3.5 stars—very interesting book and written in a way wherein the neuroscience is digestible, interesting, and relatable. Sometimes I found the analogies lacking sharpness or repetitive, but overall a great read that’s very informative and encouraging.
- The neuroplasticity of the brain; may we never stop learning! The more we learn, the easier it is to learn more as new inputs shape our brain. Environment + experience are critical. Ex: nun study—keep brain sharp by challenging it and it can stave off dementia.
- Structure // function, ex: violin vs piano player. Repetition and tying actions to goals + rewards is critical for encoding new information. Emotions trigger memories and how things get encoded.
- Plasticity degrades over time due to encoded information, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Older brains can perform certain auto functions more quickly—just be open to new experiences!
- Moving from short term to long term memory- super interesting, ex remembering a name vs a random street on holiday.
- Different layers of the brain operate at different speeds // functions; **check brand study on societal change. Conscious and subconscious thinking for different operations
- Associative learning
- Variance in flexibility: visual is less flexible than motor due to function

I haven't felt so conflicted about a book for a long time. It is innovative and engaging, informative and surprising, even sporadically beautiful in its imagery and metaphors: popular science writing at its best. Eagleman is an expert at the cutting edge of neuroscience, and, though I believe he is too hasty to clutch at grand assertions for some phenomena (e.g. the existence of sleep, patients denying that their limbs belong to them, the subjective experience of consciousness), he has a lot to say that should astonish us and inform public conversation about globally significant topics.

It is also deeply unsettling, philosophically troublesome and imbued with a Silicon Valley-flavoured dystopian enthusiasm for creepy and ill-considered 'improvements' to the human race. The tone of the chapter on biohacking, in particular, left a peculiarly unpleasant taste in my mouth, as the author espoused at great lengths the wonders of upgrading our pitiful mammalian cages (he refers to our bodies as 'meat' on numerous occasions) into cyborgs with various superpowers, apparently oblivious to potentially horrific implications which will slap the average reader round the face like a flaccid salmon.

I believe (and hope) that a lot of the predictions and assertions about future developments are utterly misguided, founded on bad assumptions about the nature of consciousness and visual perception, amongst other things. Either way, even these ethically unsettling sections were highly thought-provoking and shouldn't detract from the quality of the science and its communication. Four stars for an entertaining, eye-opening, squeamish read.

For anyone interested in (pop?) neuroscience, this is quite the interesting read, covering a lot of aspects of the brain from a broad and simplified (but not over-simplified!) view.

Eagleman has an easy to read style, that still conveys all the information needed. I also enjoyed the extensive notes with references to papers and further reading.

There are a few conjectures and technological hopes, especially at the end of the book, that I don't quite agree with (mostly about the timespan Eagleman thinks they will be possible at) and Eagleman will also often put his own conjectures instead of the currently accepted views in science, but he always indicates when he does, so it doesn't bother me (and they are interesting hypotheses in any case).

All in all I recommend this book to anyone wanting to have an overview over the adaptability and plasticity of the brain, how a "livewired" system interacts and gets shaped with the world and the possibilities this opens up with future technology.

It took me forever to read this book, because I had to consume it little bits at a time. It was a lot!!! A lot of good, mind you. But still a lot. Basically, the brain is magic. End of story.

Enjoyed this though it didn’t hit me with the shock of the new that Incognito did. Still entertaining and informative, enlightening and occasionally surprising look at the way the brain constantly grows and improvises.

Perhaps the most fascinating book I’ve read so far in my life. Such a massive paradigm shift to how I think about society and just gives such a deeper appreciation for how evolution has so finely tuned the human computer

I loved this book. I think it serves as a fantastic companion to books like The Tell-Tale Brain by V. S. Ramachandran and The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge. It contains a lot of recent, well-sourced, and fascinating information on brain science and plasticity, and I like Eagleman's conception of the brain being "live-wired" rather than "plastic." I especially enjoyed the sections on the function of dreams, neuroplasticity and aging, and sensory substitution.

If I could give it a 4.5/5 instead of a 4, I would. However, it's closer to a 4 than a 5. My chief point of contention is that when Eagleman steps out of his field (in particular), he sometimes oversimplifies ideas or makes minor mistakes. The first example that caught my attention was the statement in Chapter 12 that "reptiles can't see you if you stand still, because they only register change."

I'm not a herpetologist and I knew intuitively that this isn't accurate. It took me a few minutes of searching online to confirm. Reptiles, at least generally, have sharp vision for detecting movement, important for both hunting and avoiding predators, but they can still detect stationary objects; their visual acuity and processing of visual information just differ from humans, focusing on movement. I believe Eagleman should revisit certain parts of the book, like this one, and make slight adjustments for accuracy. The point he was conveying there would still hold up.

In another section, he mentions that the Clean Air Act, possibly directly, precipitated a significant drop in crime in the 1990s. This is a compelling hypothesis generally supported by evidence outside of the book, so serves as an example of Eagleman branching beyond his domain without getting tangled up. (One might even extend the argument to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970.)

Overall, still a fantastic book, and I recommend it to anyone interested in neuroscience.