Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain

Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio is a landmark book in neuroscience and philosophy. It brilliantly explores the connection between emotion and reasoning, challenging classical notions about the mind. Well-written and accessible, it changed how I think about decision-making. A must-read for anyone curious about the brain!

After reading Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, I wanted to give an overview of the book, and insight on how to go about reading it. First off, I would suggest this book to anyone who thinks that they are a logical thinker and decision maker that does not let emotion interfere with their decisions. Damasio uses case studies prolifically to support his hypotheses that the mind and body cannot be separated and are in fact an integrated unit. If you are interested in reading about topics dealing with the mind, and this is the first book that you are choosing to read it will more than likely be a challenging one. Damasio uses numerous of anatomical names for structures and disease names within his book. If you are not familiar with the brain you will be constantly going to Wikipedia or Google to figure out what exactly he is talking about. I would highly suggest starting off with a different book that simply goes over the brain in general before tackling this one. While Descartes' Error can be informative it is much more enlightening and enjoyable if you already know the jargon. That way you will not have to stop reading every other paragraph to go online and look up terms. The book itself is divided up into three parts. The first part looks into older case studies where people suffered brain injuries and after "recovery" had a change in both their personality and decision making ability. The most notable one is of Phineas Gage who had an iron rod go through his head and damage his frontal cortex. From this injury he had the symptoms listed above for the rest of his life. The second part of the book looks into explanations for why injuries such as the ones listed in the first part effect both decision making and personality. The final part of the book delves into ways to test these explanations and Damasio ends the book by giving an explicit explanation as to what he believes Descartes' Error was in regards to the books topic of the mind and body. For those who do not know who Descartes you will probably know a very famous quote by him, "I think therefore I am". He was a famous philosopher and mathematician from France. It would be beneficial to read the Wikipedia page on him before starting this book as well. As I have stated before this book can be very dense and labor intensive to read if you have never taken a neuroscience course or read any books on the brain before. Some sections will have to be read over a few times for the information to sink in and really make sense. Damasio includes asides throughout the book on various topics and ideas that he mentions in the main text. These blurbs while helpful are generally where you are going to feel the most confused. The topics that he discusses in these asides, like Phrenology, have whole books written on them, and Damasio only has a few paragraphs on the topic. He tries to get as much information in as possible, and you can feel like your in over your head because the it is just that dense. All in all for books on the brain I would say that this is a must read. Damasio presents plausible hypotheses and does a good job supporting them. The thing that I like most is both at the beginning and end of the book he makes sure to mention that what he has stated are just hypotheses and that they are not facts. They are conjectures. The field of neurobiology does not have all the answers, so while his hypotheses seem to fit they are not the end all and be all.

What one thinks of Damasio's lovely work, _Descartes' Error_, will largely depend on how interested one is in matters pertaining to the human brain, consciousness and the self. Additionally, one who does not have much of an appetite for technical language will probably not get very fair in this work. Much of Damasio's study is also hypothetical in nature. Therefore, I would not recommend this work to those who have little to no tolerance for abstracta or theoria. But if you are intensely intrigued by the inner workings of the human brain, this book is for you. Damasio initiates his discussion with a fascinating story about Phineas Gage, a man who had a 3 1/2 foot iron rod pass through his head and lived to tell about it. Damasio moves from Gage to other patients who have experienced damage to their frontal lobes and reviews the effect it had on their lives. He argues that reason and emotions are both needed in order for sound judgment or prudence to obtain. Finally, Damasio challenges Cartesian dualism, which posits the anthropological notion of a RES EXTENSA and RES COGITANS. Damasio winds up contending that the "self" which has received so much theoretical attention throughout human history is no doubt neural in nature, unlike Descrates envisioned it. In short, there is no self without a functioning brain in a body. At least, not on this earth. The one drawback that I find with this book is that Damasio does not spend enough time critiquing Cartesian dualism. Nevertheless, the journey that terminates in an analysis of Cartesianism is well worth the ride. Moreover, the author offers an alternative to Descartes' theory that is both compelling and thought-provoking.

Comprehensive look at Mind and body connection in the human organism through neuroscientists lens. Great read!!! Highly recommended read. Awesome!!!

This book brings together so many of the threads of Western thought in a way that is thought provoking and provides the reader with the tools required to actually rethink these complicated but important issues. Damasio brings to the lay reader who is willing to devote some energy to understanding recent developments in neurology and brain function some important tools to re-evaluate the issues of mind body dualism. (This is the error that Damasio believes that Descartes made, the separation of mind from body.) If you believe that science has no power to shed light on thorny philosophical questions, read this book. Damasio makes a compelling case that modern studies of the brain and brain damage clearly demonstrate that the "mind" depends on complex interaction between brain and body and that emotion and rationality cannot be separated, indeed can't exist separately This book is not an easy read, but it is compelling in its argument. I found myself wanting to tell people about Damasio's arguments and examples. This is that occassional book that has the power to make the reader see mankind's place in the world in a new light. Highly recommended!

Although this book is filled with lots of good information, the information is disjointed and organized in a counter intuitive manner. The changes in writing style across the book exacerbate the flow troubles. I have mixed feelings about this book. The author went to great lengths to help the reader get up to speed with topics that will appear in the book. A surprising amount of information is covered, it seems as though every other page or so the reader is challenged with a new topic or historical perspective on the field of neuroscience. Much of this information is interesting of its own accord. However the author attempts to cover too many topics, many of which seem to have little impact on the direct topic of the book. Although the historical perspective on Phrenology, Neurite structure are interesting, they do not enhance the author's goal of showing that the mind is intimately tied to the body. The second critique is the drastic change in writing style that occurs between the first quarter of the book and the rest of the book. The book opens with a lovely narrative style that draws the audience into the case study of Phineas Gage. This gentlemen is the classic example of changes in brain structure relating to personality changes. Mr. Gage was involved in a construction accident that propelled an iron bar through his head damaging a section of the prefrontal cortex. The damage resulted in drastic changes in his ability to assess consequences of actions and emotional importance of situations. It was a pleasure to have a description of the people and places involved in the case, changing a classic textbook example into something more real. However this style is quickly dropped in favor the more sterile scientific discourse. It was a shame to see this different approach to scientific discourse abandoned so quickly. A Quick Summary of the Book: The book opens with details of a couple of case studies; first the case study of Phineas Gage, then of an anonymous patient "Elliot." In both of these cases the author explores how changes to the Cortex can result in startling changes to personality and function. The author highlights the interesting discomfort many people have about this topic. Curiously people are "okay" with damage resulting in "common" changes such as stroke, loss of speech, motion or balance. In contrast the idea that something as fundamental to one's personality as prioritizing and morality could be impacted by brain damage is startling. This observation in both case studies is a direct challenge to the sense that the mind is independent of structure. The next topic that the author approaches is the impact of emotions and feelings. Throughout this section the author seems to severely loose focus on their original goal of the intimate relationship between body and mind. The author tackles too many large topics that require lengthy explanations of topics in neuroscience. Oddly the formatting of the tangents detracts from the overall point of the section. Whenever the author broaches on a new topic a lengthy section is added at an unusual indentation and font size. Once again, although the information is interesting it is more like a report on the subtopic than related to the overall goal. The author finally begins to draw all of the discussed idea in the book together in the final chapters. It was relieving to finally get to the authors development of ideas. In this final section a big picture is drawn and the author's charisma returns. A final statement is made about the indelible link between the body and the mind. Oddly this conclusion seems almost obviously intuitive at this point. During this section the author finally addresses the title of the book. In a subsection labeled similarly as the book itself the author presents Descartes statement "I think therefore I am," and questions its validity in light of the presented information. In light of the presented information it almost silly to consider the mind preceding the body, in fact considered causation of either is rather foolish. Both are intimately linked and communicate with and respond with each other. It is amusing that the author questions even his bringing up the topic. On page 250 he notes "Now, some may ask, why quibble with Descartes rather than with Plato, whose views on body and mind were far more exasperating, as can be discovered in the Phaedo? Why bother with this particular error of Descartes?" Damasio quickly dismisses this question as it is almost obviously wrong by modern knowledge. But this seems to beg the question of why a philosopher of such antiquity is drawing such discussion when there are modern scientists that need an equal degree of correction. Curiously many ideas of neurology are being overturned, and yet has taken so long for some one to consider Descartes. Although I found this book often interesting I would not suggest it to many. The book tackles too many topics that will scream by for the reader with a strong technical background, specifically in either psychology or neuroscience. This was actually frustrating for me. I've taken several college level biology courses and often found myself lost and feeling that a reference text would be useful. In short, if you are already familiar with the field and topics in the book it should be an enjoyable read that fills in some gaps. However if this is the first you've heard of Descartes, or neuroscience, you would be better served with The Idiot's Guide to Understanding the Brain.

This is a very valuable book, which i read last year from the library and i decided recently to buy and keep, it is a very important book. The problem was that what I got was not the same and that was my fault. The one from the library was big , thick and hard cover. It didn't matter cause the same subjects.I am not in a position to debate or question any of the subjects in the book. I don'tg have that education for and iwas happy to learn a lot. The reason i decided to keep a book like that at home, because i went through things in life and with meditation and some focusing about my life and the life of others, i came up in 1986 with a belief that what i knew about Descart, in school and and when i was young , was not a correct sentence, to say the least. I did not have that kind of education to argue a man like him but my walk with God had taught me alot and i knew he was wrong, and i waited a long time to find a way to prove it. W hen i saw that book (Descart's Error) in a bookstore, i was surprised and decided to read it . It is , no doubt , a book that should be kept at home and the four , not five stars is not because the book is not valuable enough but because, in my opinion , though a scientist thinks , speaks and writes as a scientist , a true scientist , should leave a space, even one percent, to a potential reality that may still exist within the circle of impossibility. I am sorry for this lengthy opinion but the issue of( I think , therefore I am ) became the backbone of my own study and research and the book with all due respect to the author never discussed the phrase itself. I......Think........Therefore......I am. What is "I", what is thinking, what is Am, and where did Therefore come from and to be pushed in the middle.If you cannot tell me what "I" is ,what think is , what am is, then how can you tell me Therefore I am???! That is why four stars instead of five and thank you for reading this long (opinion!!!!).

Damasio shows that we are not embodied minds or rational beings. We are embodied emotional rational beings, in which these three things are merely extensions of one another. Body, emotion, intellect interact and “cause”each other fundamentally.

今ゆっくりと他の本と一笑に読んでいます。少々手ごわそうです。楽しみです。

Substance dualism is the idea that our bodies are made out of one kind of stuff and our minds out of another, and Antonio Damasio is having none of it. Cogito ergo sum - perhaps the most famous statement in philosophy - "illustrates precisely the opposite of what I believe to be true about the origins of mind and about the relation between mind and body." Damasio reminds us that we were beings long before we became thinking beings, and, throughout this marvellous book, he argues for the importance of our bodies (not just our brains) in creating our minds. Indeed, "the bedrock of the sense of being alive" comes from just those "evolving representations of the body" that reach consciousness. Perhaps it's not surprising that a philosopher elevated thinking, and awareness of thinking, to such prominence, but modern science is beginning to tell a far more interesting story about the "real substrates of being". The neat separation between the physical body - subject to its animal passions - and the higher rational soul - imagined as a divine endowment - is a fiction, albeit a powerful one. Damasio shows the many ways in which the "lowly orders of our organism are in the loop of high reason" and how emotion, feeling and biological regulation "all play a role in human reason". Those who lament health and safety regulations would do well to read the salutary tale of Phineas P. Gage, a railroad worker whose momentary lapse of concentration in 1848 provided material for both a front page tabloid sensation and countless neuroscience textbooks. An iron bar through the brain would be enough to kill most people, but Gage not only survived he was not even knocked unconscious. I cannot help using his name and the pronoun that implies continuity of personhood, but, after such a serious brain injury, we should ask, who has survived? Which parts of the old personality? In Gage's case, "his likes and dislikes, his dreams and aspirations" all changed. There was a new spirit animating his body. Gage was no longer Gage. Mid nineteenth century, the brain was being revealed as "the foundation for language, perception, and motor function". The importance of Gage's story was that it hinted at "systems in the human brain dedicated more to reasoning than anything else". While Gage could still move and speak normally, he had lost "something uniquely human, the ability to plan his future as a social being". Had a piece of his soul been blown out along with his brains, ending up a hundred metres away, on a sticky iron bar covered in dust? Damasio brings us up to date with one of his own patients, Elliot, "an intelligent, skilled, and able-bodied man" who "had undergone a radical change of personality" and whose behaviour resembled Gage's. The cause was a brain tumour, which was successfully removed. However, while still capable of attending to detailed tasks, "Elliot had become irrational concerning the larger frame" of his life and, unable to plan hours let alone days ahead, was no longer "an effective social being". Damasio and his team observed in Elliot and other similar patients that such impaired decision making invariably came with "flat emotion and feeling". Could it be that a reduction in emotion was an important source of irrational behaviour? Everyone from Plato to Oprah has talked about emotions and feelings - their own and other people's, whether they should be held in check or freely expressed. Damasio brings some much needed clarity to these often fluffy concepts. For a start, they are not interchangeable terms: while "all emotions generate feelings if you are awake and alert", background feelings originate in body rather than emotional states and contribute importantly to our "sense of being". Feelings of all kinds "form the base for what humans have described for millennia as the human soul or spirit." Taking the long view, the "beauty of how emotion has functioned throughout evolution" is that it enables living beings to act smartly without having to think smartly. The emotional feeling of disgust upon seeing some rotting meat, for example, discourages us from eating it. There is no reasoning involved: we are relying on innate knowledge - "based on dispositional representations in hypothalamus, brain stem, and limbic system" - acquired over millions of years. Key to Damasio's neurobiology and his understanding of when a brain can be said to have a mind is not just that neuron circuits are modified by changes in our bodies and the external world in reliable ways, but that such neural representations become images. Once the brain is able to "display images internally and to order those images in a process called thought" then we can not only think about the world as it is but we can begin to imagine the world as other than it is: we can "predict the future, plan accordingly, and choose the next action." This is one of those books it is worth working hard as a lay reader to get through. While I'm sure some of the science has already been revised, there is much to learn, and the fact that answers to some very big questions are being put forward is incredibly exciting. When do brains develop minds? What is the source of intuition? What are thoughts? How are emotions an indispensable foundation for rationality? Antonio Damasio reconnects body and mind and undoes much of the damage done by Descartes' error: "the body contributes more than life support and modulatory effects to the brain." It is a content provider "that is part and parcel of the workings of the normal mind." Don't worry about unweaving this particular rainbow: "Understanding the biological mechanisms behind emotions and feelings is perfectly compatible with a romantic view of their value to human beings." And why pick on this particular error? After all, Descartes was wrong about many things. It matters because Descartes' error is our error: from early childhood we are all intuitive dualists.

Recomiendo su lectura.

It is a real pleasure to read this kind of scientific writing. Damasio states at the start that he sees the book as a conversation between him and the reader, and interesting conversation, with asides and digressions, is what this book has on offer. Neither too superficial, nor too detailed, with examples to illustrate what he wants to explain, Damasio succeeds in getting his ideas across. I only wish all scientific writing were that clear, interesting, fascinating, and enriching.

Our information processing modes--fast and slow--as Daniel Kahneman would have it, are visualised by Antonio Damasio in Descartes' Error as dialogues in the upper and lower compartments of brain profusely looped. Upstairs in the cortices, especially the frontal lobes, images come marked from body or soma; and downstairs, in the brainstem the emotions raise passions. As the situation requires, if there is emergency, the dialogue at downstairs takes action, in other cases the slow and rational decision making occurs upstairs. It is Somatic Marker Hypothesis--images that constitute thoughts of our mind have origins in body, and in addition emotions enter into this process. It is a challenge to Descartes' "thinking stuff"--located in soul. Over three decades, this idea of Antonio Damasio has percolated literary imagination. The writer of the Tomb of Sand, quite explicitly endorses it--the brain is storehouse of memories, the real stuff of thoughts is in body and senses. As a narrative of holistic brain-body interaction, which irresistibly incorporates emotions to reason is also a way to assimilate sociocultural reality. Damasio seems to warn us the way pleasure forms part of economic planning--promoting hedonistic culture.