Review of David Eagleman’s Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain

In Incognito, neuroscientist David Eagleman attempts to dethrone the our consciousness as any dominant force of the mind, and in doing so, challenge many of humanity’s conventional beliefs on the brain and how it works. Eagleman works well to use historical allusions and scientific results to back his claims. Though he rarely explicitly mentions having a reductionist point-of-view on the mind, we can tell from the evidence he presents that this is absolutely what he is leaning towards – that the brain is a complex tool of chemical reactions and electronic stimuli. Such a belief obviously does not mean well for any traditional concept of free will. By minimizing the role of consciousness in the brain, he is effectively dismissing free will.

Eagleman spends the latter part of his book explaining how, because “free will” should not actually exist, people cannot be blamed for their actions. Blame is a key word here, because he still believes people can be held accountable to their actions. Yet if the brain is a predetermining tool that allows no room for personal input, we are not in a position to assign moral guilt upon anyone. What we can do, and what Eagleman suggests in order to maintain an effective society, is to shift focus in the judicial system away from assigning blame and onto remediation. In his view, guilt is irrelevant (the brain would have told him or her to do just the same either way). Eagleman suggests that alteration of a person’s thinking process (so that it fits the norms of society) is the most effective way of putting criminals and social outcasts back among everyone else.

While reading the book, I agreed with most of the points that Eagleman made, the most important of which are outlined above. My one challenge with Eagleman, however, was the practicality of the “law & order” system he wished to implement. A society that completely absolves its members of guilt or any sense of personal responsibility may not be the most effective. However, I should be clear that Eagleman merely mentioned this as his ideal. He was most likely aware of just how difficult it would be to implement such a system.

Eagleman certainly is a skilled writer who is able to convey his thoughts and opinions very effectively. That he made an ordinarily dull topic such as neuroscience interesting is certainly a testament to his ability to capture an audience. And he does this through relevant and unique examples. For this reason, I recommend the book to any reader, even if they don’t think they’d find themselves interested in the topic. Whether or not Incognito will “blow your mind” depends on your preexisting thoughts and beliefs on the topic. But I can say that reading the book will offer a new, very interesting perspective.