Votre titre Audible gratuit

The Strange Order of Things

Life, Feeling, and the Making of Cultures
Durée : 9 h
4.5 out of 5 stars (3 notations)

Prix : 26,86 €

9,95 € / mois après 30 jours. Résiliable à tout moment.

Description

From one of our preeminent neuroscientists: a landmark reflection that spans the biological and social sciences, offering a new way of understanding the origins of life, feeling, and culture.

The Strange Order of Things is a pathbreaking investigation into homeostasis, the condition that regulates human physiology within the range that makes possible not only the survival but also the flourishing of life. Antonio Damasio makes clear that we descend biologically, psychologically, and even socially from a long lineage that begins with single living cells; that our minds and cultures are linked by an invisible thread to the ways and means of ancient unicellular life and other primitive life-forms; and that inherent in our very chemistry is a powerful force, a striving toward life maintenance that governs life in all its guises, including the development of genes that help regulate and transmit life. In The Strange Order of Things, Damasio gives us a new way of comprehending the world and our place in it.

©2018 Antonio Damasio (P)2018 Random House Audio

Critiques

"Almost a quarter century after Descartes' Error, Antonio Damasio has done it again - created a grand exploration of the inextricable relationship between mind, body, and the source of human feelings.... Thought-provoking and highly original, this book can change the way you look at yourself, and your species." (Leonard Mlodinow, author of Subliminal)

" The Strange Order of Things is a foundational book. It provides the concepts, the language, and the knowledge to explain in an integrated framework the interplay between Nature and Culture at the heart of the human condition.... This is the beginning of a new scientific revolution."(Manuel Castells, emeritus professor of sociology, University of California, Berkeley)

Autres livres audio du même :

Ce que les membres d'Audible en pensent

Notations

Global

  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    2
  • 4 étoiles
    1
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0

Performance

  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    1
  • 4 étoiles
    1
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0

Histoire

  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    1
  • 4 étoiles
    1
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0
Il n'y a pas encore de critique disponible pour ce titre.
Trier par :
  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Gary
  • 22/03/2018

Homeostasis and Metabolism give self awareness

This book provides an incredibly good way to think about order, origins of life and life. Anytime one can look at a problem coherently from a different perspective one can develop a deeper insight and understand the nature of reality just a little bit better than they did before. For example, I love ‘information theory’ and how it can be used to explain the universe as a paradigm for fundamental understanding of the quantum nature of the universe even to the degree that one of the most famous physicist in recent times, John Archibald Wheeler, would say that ‘it from bit’ explains our universe, that ‘existence comes from information’ (this is not germane to my point, but someday when you have time look up Rule 110 on wiki you’ll be able to understand how a universal computing machine that is Turing complete can come from an incredibly simple algorithm thus leading to a complex universe as ours appears to be) , and that Claude Shannon would show that the second law of thermodynamics (Entropy) can be restated inversely in terms of information theory. (Shannon actually seemed to be a hero of the author of this book).

This book deals with biology more than physics but the author has an alternative way of thinking about biological life arising from chemical processes leading to humans rather than appealing to the standard paradigmatic archetype most of us are already familiar with. He’s going to show how order arises from chaos through homeostasis and metabolism (stealing useful energy from outside of oneself) explains the origin of life and intelligent life.

Spinoza will say and the author will paraphrase him as such ‘everything (both mental and physical) strives (Latin: conatus) to preserve in its being’. In order to do that, the thing in question must steal useful energy (or order) from somewhere outside of itself and it must preserve its nature or it will lose its nature. This is the paradigm the author describes, the homeostasis, the striving (the clinging, the endeavor, the will (that’s what Schopenhauer speaks about, by all means read his Volume I of ‘Will and Representation’, the ‘will to power’ (Nietzsche takes Spinoza’s conatus and Schopenhauer’s’ ‘will’ to come up with this same idea that the author gives except they can’t use those words because they haven’t been codified in their time period)) and the stealing of useful energy from outside of itself thus leading to an increase of entropy in the system as a whole but a decrease in entropy in the thing (the entity).

I’m easily irritated with willfully ignorant people. One of my pet peeves is someone who says that since we weren’t there we can’t possibly know what happened therefore ‘god did it’ (Rush Limbaugh did exactly that the day after Stephen Hawking died and dismissed the ‘big bang’ in his ravings). This book gives a beautiful retort to such stupidity in abiogenesis. Before there were bacteria there were chemical processes. The processes that stayed around and evolved are the ones that reached a steady state with a modicum of homeostasis and metabolic systems at play (and it probably happened in undersea vents. One of the few places on Earth where the energy doesn’t come from the sun. It comes from the radiation left over from the accretion of the earth during its formation).

The author in the first two thirds of the book never just states things. He builds his argument across time and across space. The body develops before the central nervous system in its evolutionary development. Our emotive, temperament and mood happened before our feelings. Our feelings come before our reason both evolutionary and developmentally. A really smart biologist can prove evolution by analyzing the taxonomy of the current living organisms of the now. The fossil record is not necessary for them to prove evolution and its development over time, but the biologist also has the fossil record to make their story even more complete. A neuroscientist, as the author is, also has brain development and processes to add to the equation. This author uses every fact at his disposal in his telling for the development of the self awareness that humans possess.

Logic only preserves truth. It cannot create truth. The feelings we have from our emotive, temperament and mood give us the narrative and the intuition that we need in giving us our self awareness (consciousness) and the story that we end up telling ourselves. Our subjective selves come from our feelings not from our logic based rational selves. (I think all of this is in his book in one way another). He believes our mental states come from our experiences. He even ended one chapter by saying something along the lines that ‘Proust explains it in ‘Swann’s Way’’). It’s too bad he ended that chapter like that because I think Proust had it better than this book does, and also I think ‘How Emotions are Made’ by Lisa Barrett follows Proust more closely and they both wisely stay away from absolute mental states.

I thought the last third of this book never should have been written. He was really out of his depth. He speaks about AI, trans-humanism, camp fires, religion, Adorno, Pinker, Freud and his death wish as expressed in ‘Civilizations and its Discontents’ and many other topics. Matter of fact, I’m currently reading ‘Feminine Law’ and the name and idea dropping between the that book and the last third of this book surprised me in their overlap, but for ‘Feminine Law’ she’s a specialist in the field of psychoanalysis and this author does not seem to be. I can say two nice things about the end of the book, he’s trying to connect his thesis with reality, and secondly he actually predicts the ‘Cambridge Analytics’ and Facebook scandal with incredible prescience.

In spite of the train wreck of the last third of the book, the first two thirds make this book a special find and I would definitely recommend it.

25 sur 31 personne(s) ont trouvé cet avis utile.

  • Global
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Mauro Locarnini
  • 04/02/2019

Great read with unexpected turns

I chose the book because I’m interested in neuroscience and had read Damasio before. I did not expect to read a book on the future of human society which is in fact my major interest. It was a nice surprise. Well informed with some adventurous speculations but opens up the dialogue into the future we’re building. I highly recommend it. These days it’s easy to fall pray of the folly of “we have the knowledge and resources to tweak everything to build an abundant digital future”, this book brings us back to earth and continuous to inquire into what are the best steps to take to evolve. It does not necessarily acknowledge that we are in fact the architects of our own evolution and yet stretches the need to create the large social architecture needed. In conclusion just read it!

1 sur 1 personne(s) ont trouvé cet avis utile.

  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Douglas
  • 25/11/2018

Thought provoking book...

The idea that consciousness and emotions arose from a seeking after homeostasis is, of course, a very basic theory of Freud. He explores this idea in the ID section of his book entitled The Superego the Ego and the ID. This book takes that idea and makes a lot of speculation which would be hard to prove but it's interesting speculation if you take it with a grain of salt. I think the basic idea, again Freud's idea, is the most solid piece of the book, but it's still an interesting read and you can take what you will leave what you will.

1 sur 1 personne(s) ont trouvé cet avis utile.

  • Global
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Breki Tomasson
  • 01/07/2018

What a sad, sad, man

While this book begins with an often very technical analysis of the biology of feelings and emotions - and the most frequent use of the word "homeostasis" I've ever seen in one book - it quickly devolves into what I can only see as an exercise in modern Luddite thought.

The author frequently misrepresents technological advancement, confusing terms and falling back on a near-religious circular reasoning. Humans are better than artificial intelligence because to be human is good and humans are the most human things around.

I also find the logic behind several parts of the book poorly structured - such as the entire reasoning that one needs a physical body in order to come up with morals and ethics and that this is why artificial intelligence will never have morals and ethics beyond what we hard code into them. It's an argument that breaks apart under even gentle probing but, like much of the book, is just taken as fact and never challenged.

7 sur 12 personne(s) ont trouvé cet avis utile.

  • Global
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Pollyessster
  • 08/05/2018

Nope.

I’m interested in the topic, I liked the ideas presented, but this book was not enjoyable and not enough ideas were presented for the time spent. I listened while doing some boring manual labor which usually makes anything seem pretty good, but I was so bored. Very very dry. The author seemed to be a somewhat defensive about the ideas he presented and parts felt very repetitive. Circumlocution. I just wanted him to get on with it. I only made it halfway before giving up. This author definitely isn’t for me. For a similar topic that is, in my opinion, better presented, try Other Minds by Peter Godfrey-Smith. I was so into that I listened to the whole thing in one day during a long drive.

5 sur 9 personne(s) ont trouvé cet avis utile.

  • Global
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Jeremy Lavine
  • 22/04/2018

Rambling speculation & pontification

This book pretends to be a work of science, but its only concrete scientific content is a few notes on the human nervous system. The vast majority of the book consists of vague claims about homeostasis comparing human cultures with insect and bacterial communities (with no detailed description of underlying mechanisms) and flights of baseless speculation, opinion, and moralizing on all manner of loosely connected topics including religion, news media, international institutions, the daily routines and cares of ancient hunter gatherers, and transhumanism. Basically, the book doesn't deliver what it promises, and teaches little of substance.

5 sur 9 personne(s) ont trouvé cet avis utile.

  • Global
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    3 out of 5 stars
  • E. Wilson
  • 22/05/2019

Interesting neuroscience, muddled social science

First, this book is well written; the author has a gift for expressing scientific ideas eloquently. As long as he sticks to biology and neuroscience, his writing is interesting and illuminating.

But Demasio's foray into social science is muddled and ill-informed. He tries to show that culture is rooted in feeling, which in turn is a biological adaptation that plays a crucial role in homeostasis -- the processes that keep the variables necessary for sustaining life within acceptable bounds. But in his hands the concept of culture -- already rather murky -- becomes positively turbid. He seems to conflate the informal notion of culture (the arts and "high culture") with the anthropological concept that has become one of the pillars of contemporary social science. And he had me howling with incredulity when he asserted that social insects have culture. That smashes the concept of culture to smithereens. Culture, by any modern definition, consists of shared learning. The complex social behaviors of ants and bees are genetically programmed, not learned. How can a man who is obviously so erudite be so ignorant of one of the core concepts he writes about?

He also asserts that social science largely ignores the concept of homeostasis, though he makes a passing and dismissive reference to Talcott Parson. Homeostasis has a long history in social science and it is a core concept in functionalism and its various cousins, such as cultural ecology (though it hasn't always gone by that name). What he is proposing sounds a lot like Malinowski's psychological functionalism, an idea introduced nearly a century ago.

It seems to me that if you write a book about a subject, you should learn at least a little about it beforehand.

  • Global
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    1 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Ravil Niyazov
  • 22/12/2018

Very poor narration

A very poor narration. It prevented me from following the story. Won't recommend listening. The narrator just spoiled the great story.

  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
  • LUIS TOMAS NICOLAS GARCIA GALVAN
  • 24/09/2018

Evolucion

Amplia y profunda recorrida evolutiva. 4500 millones de años expuestos de forma simple y comprensible

  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Joao G. D. Santos
  • 06/09/2018

The Strange Order of Things

It was a fascinating reading, that is, hearing.

The contents made a interesting connection with other studies and books, like Sapiens and Homo Deus, from Yuval Harari.

I strongly recommend that.