknyt-ning till en psykiskt våldsam förälder， utan dolde detta både för sig själv och för omgivningen med hjälp av glömska （förträngning） av det illavarslande hotande objektet （den lynnige föräldern） eller projektion av egna impulser till någon annan。 Delar av dessa fenomen beskrivs inom KBT och Aaron Beck som ”dysfunktionella tankar” och beskriver i princip samma fenomen men med en annan teoretisk ram。Freuds metod att närma sig dessa frågor var via den fria associationen。 Hans tidiga modell var att tankar var konstruerade via neurala nätverk， där ena tanken eller associationen kunde leda till nästa i en hierarki av nätverk。 Detta var i början av mikroskopin och man hade nyligen upptäckt hjärncellernas neurala struktur och med en stark tysk empiris forskning med Wundts introspektiva metod i spetsen， var Freud en del av denna tidiga form av neuropsykologi。Psykoanalys beskrivs ibland som ett långsiktigt förändringsarbete som påverkar personens förhållningssätt och förmåga att adaptivt bättre och bättre balansera mellan stabilitet och flexibilitet i olika komplexa situationer。 Det är inte katharsis， eller den plötsliga psykiska befrielsen som är den primära upplevelsen， utan den gradvisa， nästan omärkliga， uppdateringen av minnen som avtäcks lager för lager。En illustration till detta är Anton Ehrenzweig som skrev i boken The Hidden Order of Art hur det undermedvetna var som skiktade strukturer， såsom arkeologiska avlagringar， och han spekulerade i att fysik och psykologi kunde， som hos en konstnärs kreativa process mötas och återupptäcka och bearbeta gamla upplevelser och minnen i ett nytt sammanhang， i ett nytt skimrande ljus – eller mörker。。。 Det psykoanalytiskt karakteristiska repetitiva återvändande samtalet till associativa minnen， är komponenter av tekniker som antingen oavsiktligt eller intuitivt， inte ligger långt från olika metoder för minnesrekonsolidering。 Detta är tankar som på 2010-talet åter lyfts av Eric Kandel i hans båda böcker The Age of Insight och Reductionism in Art and Brain Science。 。。。more
Morgan Blackledge
，
Oh boy。Summarizing this one on GR feels like rendering the sistine chapel on a postage stamp。 The book is a swinging from the fences summary of a massive， sprawling， audacious theory。Summarizing it further is going to be a challenge。 Plus…。Theres a WHOLE lot of it I just don’t actually completely fuckin’ understand。 And I’m 100% not going to re-read this monster。Not for a while anyway。 As much as I loved it。 Mostly because I’m uncertain about some of the claims。As I mentioned， Solms ‘swings from Oh boy。Summarizing this one on GR feels like rendering the sistine chapel on a postage stamp。 The book is a swinging from the fences summary of a massive， sprawling， audacious theory。Summarizing it further is going to be a challenge。 Plus…。Theres a WHOLE lot of it I just don’t actually completely fuckin’ understand。 And I’m 100% not going to re-read this monster。Not for a while anyway。 As much as I loved it。 Mostly because I’m uncertain about some of the claims。As I mentioned， Solms ‘swings from the fences’ in his theory of consciousness。Meaning， he BOLDLY goes for the whole enchilada on a HARD problem。Namely， the hard problem of consciousness。So caution is advised。Plus his theory is a bit outside of the current paradigm。 Which could be good。 Time （and the peer review process） will be the judge。 The basic claim is really simple:1。 Consciousness is a natural phenomena， that is emergent from evolutionarily conditioned biological substrates， and is ultimately wholly describable in physical terms。That part is not original or all that controversial。 Lost of （most） experts in the field of consciousness studies hold to this opinion。Including Sir Francis Crick。 After he co-discovered DNA he went into consciousness studies。 In his 1994 book， the Astonishing Hypothesis he made the claim that the entirety of conscious phenomena is an emergent property of the brain （i。e。 souls and ghosts don't exist， just brains and nature）。This position， sometimes referred to as monism （as opposed to dualism）， denies the duality between matter and consciousness。 In other words， there is only one reality， not two。 Anything and everything （how ever magical， including consciousness and thoughts and feelings and the like） must have a naturalistic， physical basis and （ostensibly） explanation。 Even if we don’t currently know what that explanation is。 Most scientists and serious intellectuals are monist。And more and more regular folks are monist too。 I know I am。 But some （legitimate thinkers and researchers） believe that consciousness is not reducible to physicality or subject to material explanations。 This is essentially the dualist perspective。 Mind and matter are two separate things。 Mind is not reducible to material substrates。Mind is a ‘non-physical’ phenomena。 Philosophers including Thomas Naglel and David Chalmers are skeptical regarding some or all of the monistic position， arguing that explaining consciousness in terms of it’s neuro-corelates is the “easy problem”， but explaining how （exactly） those mechanisms give rise to the phenomenological experience of being。。。now that’s the “hard problem” of consciousness。Solms does a stupendous job of reviewing and clarifying Chalmers position on the Hard Problem of Consciousness， and by the way。。。 HE CALIMS TO HAVE SOLVED IT。Yep。You heard me right。Solms claims to have solved the hard problem of consciousness。 If this is true， then he will be regarded in the future along side figures like Newton or Einstein。 Thats the main reason why I’m guarded about some of his claims。 They are intergalactic in their epicness。 Anyway。Another claim Solms makes is:2。 Consciousness is fundamentally affective （not cognitive） in nature， and as such， is emergent from deep brain structures （e。g。 the brain stem， or more precisely the periaqueductal gray） as opposed to neocortical regions。Meaning， consciousness （at its most basic） is more about feelings than thoughts。That one is somewhat more of a minority position， but Solms is not alone。 His good company includes， to name a few: （a） Jaak Panksap， the brilliant， maverick affective neuroscientist who is perhaps most well known to the general pubic as the guy who tickles rats for research purposes， and （b） Antonio Damassio， another superstar in the field of affective neuroscience， most well known for his breakthrough 1994 book Descartes Error。A lot （maybe most） researchers assume cognitive functions are responsible for consciousness。 I have to admit， I was fairly seduced by Solm’s （affect=consciousness） argument。It's pretty convincing。 So…。Another one of Solms claims is:3。 Subjectivity is important to study scientifically。That one might sound like a no duh。 But the way Solms explores the issue is novel and profound。I’m here for it。 Another one of Solms claims is:4。 Consciousness is governed via the Friston free-energy principle。 This is where the book gets opaque for me。 The free energy principle is complicated。But here goes。 The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward entropy （lukewarm， dead， undifferentiated slag） in the long term。Friston’s free energy principle asserts that all life， from bacteria to human brains are governed by the common imperative to resist entropy by minimizing “free energy”。Or， stated in another way， living things seek to minimize differences between their evolutionarily conditioned “expectations” and their current conditions （which tend toward chaos and entropy）。If all of that Fristoniean stuff sounds kind of wanky， it’s because its technical proxy language for what is better represented in mathematical equations。 Or so I’m told…I should have payed attention in high school。 By the way。 If you’re exhausted by now。I completely understand。 I am too。Solms is kind of a beast。 And if this review is a hot mess， and it is。 I have to say。So is the book。But in the good way。 And it gets even wilder。In addition to being a brilliant neuropsychologist， Solms is a formally trained， practicing Neo-Freudian psychoanalyst （which is really unusual now-a-days）。In fact he’s pimping his own brand of psychoanalysis called （you guessed it） Neuro-psychoanalysis which adapts and modernizes psychoanalytic constructs and practices based on contemporary neuroscience， particularly affective neuroscience。If all of this is a little too much。I feel you。 I’m staying poolside until the water is a little less brown。 But I have to admit。 I’m excited for someone to snatch the jewel out of the psychoanalytic dungheap。There is so much of value in the psychoanalytic tradition。It would be great if someone （necessarily smarter and more energetic than me） could clarify， modernize and revive it。Additionally， it would be great if someone solved （or at least made progress on） the hard problem of consciousness。 If Solms can do one or both。 Then power to him。I’m just not 100% sure he's done either based on what I’m reading。I simply haven't invested enough of my free energy into understanding a few of his claims。None the less， this is an exciting and thought provoking book。And Solms is a beyond brilliant and way ballsy dude。 Mad respect。 5 stars。 。。。more
Phil Herbert
，
Excellent！ I don’t know enough of the science to refute any of the author’s arguments， but the core theory is presented in a way that gradually sinks in over the course of the book， and you’re left with a much clearer mental model of the function of consciousness。It’s uber-dense， so absolutely not for the faint of heart。 Starting with thermodynamics， we arrive - surprisingly easily - at a qualified and agentic subjectivity， one whose most urgent priorities are weighed for a moment， felt， and the Excellent！ I don’t know enough of the science to refute any of the author’s arguments， but the core theory is presented in a way that gradually sinks in over the course of the book， and you’re left with a much clearer mental model of the function of consciousness。It’s uber-dense， so absolutely not for the faint of heart。 Starting with thermodynamics， we arrive - surprisingly easily - at a qualified and agentic subjectivity， one whose most urgent priorities are weighed for a moment， felt， and then transformed with （one hopes） due circumspection into ongoing action。 That， I submit， is what it is like to be anything that there is something it is like to be。 [！！！！] 。。。more
Mike Defreitas
，
I was with Solms for a good part of the book where he explains the subcortical origin of consciousness， but seeing early on that he was ultimately attempting to "prove" that "consciousness is engineerable"， I could not help but roll my eyes again and again。Ok， so what's the problem with this frankly balderdash idea？ Well， the ridiculous claim that reality is at root quantitative - all numbers， 0s and 1s。 The author tries to pass this off as it is not a contestable idea， but it purely is。 Philoso I was with Solms for a good part of the book where he explains the subcortical origin of consciousness， but seeing early on that he was ultimately attempting to "prove" that "consciousness is engineerable"， I could not help but roll my eyes again and again。Ok， so what's the problem with this frankly balderdash idea？ Well， the ridiculous claim that reality is at root quantitative - all numbers， 0s and 1s。 The author tries to pass this off as it is not a contestable idea， but it purely is。 Philosophically， there is no being - no subjectivity - to determinate the reality of a 0 and 1 universe。 There is simply force; energy; change。 In fact， one could better see that as a qualiative reality， rather than the reverse。Second， because of this bias towards the impersonal numberness of reality， Solms interprets phenomenal experience as "really" a bunch of 00011110 that the brain is "computing"。 But this is patently absurd。 He is putting all the work on the brains end and acting like you can have a phenomenal experience without a continuous tensegrity of structure moving from the sun， to the earth， to the objects which refract light in certain wavelengths。 Again， its a pure solipstistic Freudian bias to see this as a one-part process， and not inherently contrapuntal - point-counterpoint。 You cannot have phenomenal experience without light; the electromagnetic energy in the external environment is as much "shaping" the world to be seen as the nervous systems regulatory dynamics are correlating its patterns with that world。 The phenomenal experience then should be interpreted as emergent; as entailing both sides of the equation。 This idea gets emphasis in Thomas Fuchs "The Ecology of the Brain" where he rightly recognizes that the brains projections， or pejoratively， "hallucinations"， are actually about what is actually out there - its constantly about being aligned with the real-life effects of real objects。 The sunflower seeds I'm eating are really there; as is the oatmeal， as is the table。 The entire world is not an arbitrary construction; even if the brain is "modelling" the informational streams， it is not willnilly "constructing" it。 It is absolutely correlated to the reality of the Real; what it 'represents' is the gestalt of what is essentially needed to survive。 This means the arrow - seeing the brain can only be understood in terms of the dialectical contrapuntal flows between organism and world， and therefore， in terms of origin of life research and cell behavior - is really outward-inwards; the inwards-outwards "expectation" is always just following what the world has already told it; what the world has 'granted' it vis-a-vis what keeps its metabolic structures moving forward。This conception of unity course goes against the hyperbolic and frankly promethean fantasies of Karl Friston and the the other AI obsessed cohorts of cognitive science， but that is because their motivation as scientists isn't purely scientific: they're more technologists trying to 'recreate' consciousness - ala Frankenstein， than philosophically honest thinkers。 If Solms were to be completely honest with his readers， he'd admit that he is subscribing to an affectless image of the cosmos where 'pure numbers' somehow sit about waiting to be found by humans。 He adopts John Wheelers vantage point of a participatory universe， but one can't help but wonder what this really means; how can humans discover some transcendental number domain - how can such a domain be real without some sort of transcendental 'revelation' as to the ontological primacy of such numbers？ If you admit to this religious bias， fine。 All is dandy。 But I think a person seeking more objectivity would be interested in the facts of such a persons development， which in Solms case could not be anymore problematic: a German colony in Namibia owned by de-beers diamond company？ Does that sound like a healthy developmental context able to produce the type of 'mood' - or sensitivity to the 'otherness' of the world outside you - that my critique is based in？ Given the cultural context and pernicious racism/classism of that period of time， and the irreversible affects on the persons mood - core affecting 'knowing' about the world around him， that is， recognizing that day-to-day relations in such a colony would have made his parents hardened and cold to the perception of human suffering， an effect that wouldn't be 'contained' towards blacks， but would have become generalized in the relations to their children （the author admits that his dad was affectless; almost seeming to imply that the author has reached the right level of affective awareness）。 Thus， in other words， we perceive the world through the very processes Solms so expertly describes in his book。 Our values precede us; we're enculturated and enframed by the others who install their experience of 'being' - their values - in us。 And since I consider that developmental context which shaped Solms （and is in other ways behind the lives of so many schizoid scientists） to be a perversion of true human nature - that is， with the the ontogenetical primacy of love - and with that rejection Freuds one person emphasis in his theory of human personality as well as the predictive coding paradigms （not the idea that organisms predict， or project， the meaning of a prospective signal） obsession with the 'engineerability' of mind， I must reject Solms reasoning on the grounds of an ontological nihilism （or nominalism） that has its roots in the contextual effect on a human beings development。This oversight is glaring in Solms work， where he gives essentially short-shrift to the processes of psychological development。 How exactly is this book an example of 'neuropsychoanalysis'？ Nothing truly human and complex is spoken about。 It's really just an effort to push a promethean fantasy about the engineerability of consciousness。 Just a few moments ago I was basking in the beautiful sun in the backyard， soaking up its rays。 How does my consciousness of this experience 'fit' within the predictive processing paradigm？ Even better; my nephew comes outside。 I look at him; he's 3 years old; I feel awe that just 2 years ago he was an infant。 This year he can actually go out and enjoy the world - discover the world， on his own two legs。 What is this awe I'm experiencing？ And how come this awe triggers in me a gratitude - a love - for being able to perceive this， and bear witness to the beauty of being？ How does the so-called "zombied" default that our bodies are really seek jibe with this description of my experience？ I am certainly conscious of this awe; I am certainly conscious of this love - this gratitude。 And contrary to what Solms thinks， there is nothing exhausting or tiring about it。 It is quite the reverse: it is an enormously efficient and proficient way to relate to the signals around you。 If anything - if one could look at the world in a positivistic sense， it would be that the predictive paradigms correlation - or rather， Solms correlation - between consciousness and "precision" is all about leading to this understanding - to this sensibility of ones existential and ontological unity with the Other。 Clearly， of course， this is not the philosophical presupposition that Solms 'mood' provides him with。 He perhaps doesn't ascribe - probably because he doesn't experience very deeply - the sort of meaning that I'm describing here。 The interplay between the awe that an existential awareness of an external object elicits （my nephew）; and the subsequent melding of this awe with a deep love - a gratitude， a joy in being-with-the-other。 To nurture them。 To bear witness to their Being。Ok。 Since this phenomenological and therefore philosophical sensibility is not present， the issue becomes， how can you engineer consciousness without using the same materials evolution has used？ This consideration exposes the fantastical nature of the whole enterprise。 In "A World Beyond Physics"， Stuart Kauffman notes that the universe beyond the 92 elements of the periodic table is non-ergodic - not ergodic， as the authors sacred "consciousness equation" has it。 That is， the ergodicity or nonergodicity of consciousness is not a question of whether the "gist" of what an organism does to stay consciousness can be "collapsed" into a formula， but whether it is thermodynamically workable。 Life is living because it can die。 If you want to make consciousness， you would first have to engineer life。 And as the author of Equations of Life Charles Cockell notes， you cannot make living beings without carbon: silicon will simply not do。 It does not possess the properties that carbon does。So， where does this leave the authors theory about the engineerability of consciousness？ Let me go one by one through his theory。 More or less， he doesn't think a system needs to be intrinsically thermodynamic in the sense that carbon-based organisms are。 The mongrel-demon creature Solms and his friends have in mind would work like this: first， it would 'fight against thermodynamics' through silicon; instead of seeking food to exist like all living organisms do， it would seek electricity - presumably， electrical outlets。 They would thus need to 'build into' the machine the need to reenergize itself; but this would require a 'fatigue' detector; a 'pain detector' that could keep track of damages。 Solms then makes the imaginative jump to seeing this as forming the ground of an 'anxiety' detector; Fully in idealization mode now， Solms then says that such machines would then form bonds with other machines like it - and so 'care' will emerge。 Think of how makeshift and unseemly this entire process is。 Only a person who has spent some time studying origin of life research and understands the insurmountable complexities researchers in this field have had in generating a self-reproducing autopoietic systems can look at this intellectual charade and wonder what kind of being - if such a being could exist - would be。 First， it wouldn't truly be thermodynamic because unlike in real creatures， where each cell is literally a homeostat that us synergistically integrated with the functioning of an autonomic nervous system which hierarchically responds to the bodies parameters and then adjusts its parameters to meet the bodies needs， this machine-bot creature would not have parts that are operating in such a way; it would have detectors external to the silicon chips that 'read' its states; this differs fundamentally from life insofar as living beings like bacteria and unicellular organisms - in short， organisms without nervous systems - have long been living and acting 'cognitively' withoout recourse to any external neuronal regulation of its energy needs。 Nervous systems are emergent properties of living systems; the 'information processing' they supposedly do are ineluctably guided by the thermodynamics intrinsic to every atom， molecule and cell which makes up the system。 Furthermore， and even more to the derangement motivating such scientists， living organisms with nervous systems have evolved in a milieu - in an ecological context - which has enabled it to progress in its evolution。 Without the inherent compatibility between inner and outer - between the nucleic acids for instance， that living organisms like ourselves continuously receive from external sources like bacteria and viruses， we wouldn't be viable。 We are living because of the invisible network of interpenetration that subsists between organisms with nervous systems and the biotic environment overall。 The author cites experiments which show that because a few hundred or so neurons can be replaced with a computer chip that sends radio waves to receiving neurons， that the whole system can in turn be replaced in exactly just a way。 But this in no way follows。 Just because a very small portion of a house can be replaced with silly puddy without compromising the stability of the house doesn't imply that you can keep doing that。 Phase transitions and thresholds are fundamental to how nature operates。 The author also says nothing about follow ups about this experiment？ How long does this 'replacement' silicon chip last？ Is there any damage to surrounding tissues given that our cells have not evolved with reference to errant radio waves？ The experiment also deals with the most technically manageable part of the nervous system: motor neurons。 And not just that， the nervous system is composed of 86 billion neurons。 Its astonishing that so paltry a number could be replaced and the author could then go on to claim that this "proves in principle" that you could replace all neurons with silicon chips without problems。 The arrogance is astounding。 Imagine the problems that would inevitably arise at each juncture。 It's like jenga; take out one piece and the system begins to wobble; take out more and even though you're putting in 'silicon' chips， such chips didn't have billions upon billion of years of adaptive assimilation to reduce errors。 The goal， essentially， is to match with computers and silicon what nature could go within with carbon。 But to do this， - or rather， to pursue this promethean fantasy - at the expense of the natural world and the environment at large， given what kind of resources would be required to keep such an artificial enterprise going （science and technology today feeds off the surplus created by the neoliberal economy; Solms thinking evidently doesn't go that far）。 。。。more
Jon Simpkins
，
A bit too long and too focused on landing a theory that others will reference， but some truly fascinating ideas and insights along the way
Cari
，
Wow， so much to think about here。 Fuller review to come at some point， perhaps after I have tracked down some of the primary sources。 For now I will say I am probably one of the more sympathetic readers of these theories you could imagine （psychoanalytic psychotherapist and Bayesian statistician， familiar with the information theoretic concepts used here）， and I am intrigued but not convinced。
Joseph Patterson
，
The title is not misleading - this is a journey， not the answer。 I appreciate the framework， and sometimes only scaffolding， that Solms lays out in a way that allows the reader to understand current research on consciousness while also putting previous work in a refreshing context。 I especially enjoyed the interpretation of Freud's original intentions in his own pursuit of understanding consciousness。 I felt like the direct quotations from Chalmers' work were excessive near the end and did not a The title is not misleading - this is a journey， not the answer。 I appreciate the framework， and sometimes only scaffolding， that Solms lays out in a way that allows the reader to understand current research on consciousness while also putting previous work in a refreshing context。 I especially enjoyed the interpretation of Freud's original intentions in his own pursuit of understanding consciousness。 I felt like the direct quotations from Chalmers' work were excessive near the end and did not add much to the model of consciousness that Solms described。 Overall， I learned a lot and recommend the book - although， admittedly， I may be suffering from a confirmation bias of my own imaginings that our brains are like many layers of an onion。 The hidden layers don't have the vocabulary that we use to convey information with others （such as this review） but they do have the ability to talk to the other layers through emotions， changes in heart rate， a triggering of high alertness， "automatic" responses to pain or attraction， etc。 You are far more than a running dialogue in your own mind - the dialogue is much like the words written on paper to make the book。 Physically， the ink of those words is a facade， a thin layer that is intended to capture and relate meaning。 The ink would have no ground to stand on， and no meaning， without the substrate。 。。。more
William Fietzer
，
An excellent if challenging read。 Solms uses his 30-year background as a practicing neuro-psychiatrist and researcher to substantiate the primacy of feelings and emotions as the well-spring of human consciousness。 Innovative and insightful on many levels， his detailed and heavily-annotated analysis of how and why people behave as they do might put off behaviorists， anti-Freudians， and those unused to plowing through professional jargon and terminology， but is well worth the effort。
Mark
，
Hard work on the Hard ProblemTackling the immensely difficult subject of what really is consciousness， is described by scientists as the Hard Problem。 Solms clearly adds tremendous value to the topic， however I thought the book was aimed at the non-scientific general public， like me， and some of it clearly was。 Then came chapter 6 onwards and I was so lost。 I would recommend the book with that caveat。 I。 feel better informed for having tackled it， but glad its over！
Richard
，
The Hidden Spring; A Journey To The Source Of Consciousness by Mark Solms asserts that “The fundamental form of consciousness is not something cognitive， like vision; rather， it is something affective。” “In order to solve the hard problem of consciousness， science needs to discern the laws governing the mental function of ‘feeling’。”Do you wonder about consciousness？ Do you ponder what the “you” is when “you” interact with others？ In a very close relationship there is the “you” and the “them” bu The Hidden Spring; A Journey To The Source Of Consciousness by Mark Solms asserts that “The fundamental form of consciousness is not something cognitive， like vision; rather， it is something affective。” “In order to solve the hard problem of consciousness， science needs to discern the laws governing the mental function of ‘feeling’。”Do you wonder about consciousness？ Do you ponder what the “you” is when “you” interact with others？ In a very close relationship there is the “you” and the “them” but what is the same and what is different？ Have you ever pondered René Descartes “Cogito， ergo sum” （I think therefore I am）？ As Blood， Sweat， and Tears said so eloquently， “And when I die， and when I'm dead， dead and gone。 there'll be one child born， in our world to carry on” but what are they carrying on and where did I go？In the past few decades neurologists have lots of new ways to probe and chart the human mind。 They have X-Rays， EEGs， CAT Scans， and fMRIs。 They have charted parts of the brain that seem to do most of the processing for hearing， seeing， and smelling but consciousness is a bit more elusive。 One of the leading ideas is that the cerebrum， with its cerebral cortex， gives us conscious control of our actions， i。e。 consciousness。 However， Solms have a very different idea。After getting his degrees in Neuropsychology， Solms went back to become a certified Psychoanalyst。 While working with patients with severe neurological problems， Solms decided that consciousness （a） has to include emotions and emotional responses and （b） that it “lives” in a much deeper and more primitive part of the brain。In the past few years I have been reading a lot of books about consciousness。 Many of these focus on surgical treatment of epilepsy。 Sometimes a doctor has to cut the Corpus Callosum （the bundle of nerve fibers that connects the two cerebral hemispheres） or cut out parts of the Cerebral Cortex in order to stop life threatening seizures。 Working with these patients as well as with cases of children born with hydrocephalus， where the body makes more cerebrospinal fluid than the brain can absorb resulting in a shrunken cerebral cortex， Solms demonstrates that there are other places in the brain where the “self” exists。One of the more interesting parts of this book is where Solm ponders that idea of computer consciousness。 This is an entirely different concept that computer intelligence。 Anyone who has been on Twitter knows that one does not have to be intelligent to be conscious。 Solm ponders both the creation of computers with consciousness as well as the moral issues involved。Solms is an excellent writer。 He gives many examples from his cases and his own life to illustrate his points。 He uses “common language” and tries to avoid a lot of Latin and medical terms。 He goes to great lengths to spell out his colleagues ideas and how he has taken a different path。I wish I could say I understood all of what Solms explains in his book but parts were just too big a stretch for me to grasp。 That does not mean that I did not enjoy reading this book or that I did not learn anything from it。 To the contrary， it was one of the most illuminating books on consciousness I have read so far。 I am merely pointing out that this is not a light read but it is definitely an interesting book and I highly recommend it if you have an interest in exploring the concept of consciousness。 。。。more
Ʀaðǫ ʦwetkǫf
，
Clearly written and easy to follow for everyone acquainted with the field。
Paige McLoughlin
，
I am neuro-divergent and by definition， I have an anomalous brain but I am conscious。 My neocortex is probably malformed as a schizophrenic。 I am not complaining I got off easy。 I went to college， I can hold down a job and speak and write with a passably articulate style。 Yet I know my brain isn't right。 Yet I am conscious maybe altered consciousness but conscious nonetheless。 Anyway， my hunch due to personal experience is that consciousness arises in many types of brains and widely shared in th I am neuro-divergent and by definition， I have an anomalous brain but I am conscious。 My neocortex is probably malformed as a schizophrenic。 I am not complaining I got off easy。 I went to college， I can hold down a job and speak and write with a passably articulate style。 Yet I know my brain isn't right。 Yet I am conscious maybe altered consciousness but conscious nonetheless。 Anyway， my hunch due to personal experience is that consciousness arises in many types of brains and widely shared in the animal kingdom far down the chain of being。 Seeing as many animals lack cortex like fish or frogs my hunch seeing these animals is that these animals still possess consciousness in some form。 The author in this book makes the argument that neuroscientists are on the wrong track looking for the center of consciousness in the neocortex。 I think he is right that consciousness goes deeper in time and deeper in the brain towards the brain stem namely the Reticular activating system or reticular formation。 It is why I have always had a squeamishness about eating meat tasty as it is。 The author marshals neuroscience evidence for deep brain consciousness and a widely shared consciousness down the chain of being。 Good stuff。 I will leave a video of the author。https://youtu。be/CmuYrnOVmfk 。。。more
Andrew Haines
，
Insight into modern Neurophysical knowledge and a theory of consciousness with wide implications。
Maudaevee
，
While I found a lot of the information in this book interesting， it was not easy to get through。 There are some dense spots that I had to take a break from。 I am still very glad to have read the book and can think of a few friends this will appeal to。
David
，
The most important book I've read about consciousness hands down。 Solms makes an incredibly convincing case that the "hidden spring" of consciousness is not cognition but emotion。 Emotions， bubbling up from the evolutionarily ancient brain stem， are the core tool through which all of our elaborate and recently evolved perceptions become conscious。 The implications are vast。 Still processing。 The most important book I've read about consciousness hands down。 Solms makes an incredibly convincing case that the "hidden spring" of consciousness is not cognition but emotion。 Emotions， bubbling up from the evolutionarily ancient brain stem， are the core tool through which all of our elaborate and recently evolved perceptions become conscious。 The implications are vast。 Still processing。 。。。more
Aaron
，
Fascinating stuff。 Never knew neuropsychoanalysis was a field。 Convincingly argues for the merit of such research。 The major theses of the hidden spring are not necessarily new but well-supported and align with many of my tentative ideas so I enjoyed very much。
dr vikram rajan
，
Heady stuff Mark Solms has done an admirable job of making a very difficult and mysterious concept so accessible。 It makes a very interesting read but requires patience and interest to follow him in this journey。 Overall a very nicely written book and hope it gets the attention it deserves。
Marcus Anderson
，
Solms describes the workings of affective mechanisms that he believes characterise consciouss experience and explains how these mechanisms might process information from the world beyond the veil。 In his mind， this ability to extrapolate from a more basic level than is normally considered when describing biological processes has awarded him permission to declare discovery of the origins of consciousness。 It is a very informative and well written book but comes nowhere near explaining how experie Solms describes the workings of affective mechanisms that he believes characterise consciouss experience and explains how these mechanisms might process information from the world beyond the veil。 In his mind， this ability to extrapolate from a more basic level than is normally considered when describing biological processes has awarded him permission to declare discovery of the origins of consciousness。 It is a very informative and well written book but comes nowhere near explaining how experience might arrise from merely machanical processes。 。。。more
Robert Peters-Gehrke
，
At the end of his book， Mark Solms thanks his editor "for making the manuscript so much more readable; I have never seen an editor work so hard"。 Thank God I did not have to read the first draft since the actual book is pretty unreadable， at least in parts but those parts are very， very， very long。 I don't doubt the editor did work hard to make this book readable: I doubt he had a chance in the first place。It is not that Solms can't write。 In a passage hidden inexplicably in a footnote， he descr At the end of his book， Mark Solms thanks his editor "for making the manuscript so much more readable; I have never seen an editor work so hard"。 Thank God I did not have to read the first draft since the actual book is pretty unreadable， at least in parts but those parts are very， very， very long。 I don't doubt the editor did work hard to make this book readable: I doubt he had a chance in the first place。It is not that Solms can't write。 In a passage hidden inexplicably in a footnote， he describes the first brain surgery he witnessed。 This is a passage that vividly expresses the rising anxiety Solms felt when seeing an actual brain for the first time through surgical means that sound， well， excruciatingly brutal。 A fantastic passage， breathtakingly written。 There are other brilliant passages in the book: Solms' （regrettably short） memories of his brother's accident that left him mentally challenged are very touching。Then there is the rest of the book。 Solms clearly is fascinated by neurology。 He clearly is a scientific mind。 Maybe he is a pioneer and a genius。 He clearly is convinced of his hypothesis about the origin of consciousness。 But he definitely lacks the ability to explain things。I am a religiously studious reader， working my way even through boring books because that is my way of honouring the work the author put into the book， even if I should happen to not enjoy it。 I never skip passages， never abort a book。 But here I began to read across from the middle of the book till the end。 Because I simply could not understand what the author wrote about - and I hold two academic degrees。。。You think I exaggerate？ Here is a typical example sentence showing Solms' fetish with hard words， technical terms and unnessarily difficult phrasing: "Accordingly， the PAG is conceptualised as the terminus of the 'descending' network for affect， to be contrasted with the 'ascending' and 'modulatory' affect networks of the brainstem's body-monitoring nuclei and reticular activating system。" And there are pages and pages and pages in exactly this style。Shockingly the book ends with a project presentation by Solms: making a machine that is conscious。 Yep， you read that correctly。 Why？ To prove his point - since he believes the only way to prove his theory of the spring of consciousnes is to make a conscious machine。 Good idea？ Terrible idea？ Ethically sound idea？ He writes: "My own answer to this question starts from the following belief: If it can be done it will be done。" Unbelievable。Read Kazuo Ishiguro's Klara and the Sun instead of this book。 And hope， hope， hope， Solms is totally wrong。 。。。more
Bogi Takács
，
Nonfiction about the origin of consciousness， somewhere between a book entirely for laypeople and a book for a more technical audience。 I feel like if I put allll my thoughts here， I might as well write an academic kind of book review， and I can't really budget time for that right now。So I'll just remark that I really liked some aspects of the book （control theory / systems science / etc are really underappreciated in psychology IMO）， but near the end I felt increasingly perplexed about why the Nonfiction about the origin of consciousness， somewhere between a book entirely for laypeople and a book for a more technical audience。 I feel like if I put allll my thoughts here， I might as well write an academic kind of book review， and I can't really budget time for that right now。So I'll just remark that I really liked some aspects of the book （control theory / systems science / etc are really underappreciated in psychology IMO）， but near the end I felt increasingly perplexed about why the book did not cite any of the actual empirical results of embodied AI and/or embodied robotics， even though embodied approaches were cited as pure theory。 It felt to me like huge chunks of the proposed research program to create artificial consciousness had already been attempted by others。 （I might have misread something？？） I also missed a discussion of dynamic systems theory approaches， and how they relate to the newly proposed equations - maybe there is something from his colleague Friston？ I'm going to go look， because again， this was interesting and thought-provoking。 ___________Source of the book: Lawrence Public Library 。。。more
Leanne
，
South African neuroscientist Mark Solms thinks scientists owe Sigmund Freud an apology。 Solms， who himself took the unique step of training as a Freudian psychoanalyst in mid-career， says that some of the latest experimental research in brain science suggests that Freud was closer to the truth than anyone realized。 I had forgotten that Freud began his career in biological science。 After earning a medical degree in 1881 from the University of Vienna， he went on to work at the Vienna General Hospi South African neuroscientist Mark Solms thinks scientists owe Sigmund Freud an apology。 Solms， who himself took the unique step of training as a Freudian psychoanalyst in mid-career， says that some of the latest experimental research in brain science suggests that Freud was closer to the truth than anyone realized。 I had forgotten that Freud began his career in biological science。 After earning a medical degree in 1881 from the University of Vienna， he went on to work at the Vienna General Hospital， where he became interested in neuropathology。 His later development of psychoanalysis would eclipse his background in science， but as Solms reminds us: Freud was fundamentally a reductionist who believed that it was only a matter of time before scientists would be able to locate precisely where in the brain each feeling a patient experienced originated。 Questions of feelings， dreams， and consciousness all come down to physics and chemistry， he said。 But Freud also realized that he lived in a day when the existing technology would not allow for the kind of scientific investigation required to figure out the biological mechanisms of such elusive phenomena as dreams， feelings， and consciousness。 And so he turned to psychoanalysis as a means to probe the inner workings of the human mind。 Fast forward a hundred years。 Science has come a long way， but experts are still debating these issues-- especially that of consciousness。 Most scientists and philosophers—but not all—have rejected Cartesian dualism， which posits two distinct substances in the world: bodies， which obey the laws of physics and are mechanistic; and minds， which are non-physical。 But even among scientific reductionists， who accept that “mind” can be explained in materialist terms， there remains resistance in accepting that our subjective experience and sense of self is widely shared among other animals。 For example， in Peter Godfrey Smith’s new book， Metazoa: Animal Life and the Birth of the Mind， he reckons that most people， if asked， would restrict consciousness to Primates almost certainly， and maybe to other Mammals。 But why is this？ It was Descartes who argued that physical bodies are mechanistic， and only the human mind that experiences feelings， or has a soul。 Godfrey-Smith makes the point that while scientists have mainly pushed aside the notion of mind as something non-materialistic， they still cling to the idea that animals do not have feelings， don’t experience pain and are without “sentience，” which is perhaps a better term than “mind。” And this has had devastating consequences for the animals。 You will cringe to learn that until quite recently， scientists were performing amputations on octopus limbs without any pain relief， because they did not recognize that animals feel pain as we do。Solms points out how our brains are something like an archaeological site: with the oldest part being down in the bottom parts and more recent additions formed on top。 As you would expect， the lower down in the brain we go， the more our minds have in common with other animals。 Feelings， he says arise “in a very ancient part of the brain， in the upper brainstem in structures we share with all vertebrates。” And it is down in this ancient “hidden spring” of our brains， down in our brainstem， where Solm is trying to locate not just our dreams and feelings but our consciousness。 His book begins with a moving story about his childhood， when he witnessed his younger brother take a catastrophic fall from a roof and suffer a terrible brain injury。 Solms recounts how after the fall， while his brother still looked like his pre-injury self， he seemed different， not just in terms of his cognitive abilities but his personality as well。 This led Solms， in his childhood， to ponder questions like: If my brain were damaged， would I be a different person？ Where would the original version of me go？Solms is perhaps best known for his work in the science of dreams。 In research conducted with patients who suffered severe brain injuries， he realized that dreams are not associated with REM sleep or the frontal cortex in the way scientists previously believed。 Seeing the way that patients whose injuries prevented REM sleep still had dreams， he came up with his hypothesis that dreams originated in the brainstem and were related to the psyche’s reward system。 Just as Freud suspected。 And from this， he began to view not just dreams but consciousness itself as connected to our emotions， which are themselves part of an organism’s survival skillset。 Anger and fear in the face of danger; lust for procreation; and play and curiosity for being better attuned to the world。 This radical decoupling of intelligence from emotion， dreams and consciousness really turns the Cartesian worldview on its head; for in this scientific paradigm， animals are as sentient as we are。 And what of our dreams？ Well， they are how the body mediates our needs and fears with the pressures of the external world。 This all might sound intuitive: sure， we know dogs dream and crows can use tools and recognize their image in a mirror。 And seeing feelings and emotions at the core of consciousness， rather than in our ability to engage in critical reasoning doesn’t seem too far-fetched。 What is so ground-breaking about his new book is not the “what” or “how，” but the “where” of consciousness; for in locating it in the brainstem， Solms is doing something new。 And this brings us back to Freud in an ironic way， perhaps; since what Freud termed the “unconscious” might be precisely where we might find consciousness。 Considering “consciousness” in terms of scientific reductionism—or what Godfrey-Smith calls biological materialism—Solms， like Godfrey-Smith， likens the rise of “mind” to the way organisms have adapted to cope with the world and something that directs bodily activities。And this all leads us back to Freud！Fantastic book！！！！ 。。。more
David Hopson
，
The universe does consciousness Solms argues and demonstrates that consciousness arises as a natural physical consequence of self-ordering entities' characteristic tendency to sustain themselves against the depredations of entropy。 Ish！ In short our universe is of a kind that willy-nilly is going to become conscious of itself。 Very complicated read for this non-neuroscientist， but worth the effort。 The universe does consciousness Solms argues and demonstrates that consciousness arises as a natural physical consequence of self-ordering entities' characteristic tendency to sustain themselves against the depredations of entropy。 Ish！ In short our universe is of a kind that willy-nilly is going to become conscious of itself。 Very complicated read for this non-neuroscientist， but worth the effort。 。。。more
Toby Newton
，
Highly interesting， highly technical but clearly written， and highly thought provoking。 Mark Solms' analysis of affect's role in consciousness is convincing and his extrapolation of human experience out of the basic mechanisms of a self-organising system seeking to defy entropy， and the problems to which that gives rise after a certain point of complexity is reached， in terms of interpreting the plasticity of needs and wants on the back of bare survival， is illuminating （essentially， it's neuros Highly interesting， highly technical but clearly written， and highly thought provoking。 Mark Solms' analysis of affect's role in consciousness is convincing and his extrapolation of human experience out of the basic mechanisms of a self-organising system seeking to defy entropy， and the problems to which that gives rise after a certain point of complexity is reached， in terms of interpreting the plasticity of needs and wants on the back of bare survival， is illuminating （essentially， it's neurosis， confirmed as a core part of the human condition）。 But to my mind Solms has not， in any way， solved the "hard problem" of consciousness。 He has shunted the question down a level， from consciousness to feeling， but remains unable to suggest how matter 'feels' in the first place。 "Self-organising systems survive because they occupy limited states; they do not disperse themselves。 This survival imperative led gradually to the evolution of complex dynamical mechanisms that underwrite intentionality。 Critically， the selfhood of self-organising systems grants them a point of view。" But why/how did that "intentionality" arise， suffused with feeling， as against an automatic electrochemical mutual reaction， triggered by physical forces between entities， eventually reaching its limit in terms of the calculable complexity of needs/demands to be met？ I'm with Johannes Muller: there's some non-physical element caught up in this， a fundamental constituent part of reality， not yet captured in our reckonings because not yet identifiable let alone measurable。 。。。more
Paul Ataua
，
Being both neuroscientist and psychoanalyst， Mark Solms has so much to offer to those interested in the nature of consciousness。 Here he argues that consciousness lies not in the cerebral cortex， but in the core of the brain stem。 'The Hidden Spring' is not easy going。 There is so much neurological detail that I found myself having to read， reread and spend time digesting paragraphs before finally getting to understand the central claim。 I felt good about being smart enough to get the core of th Being both neuroscientist and psychoanalyst， Mark Solms has so much to offer to those interested in the nature of consciousness。 Here he argues that consciousness lies not in the cerebral cortex， but in the core of the brain stem。 'The Hidden Spring' is not easy going。 There is so much neurological detail that I found myself having to read， reread and spend time digesting paragraphs before finally getting to understand the central claim。 I felt good about being smart enough to get the core of the argument， but bad about not being smart enough to assess its value。 I guess that understanding will come after twenty or thirty more books。 Fascinating read that took me a little further along that road。 。。。more
Kathleen
，
How consciousness comes about __ a heady subject treated in an accessible way。 It helped that I have taken psychology courses and that Solms explored the subject not only by discussing hard data and academic studies but also with a personal narrative of his journey （from the childhood injury of his brother to his study of neuroscience ， to communication with other scholars and a crucial "diversion" into psychoanalysis。） How consciousness comes about __ a heady subject treated in an accessible way。 It helped that I have taken psychology courses and that Solms explored the subject not only by discussing hard data and academic studies but also with a personal narrative of his journey （from the childhood injury of his brother to his study of neuroscience ， to communication with other scholars and a crucial "diversion" into psychoanalysis。） 。。。more
Glen
，
I won this book in a goodreads drawing。A neurologist trained in psychoanalysis tells us about the brain， and where consciousness comes from。 Dense， but readable。 I recommend it for those interested in the mind and the brain。
Nicholas
，
The best book on neuroscience/consciousness I've read to date。 The writing is superb， and the book well structured presenting just the right amount of information at the right pace， with the multiple use of allegories to get the point across to ensure the reader understands the theories and concepts in the simplest terms possible。 The best book on neuroscience/consciousness I've read to date。 The writing is superb， and the book well structured presenting just the right amount of information at the right pace， with the multiple use of allegories to get the point across to ensure the reader understands the theories and concepts in the simplest terms possible。 。。。more
Philbro
，