I wish I hadn't bought this, 20 May 2008
Like other reviewers I find this dictionary constantly frustrating. It is not comprehensive, and more often than not it doesn't have the term I am looking for, meaning I have to resort to the internet or textbooks. For example, it has the definition for 'jaw' but lacks 'qualia' and 'geosmins'. Not recommended for anyone above A level.

a little too basic for a Biology BSc., 22 Jan 2008
I have found this Biology dictionary to be lacking many important terms in the second year of my degree, and I have generally been disappointed with it. I believe it is fine for A-levels, and acceptable in a first year biology degree; but this needs companion texts for later degree years as modules advance.

Maintain that resting potential, now!, 01 Dec 2006
The question was: what (or whatever) maintains the resting membrane potential nowadays! I always thought that it was the sodium pump (or Na K ATPase etc.). Recently, I heard: No, it is not the sodium pump that maintains the resting potential. So I checked both the Oxford and the Penguin Dictionaries of Biology. Oxford says that the resting potential is maintained by the sodium pump; however, the Penguin says it is the leaky potassium channels, and sodium pump plays a slight role. Well, it is one of those academic debates, it would seem--which really mean nothing--because nothing is at stake! The debate is from confusing maintenance, recovery, and repair--perhaps. Is it the resting potential (a thing being maintained) or is it the repolarization after a depolarization (a thing in recovery) that we are talking about? Is maintenance still maintenance if you spend energy in extruding the smaller atoms out--well: a running car can be maintained only by spending money? Perhaps, after all, it is only the usual confusion of the frogs in a well: they can only see the stars in their own horizons. The whole biological process has several components, and to know which is the one--well, just take one out and see if the process holds and functions. Which brick is the most important in a wall? Clearly, the truth is never simple, and possibly there is no such thing as the truth. Things evolve using all of the components--and are what they are. So, I guess it is always the context and it is always relative: point of view etc. There is no simple correct answer because the question is incorrectly formulated--without the necessary context. What is more important in the running of a car: the engine or the gas? So get both the Oxford and Penguin--they complement, and both are useful when viewed and understood in the right context: neither can replace the textbook; and no textbook replaces all the source materials--but you need to start somewhere. For a rich fantasy life read Ayul Zamir's Intern Beth. Now, whatever maintains that resting membrane potential!

What not to buy, 13 Dec 2005
if your looking for a dictionary for a degree course this would not be it. many biological terms and definitions are not listed. your better off buying either the henderson biological dictionary or the penguin one, as these have far more terms and are listed in a more clear and consise manner.

Just what you need, 02 Jul 2005
This is an excellent dictionary for any biology student in school or university. Contains clear direct definitions of words and has a clear lay-out also, a must buy for the biologist of today.

I wish I hadn't bought this, 20 May 2008
Like other reviewers I find this dictionary constantly frustrating. It is not comprehensive, and more often than not it doesn't have the term I am looking for, meaning I have to resort to the internet or textbooks. For example, it has the definition for 'jaw' but lacks 'qualia' and 'geosmins'. Not recommended for anyone above A level.

a little too basic for a Biology BSc., 22 Jan 2008
I have found this Biology dictionary to be lacking many important terms in the second year of my degree, and I have generally been disappointed with it. I believe it is fine for A-levels, and acceptable in a first year biology degree; but this needs companion texts for later degree years as modules advance.

Maintain that resting potential, now!, 01 Dec 2006
The question was: what (or whatever) maintains the resting membrane potential nowadays! I always thought that it was the sodium pump (or Na K ATPase etc.). Recently, I heard: No, it is not the sodium pump that maintains the resting potential. So I checked both the Oxford and the Penguin Dictionaries of Biology. Oxford says that the resting potential is maintained by the sodium pump; however, the Penguin says it is the leaky potassium channels, and sodium pump plays a slight role. Well, it is one of those academic debates, it would seem--which really mean nothing--because nothing is at stake! The debate is from confusing maintenance, recovery, and repair--perhaps. Is it the resting potential (a thing being maintained) or is it the repolarization after a depolarization (a thing in recovery) that we are talking about? Is maintenance still maintenance if you spend energy in extruding the smaller atoms out--well: a running car can be maintained only by spending money? Perhaps, after all, it is only the usual confusion of the frogs in a well: they can only see the stars in their own horizons. The whole biological process has several components, and to know which is the one--well, just take one out and see if the process holds and functions. Which brick is the most important in a wall? Clearly, the truth is never simple, and possibly there is no such thing as the truth. Things evolve using all of the components--and are what they are. So, I guess it is always the context and it is always relative: point of view etc. There is no simple correct answer because the question is incorrectly formulated--without the necessary context. What is more important in the running of a car: the engine or the gas? So get both the Oxford and Penguin--they complement, and both are useful when viewed and understood in the right context: neither can replace the textbook; and no textbook replaces all the source materials--but you need to start somewhere. For a rich fantasy life read Ayul Zamir's Intern Beth. Now, whatever maintains that resting membrane potential!

What not to buy, 13 Dec 2005
if your looking for a dictionary for a degree course this would not be it. many biological terms and definitions are not listed. your better off buying either the henderson biological dictionary or the penguin one, as these have far more terms and are listed in a more clear and consise manner.

Just what you need, 02 Jul 2005
This is an excellent dictionary for any biology student in school or university. Contains clear direct definitions of words and has a clear lay-out also, a must buy for the biologist of today.

Perfect introduction to a complex and profound subject, 06 Jul 2008
The relationship between mind and body, and the tremendous difficulty of explaining that relationship, has been a central theme in modern philosophy since Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum'. In the subsequent centuries the entire heavy artillary of analytical philosophy has been brought to bear, categorical mistakes have been claimed, behavourist theories championed, yet the awkard I stubbornly remains, peering out at the world. A bundle of neurons and synapses themselves composed of randomly spinning atoms and electrons, somehow able to ask questions 'why am I? who am I? What am I?'.

Recently however, the problem of mind has taken on a new academic guise - the study of consciousness. The ancient riddle has been reframed into a seemingly narrower and more fundamental question - the problem of how physical matter be self-aware, how can the brain think and feel? The central question may have become more focused, yet suddenly it is not just the philosophers who are discussing it. The study of consciousness is now truly a multi-disciplinary subject, drawing in experts in psychology and neuro-science amonst others. Suddenly a subject so old and profound appears to be one of the most exciting fields in academia. One that might even be on the verge of providing answers that would transform our very sense of self and identity.

Susan Blackmore does a remarkably good job here of introducing such a complex and wideranging subject. You really do get a sense of what the question is and just why it is so challenging. Not only that but you should get a feel of why the subject is particularly exciting at the moment and for those versed in the 'traditional' formulations of the philosophy of mind, this book stands as testamant to the fact that the study of consciousness is really a subject in its own right now.

Having said all that, this book (and others by Susan Blackmore) really should come with a government health warning. I've read David Hume's reflections on the illusory nature of the self, as well as some of those of Eastern Philosophy. Like Hume, I feel largely able to set aside such considerations as soon as I attend to other matters. Reading Blackmore, I really do feel a little shaken. I can give up the idea of a concrete self lurking behind my eyes controlling my fingers as I type this review, but when plausible argument after plausible argument chips away at the belief in consciousness itself, or at least our faith that there is a stream of consciousness, then the effect is rather more disturbing and profound.

Blackmore introduces all the main theories relating to consciousness here, in a very readable and succinct manner. You are fully made aware of her own viewpoint, but that is not a bad thing, as they are clearly put in contrast with the others and in a way that helps you come to your own conclusion, though as I just said, it may leave you a little unsettled.

Though the stream of consciousness mayby some kind of 'grand illusion' as Blackmore and of course Daniel Dennet quite persuasively argue for, its not clear that the problem of explaining consciousness is in anyway diminished. No matter how many insignificant little pieces you try to break conscious awareness into, the fundamental problem still remains : how does physical matter achieve any consciousness at all?

A must read introduction for those interested in the study of consciousness and the philosophy of mind. I'd also fully recomend her longer introduction (as a follow up) which has student exercises and chapter summaries etc. Just take care!

A great little primer on the subject, 18 Oct 2007
A terrific little book that should only have taken me a few hours to read, but instead took a week because I frequently stopped to ponder the philosophically challenging examples she uses. I thought I already knew the subject reasonably well, but there's plenty in this small volume I found new and challenging.

Well worth reading her other book too: Conversations on Consciousness in which she talks to several leading figures in the field, and where her own biases on the subject rub up against theirs.

Very easy to read, with illustrations and no jargon. Heartily recommended!

"The subjective experience is only a fleeting event that gives rise to a delusion.", 25 Sep 2007
And what's worse, "If you go on believing you are always conscious, and construct metaphors about streams and theatres, then you only dig yourself deeper and deeper into confusion."

First we're introduced to the influence of specific brain regions on consciousness. So the temporal cortex is responsible for our changing perceptions, whilst the visual cortex simply processes retinal input which is interpreted later. All this might suggest the temporal cortex is more `subjective', but as Blackmore points out, "correlations alone do not solve the mystery... how can some cells give rise to subjective experience and some not?"
Delving deeper into the brain only confuses the issue though. It turns out that much of what we think we're conscious of is in fact illusion. Chapters 3 & 4 concentrate on these illusions. Libet's `neuronal adequacy for consciousness', the cutaneous rabbit experiment, daydreaming and such are all pulled in to break up William James' good old-fashioned stream-of-consciousness theory. Some visual games emphasise how much of our sensory world is constructed; inattentional blindness and Ramachandran's `filling-in' are the main culprits.
With all these thrown at our sense of the world, Blackmore then proceeds towards our concept of the self. Most religions and common sense generally perceive a continuous I, a self, in relation to the world; this is ego-theory. Against this is Buddhism and the 18th century Scot, David Hume, who said that the self is more like a "bundle of sensations" threaded together by memory and relationships. The self then becomes a "centre of narrative gravity", "a useful fiction" for relating experiences to each other. But though Bundle theory is useful in relation to some strange neurophysiological effects, it soes remain deeply counter-intuitive.
Finally, even our sense of free-will is preceded by electrical stimuli, shown in Libet's `consciousness-timing' experiments, leading psychologists to produce true-order diagrams for thought processes along the lines of, 1) the brain begins planning an action, 2) the brain activity leads to thought about the action, 3) we assume the thoughts caused the action. She concedes by the end that Dennett's `multiple draft' theory may be the closest have to understanding all of what we don't know; the brain plays out parallel translations of the world of its own accord and not until it's asked to account for its experience does it bother at all with consciousness. In this way maintaining consciousness becomes (for Blackmore at least) a matter of application, of repeating Zen koan-style questions, like `Am I conscious now?', or `Who am I?', etc.

Overall, this is a good read. The visual games (like those of the VSI to the Brain) are a good, cheap laugh, and the sheer number of theories sketched show just how confused consciousness studies is at the moment. The only gripe is that the theories are spread about between the chapters rather than coherently stated and contrasted. Blackmore's priority is the brain and the faculties of consciousness it attends to, only sprinkling along the way parts of related theories which by the end became, for me, confused and nebulous. Anyway, good for prodding your bonce. Definitely recommended.

Understanding consciousness: A brief review, 29 Aug 2007
What is consciousness? How do a set of electrical responses of millions of brain cells produce private, subjective conscious experience? Several theories have been proposed, and they include, grand unifying theories, quantum mechanical theories, biophysical/neurochemical mechanisms, philosophical, and spiritual theories. None of these completely explain the relationship between mind and brain (body), or subjective and objective thoughts. That is, the way things seem to me as opposed to how they should be objectively; in other words, the theory has to explain how subjective experience arises from objective brains? How billions of interconnections of neurons produce perception, learning, memory, reasoning, language, and finally consciousness. Different areas of brain perform different functions, such as, vision, hearing, speech, body image, motor control, and many other tasks. They are linked to each other but not into one control processor to produce consciousness. For example, pain is visible to a certain extent, but one can not fully comprehend another person's pain unless one experience that pain oneself.

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists proposed some form of dualism that mind and brain are different, however, some scientists prefer monism; the mind and body are one and the same, but this does not explain a consistent physical world. A third form preferred by physicists is materialism, which makes matter most fundamental. This also does not explain how a physical brain (matter) can give rise conscious experience. It is also unclear if consciousness is a power (energy) or a force but the laws physics relate each other.

Could consciousness lags behind the events of the world? The experimental results of Benjamin Libet are discussed (chapter 3) in light of dualist theories, quantum mechanics, Higher order of thought (HOT) theory, and Global workplace theory. Each theory offers explanation for certain aspect of consciousness, but eludes from addressing the subjectivity experience. In chapter 4, there is a brief discussion of weather consciousness is a grand illusion: Much of this concept depends on individual visual awareness. In chapter 5, the spirit, self and souls are discussed in light of many theories. The Upanishads, the sacred scriptures of Hindus, and Buddhist philosophy propose self is as an independent entity, but modern philosophers such as David Hume claim that self is a bundle of sensations. The experimental results of psychologists Roger Perry, Michael Gazzaniga, and Earnest Hilgard have been discussed. Most theories equate self with a particular brain process, but fail to explain the relationship of self with consciousness. Chapter 6 discusses the origin of free will that makes the decision or expresses willingness, is that inner self or due to power of consciousness? Since all events in the universe are deterministic, i.e. all events are determined by prior events. It follows that everything happens in future is inevitable; hence no room for free will! However some philosophers argue that deterministic process is chaotic and outcomes are complex, which may not be predictable. Therefore both determinism and free will could coexist independently. Many psychologists believe that free will is an illusion. In chapter 7, altered states of consciousness, due to sleep and dream, psychoactive drugs, stimulants, out of body experiences, and meditation are discussed in relation to mind and consciousness. The last chapter presents an interesting discussion about the evolution of consciousness and examines if animals have consciousness. The author presents arguments in favor of lack of consciousness in animals because they do not have language skills. It is proposed that language and mathematical skills coupled with deep thoughts help humans to communicate about past, present and future that may confer consciousness. This argument is unclear since the term consciousness itself needs to be defined. This book is well written and it is recommended.


A great scientist takes a wrong turning, 12 Aug 2007
I first encountered Blackmore when, after searching long and hard for a scientific explanation of out-of-body experiences, I came across her book Beyond the Body. It was astonishingly well researched and offered a rational, convincing explanation for phenomena that were usually neglected by the scientific community. I became an instant fan and have followed her work ever since. But now, alas, she has aligned herself with the Dawkins/Dennett axis of drivel, and my loyalty to her is badly shaken. In this book (a shorter version of her Consciousness: An Introduction) she follows Dennett by denying the existence of consciousness and then indulging in much speculation about the properties and evolutionary history of this non-existent entity. Consciousness, she maintains, is an 'illusion', which she defines as something that exists but does not have the properties it appears to have. She then proceeds to discuss it as if it does not in fact exist, and slips into calling it a 'delusion', which she apparently regards as a synonymous term. So far, so Dennett. She follows Dawkins by labeling just about everything a 'meme' (as Poe might have said 'All that we see or seem is but a meme within a meme'), unless she happens not to approve of it, in which case it is 'a virus of the mind'. As an example, she indulges in a quite intemperate and completely irrelevant rant against religion, in which Roman Catholicism is described as a parasitic infection. Like Dennett and Dawkins, she leaves no axe unground.

So why do I give the book 5 stars if I disagree with so much of it? Well, I guess you can't keep a good scientist down, and Blackmore is still a great scientist. She brings considerable knowledge and erudition to the subject, presents fair summaries of opposing views, and gives excellent descriptions of odd phenomena like Libet's Delay and the Cutaneous Rabbit. And her style is as readable as ever. I was suspicious when I saw that her son Jolyon had contributed many of the illustrations - it smacked of nepotism - but I have to say his drawings are really charming and add greatly to the text. The other illustrations are useful too - with the possible exception of a photograph of the author opening a fridge door - which isn't always the case with this series. The book ends with a very useful Further Reading list. It's thus an excellent introduction to the subject (although I think John Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness is still the best place to start).

So, I shall keep the faith and continue to read everything Susan Blackmore publishes. I just hope that one day, just as she once abandoned a belief in the paranormal, she sees the light and abandons the axis of drivel.

Nature Via Nurture follows on from Matt Ridley's bestselling Genome. He takes on a centuries-old question: is it nature or nurture that makes us who we are? Ridley asserts that the question itself is a "false dichotomy". Using copious examples of human and animal behaviour, he presents the notion that our environment affects the way our genes express themselves.

Ridley writes that the switches controlling our 30,000 or so genes not only form the structures of our brains but do so in such a way as to cue off the outside environment in a tidy feedback loop of body and behaviour. In fact, it seems clear that we have genetic "thermostats" that are turned up and down by environmental factors. He challenges both scientific and folk concepts, from assumptions of what's malleable in a person to sociobiological theories based solely on the "selfish gene".

Ridley's proof is in the pudding for such touchy subjects as monogamy, aggression, and parenting, which we now understand have some genetic controls. Nevertheless, "the more we understand both our genes and our instincts, the less inevitable they seem". A consummate populariser of science, Ridley once again provides a perfect mix of history, genetics, and sociology for readers hungry to understand the implications of the human genome sequence. --Therese Littleton, Amazon.com

I wish I hadn't bought this, 20 May 2008
Like other reviewers I find this dictionary constantly frustrating. It is not comprehensive, and more often than not it doesn't have the term I am looking for, meaning I have to resort to the internet or textbooks. For example, it has the definition for 'jaw' but lacks 'qualia' and 'geosmins'. Not recommended for anyone above A level.

a little too basic for a Biology BSc., 22 Jan 2008
I have found this Biology dictionary to be lacking many important terms in the second year of my degree, and I have generally been disappointed with it. I believe it is fine for A-levels, and acceptable in a first year biology degree; but this needs companion texts for later degree years as modules advance.

Maintain that resting potential, now!, 01 Dec 2006
The question was: what (or whatever) maintains the resting membrane potential nowadays! I always thought that it was the sodium pump (or Na K ATPase etc.). Recently, I heard: No, it is not the sodium pump that maintains the resting potential. So I checked both the Oxford and the Penguin Dictionaries of Biology. Oxford says that the resting potential is maintained by the sodium pump; however, the Penguin says it is the leaky potassium channels, and sodium pump plays a slight role. Well, it is one of those academic debates, it would seem--which really mean nothing--because nothing is at stake! The debate is from confusing maintenance, recovery, and repair--perhaps. Is it the resting potential (a thing being maintained) or is it the repolarization after a depolarization (a thing in recovery) that we are talking about? Is maintenance still maintenance if you spend energy in extruding the smaller atoms out--well: a running car can be maintained only by spending money? Perhaps, after all, it is only the usual confusion of the frogs in a well: they can only see the stars in their own horizons. The whole biological process has several components, and to know which is the one--well, just take one out and see if the process holds and functions. Which brick is the most important in a wall? Clearly, the truth is never simple, and possibly there is no such thing as the truth. Things evolve using all of the components--and are what they are. So, I guess it is always the context and it is always relative: point of view etc. There is no simple correct answer because the question is incorrectly formulated--without the necessary context. What is more important in the running of a car: the engine or the gas? So get both the Oxford and Penguin--they complement, and both are useful when viewed and understood in the right context: neither can replace the textbook; and no textbook replaces all the source materials--but you need to start somewhere. For a rich fantasy life read Ayul Zamir's Intern Beth. Now, whatever maintains that resting membrane potential!

What not to buy, 13 Dec 2005
if your looking for a dictionary for a degree course this would not be it. many biological terms and definitions are not listed. your better off buying either the henderson biological dictionary or the penguin one, as these have far more terms and are listed in a more clear and consise manner.

Just what you need, 02 Jul 2005
This is an excellent dictionary for any biology student in school or university. Contains clear direct definitions of words and has a clear lay-out also, a must buy for the biologist of today.

Perfect introduction to a complex and profound subject, 06 Jul 2008
The relationship between mind and body, and the tremendous difficulty of explaining that relationship, has been a central theme in modern philosophy since Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum'. In the subsequent centuries the entire heavy artillary of analytical philosophy has been brought to bear, categorical mistakes have been claimed, behavourist theories championed, yet the awkard I stubbornly remains, peering out at the world. A bundle of neurons and synapses themselves composed of randomly spinning atoms and electrons, somehow able to ask questions 'why am I? who am I? What am I?'.

Recently however, the problem of mind has taken on a new academic guise - the study of consciousness. The ancient riddle has been reframed into a seemingly narrower and more fundamental question - the problem of how physical matter be self-aware, how can the brain think and feel? The central question may have become more focused, yet suddenly it is not just the philosophers who are discussing it. The study of consciousness is now truly a multi-disciplinary subject, drawing in experts in psychology and neuro-science amonst others. Suddenly a subject so old and profound appears to be one of the most exciting fields in academia. One that might even be on the verge of providing answers that would transform our very sense of self and identity.

Susan Blackmore does a remarkably good job here of introducing such a complex and wideranging subject. You really do get a sense of what the question is and just why it is so challenging. Not only that but you should get a feel of why the subject is particularly exciting at the moment and for those versed in the 'traditional' formulations of the philosophy of mind, this book stands as testamant to the fact that the study of consciousness is really a subject in its own right now.

Having said all that, this book (and others by Susan Blackmore) really should come with a government health warning. I've read David Hume's reflections on the illusory nature of the self, as well as some of those of Eastern Philosophy. Like Hume, I feel largely able to set aside such considerations as soon as I attend to other matters. Reading Blackmore, I really do feel a little shaken. I can give up the idea of a concrete self lurking behind my eyes controlling my fingers as I type this review, but when plausible argument after plausible argument chips away at the belief in consciousness itself, or at least our faith that there is a stream of consciousness, then the effect is rather more disturbing and profound.

Blackmore introduces all the main theories relating to consciousness here, in a very readable and succinct manner. You are fully made aware of her own viewpoint, but that is not a bad thing, as they are clearly put in contrast with the others and in a way that helps you come to your own conclusion, though as I just said, it may leave you a little unsettled.

Though the stream of consciousness mayby some kind of 'grand illusion' as Blackmore and of course Daniel Dennet quite persuasively argue for, its not clear that the problem of explaining consciousness is in anyway diminished. No matter how many insignificant little pieces you try to break conscious awareness into, the fundamental problem still remains : how does physical matter achieve any consciousness at all?

A must read introduction for those interested in the study of consciousness and the philosophy of mind. I'd also fully recomend her longer introduction (as a follow up) which has student exercises and chapter summaries etc. Just take care!

A great little primer on the subject, 18 Oct 2007
A terrific little book that should only have taken me a few hours to read, but instead took a week because I frequently stopped to ponder the philosophically challenging examples she uses. I thought I already knew the subject reasonably well, but there's plenty in this small volume I found new and challenging.

Well worth reading her other book too: Conversations on Consciousness in which she talks to several leading figures in the field, and where her own biases on the subject rub up against theirs.

Very easy to read, with illustrations and no jargon. Heartily recommended!

"The subjective experience is only a fleeting event that gives rise to a delusion.", 25 Sep 2007
And what's worse, "If you go on believing you are always conscious, and construct metaphors about streams and theatres, then you only dig yourself deeper and deeper into confusion."

First we're introduced to the influence of specific brain regions on consciousness. So the temporal cortex is responsible for our changing perceptions, whilst the visual cortex simply processes retinal input which is interpreted later. All this might suggest the temporal cortex is more `subjective', but as Blackmore points out, "correlations alone do not solve the mystery... how can some cells give rise to subjective experience and some not?"
Delving deeper into the brain only confuses the issue though. It turns out that much of what we think we're conscious of is in fact illusion. Chapters 3 & 4 concentrate on these illusions. Libet's `neuronal adequacy for consciousness', the cutaneous rabbit experiment, daydreaming and such are all pulled in to break up William James' good old-fashioned stream-of-consciousness theory. Some visual games emphasise how much of our sensory world is constructed; inattentional blindness and Ramachandran's `filling-in' are the main culprits.
With all these thrown at our sense of the world, Blackmore then proceeds towards our concept of the self. Most religions and common sense generally perceive a continuous I, a self, in relation to the world; this is ego-theory. Against this is Buddhism and the 18th century Scot, David Hume, who said that the self is more like a "bundle of sensations" threaded together by memory and relationships. The self then becomes a "centre of narrative gravity", "a useful fiction" for relating experiences to each other. But though Bundle theory is useful in relation to some strange neurophysiological effects, it soes remain deeply counter-intuitive.
Finally, even our sense of free-will is preceded by electrical stimuli, shown in Libet's `consciousness-timing' experiments, leading psychologists to produce true-order diagrams for thought processes along the lines of, 1) the brain begins planning an action, 2) the brain activity leads to thought about the action, 3) we assume the thoughts caused the action. She concedes by the end that Dennett's `multiple draft' theory may be the closest have to understanding all of what we don't know; the brain plays out parallel translations of the world of its own accord and not until it's asked to account for its experience does it bother at all with consciousness. In this way maintaining consciousness becomes (for Blackmore at least) a matter of application, of repeating Zen koan-style questions, like `Am I conscious now?', or `Who am I?', etc.

Overall, this is a good read. The visual games (like those of the VSI to the Brain) are a good, cheap laugh, and the sheer number of theories sketched show just how confused consciousness studies is at the moment. The only gripe is that the theories are spread about between the chapters rather than coherently stated and contrasted. Blackmore's priority is the brain and the faculties of consciousness it attends to, only sprinkling along the way parts of related theories which by the end became, for me, confused and nebulous. Anyway, good for prodding your bonce. Definitely recommended.

Understanding consciousness: A brief review, 29 Aug 2007
What is consciousness? How do a set of electrical responses of millions of brain cells produce private, subjective conscious experience? Several theories have been proposed, and they include, grand unifying theories, quantum mechanical theories, biophysical/neurochemical mechanisms, philosophical, and spiritual theories. None of these completely explain the relationship between mind and brain (body), or subjective and objective thoughts. That is, the way things seem to me as opposed to how they should be objectively; in other words, the theory has to explain how subjective experience arises from objective brains? How billions of interconnections of neurons produce perception, learning, memory, reasoning, language, and finally consciousness. Different areas of brain perform different functions, such as, vision, hearing, speech, body image, motor control, and many other tasks. They are linked to each other but not into one control processor to produce consciousness. For example, pain is visible to a certain extent, but one can not fully comprehend another person's pain unless one experience that pain oneself.

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists proposed some form of dualism that mind and brain are different, however, some scientists prefer monism; the mind and body are one and the same, but this does not explain a consistent physical world. A third form preferred by physicists is materialism, which makes matter most fundamental. This also does not explain how a physical brain (matter) can give rise conscious experience. It is also unclear if consciousness is a power (energy) or a force but the laws physics relate each other.

Could consciousness lags behind the events of the world? The experimental results of Benjamin Libet are discussed (chapter 3) in light of dualist theories, quantum mechanics, Higher order of thought (HOT) theory, and Global workplace theory. Each theory offers explanation for certain aspect of consciousness, but eludes from addressing the subjectivity experience. In chapter 4, there is a brief discussion of weather consciousness is a grand illusion: Much of this concept depends on individual visual awareness. In chapter 5, the spirit, self and souls are discussed in light of many theories. The Upanishads, the sacred scriptures of Hindus, and Buddhist philosophy propose self is as an independent entity, but modern philosophers such as David Hume claim that self is a bundle of sensations. The experimental results of psychologists Roger Perry, Michael Gazzaniga, and Earnest Hilgard have been discussed. Most theories equate self with a particular brain process, but fail to explain the relationship of self with consciousness. Chapter 6 discusses the origin of free will that makes the decision or expresses willingness, is that inner self or due to power of consciousness? Since all events in the universe are deterministic, i.e. all events are determined by prior events. It follows that everything happens in future is inevitable; hence no room for free will! However some philosophers argue that deterministic process is chaotic and outcomes are complex, which may not be predictable. Therefore both determinism and free will could coexist independently. Many psychologists believe that free will is an illusion. In chapter 7, altered states of consciousness, due to sleep and dream, psychoactive drugs, stimulants, out of body experiences, and meditation are discussed in relation to mind and consciousness. The last chapter presents an interesting discussion about the evolution of consciousness and examines if animals have consciousness. The author presents arguments in favor of lack of consciousness in animals because they do not have language skills. It is proposed that language and mathematical skills coupled with deep thoughts help humans to communicate about past, present and future that may confer consciousness. This argument is unclear since the term consciousness itself needs to be defined. This book is well written and it is recommended.


A great scientist takes a wrong turning, 12 Aug 2007
I first encountered Blackmore when, after searching long and hard for a scientific explanation of out-of-body experiences, I came across her book Beyond the Body. It was astonishingly well researched and offered a rational, convincing explanation for phenomena that were usually neglected by the scientific community. I became an instant fan and have followed her work ever since. But now, alas, she has aligned herself with the Dawkins/Dennett axis of drivel, and my loyalty to her is badly shaken. In this book (a shorter version of her Consciousness: An Introduction) she follows Dennett by denying the existence of consciousness and then indulging in much speculation about the properties and evolutionary history of this non-existent entity. Consciousness, she maintains, is an 'illusion', which she defines as something that exists but does not have the properties it appears to have. She then proceeds to discuss it as if it does not in fact exist, and slips into calling it a 'delusion', which she apparently regards as a synonymous term. So far, so Dennett. She follows Dawkins by labeling just about everything a 'meme' (as Poe might have said 'All that we see or seem is but a meme within a meme'), unless she happens not to approve of it, in which case it is 'a virus of the mind'. As an example, she indulges in a quite intemperate and completely irrelevant rant against religion, in which Roman Catholicism is described as a parasitic infection. Like Dennett and Dawkins, she leaves no axe unground.

So why do I give the book 5 stars if I disagree with so much of it? Well, I guess you can't keep a good scientist down, and Blackmore is still a great scientist. She brings considerable knowledge and erudition to the subject, presents fair summaries of opposing views, and gives excellent descriptions of odd phenomena like Libet's Delay and the Cutaneous Rabbit. And her style is as readable as ever. I was suspicious when I saw that her son Jolyon had contributed many of the illustrations - it smacked of nepotism - but I have to say his drawings are really charming and add greatly to the text. The other illustrations are useful too - with the possible exception of a photograph of the author opening a fridge door - which isn't always the case with this series. The book ends with a very useful Further Reading list. It's thus an excellent introduction to the subject (although I think John Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness is still the best place to start).

So, I shall keep the faith and continue to read everything Susan Blackmore publishes. I just hope that one day, just as she once abandoned a belief in the paranormal, she sees the light and abandons the axis of drivel.



fantastic, 02 May 2006
This book is amazing. A fantastic read about the concept and argument surrounding nature and nurture, genetics vs environment. On a par with his other book.

One of the best books I've read, 19 Jan 2006
I have a strong interest in this field. For me Ridley puts flesh on the bones of human evolution (Why we evolved like we did), as well as defining what we are. Some interesting anecdotes keeps things lively, as well as some up to date thinking on the Genome project of which from memory he was a part of.
By it's very nature, any book on this subject will quickly date, and I look forward to future books by the same author.

Excellent stuff, 15 May 2005
This book will get you thinking, guaranteed. The accesible writing style combined with the analogies, stories, and up to date views on the origins of so much of what makes us human is fascinating and it is barely an exagerration to say there is a revelation on every page for the reader new to the subject. Doing Pavlov, Skinner, and others for A Level Biology, the book provides an interesting view of the big names of behavioural science from a perspective outside a textbook. Deconstructing both science and accepted folk wisdom on the origins of personality, psychosis and homosexuality among so many other topics, 'Nature via Nurture' presents the cutting edge of its topic in an endlessly intriguing style.

Twisting linguistics [biologically], 04 Jan 2005
Many similes have been used to introduce us to our genome; our DNA. It's a plan. It's a recipe. It's a blueprint. It's a code. Ridley shows how these metaphors miss the point - they're all too fixed to compare with the dynamics of the fundamental molecule of life. He shows how our genome, indeed, the genome common to all life, uses the same elements to say many things. Instead of terms identifying fixed elements, he suggests the image of language. The genome has a limited lexicon of phrases with which to build bodies and personalities, yet manages an immense variation in the results. How like a chimpanzee are you?, he asks. Depending on how you make the comparison - very little or very much. If you count the entire number of "base pairs" making up chimpanzees and humans, the difference is minimal - perhaps 30 thousand out of 3 billion. If, instead, you visit the zoo [or, better, Gombe] the differences are striking.

In Ridley's view, the striking differences are due to "word order" contained in the genome. All the words are essentially the same, but different locations and different interactions produce different characteristics. Including behaviour. In the six or seven million years since the chimpanzee-human line diverged, lifestyles, diet, social structure and living environment have helped guide how the genome produces a body and how that body will likely act in a given situation. Environment and the genome, then, are in a constant interactive flux. They feed signals through the organism to determine whether the organism will survive and reproduce. Nature isn't in the driver's seat, and if we fail to learn or adapt to the vagaries of environment, we won't survive to have descendants. Nature, then, is achieved via nurture.

All this should seem self-evident in today's world, but Ridley shows we have yet to fully understand and accept our role in Nature. There are few writers as articulate and expressive in dealing with these issues as Ridley. His grasp of the science involved is firm, yet he maintains a conversational tone throughout the narrative. While you will encounter much that is new to you in this book, you may close it [the first time], confident that his explanations have neither overwhelmed you nor left you unsatisfied. Of course, as Ridley points out, there is much work remaining in understanding the genome's impact on life. With luck, this book may impel others to follow his lead and uncover more of life's mysteries. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Nature via Nurture by another name, 13 Oct 2004
Having bought this along with Nature via Nurture (a wonderful book) I was surprised to discover that it's the *same* book, it just has a different name.
Perhaps this is obvious from the available information, but since I managed to miss it, I thought it was worth warning others. I love Matt Ridley's books (hence the 5), but not enough to want two copies...

I wish I hadn't bought this, 20 May 2008
Like other reviewers I find this dictionary constantly frustrating. It is not comprehensive, and more often than not it doesn't have the term I am looking for, meaning I have to resort to the internet or textbooks. For example, it has the definition for 'jaw' but lacks 'qualia' and 'geosmins'. Not recommended for anyone above A level.

a little too basic for a Biology BSc., 22 Jan 2008
I have found this Biology dictionary to be lacking many important terms in the second year of my degree, and I have generally been disappointed with it. I believe it is fine for A-levels, and acceptable in a first year biology degree; but this needs companion texts for later degree years as modules advance.

Maintain that resting potential, now!, 01 Dec 2006
The question was: what (or whatever) maintains the resting membrane potential nowadays! I always thought that it was the sodium pump (or Na K ATPase etc.). Recently, I heard: No, it is not the sodium pump that maintains the resting potential. So I checked both the Oxford and the Penguin Dictionaries of Biology. Oxford says that the resting potential is maintained by the sodium pump; however, the Penguin says it is the leaky potassium channels, and sodium pump plays a slight role. Well, it is one of those academic debates, it would seem--which really mean nothing--because nothing is at stake! The debate is from confusing maintenance, recovery, and repair--perhaps. Is it the resting potential (a thing being maintained) or is it the repolarization after a depolarization (a thing in recovery) that we are talking about? Is maintenance still maintenance if you spend energy in extruding the smaller atoms out--well: a running car can be maintained only by spending money? Perhaps, after all, it is only the usual confusion of the frogs in a well: they can only see the stars in their own horizons. The whole biological process has several components, and to know which is the one--well, just take one out and see if the process holds and functions. Which brick is the most important in a wall? Clearly, the truth is never simple, and possibly there is no such thing as the truth. Things evolve using all of the components--and are what they are. So, I guess it is always the context and it is always relative: point of view etc. There is no simple correct answer because the question is incorrectly formulated--without the necessary context. What is more important in the running of a car: the engine or the gas? So get both the Oxford and Penguin--they complement, and both are useful when viewed and understood in the right context: neither can replace the textbook; and no textbook replaces all the source materials--but you need to start somewhere. For a rich fantasy life read Ayul Zamir's Intern Beth. Now, whatever maintains that resting membrane potential!

What not to buy, 13 Dec 2005
if your looking for a dictionary for a degree course this would not be it. many biological terms and definitions are not listed. your better off buying either the henderson biological dictionary or the penguin one, as these have far more terms and are listed in a more clear and consise manner.

Just what you need, 02 Jul 2005
This is an excellent dictionary for any biology student in school or university. Contains clear direct definitions of words and has a clear lay-out also, a must buy for the biologist of today.

Perfect introduction to a complex and profound subject, 06 Jul 2008
The relationship between mind and body, and the tremendous difficulty of explaining that relationship, has been a central theme in modern philosophy since Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum'. In the subsequent centuries the entire heavy artillary of analytical philosophy has been brought to bear, categorical mistakes have been claimed, behavourist theories championed, yet the awkard I stubbornly remains, peering out at the world. A bundle of neurons and synapses themselves composed of randomly spinning atoms and electrons, somehow able to ask questions 'why am I? who am I? What am I?'.

Recently however, the problem of mind has taken on a new academic guise - the study of consciousness. The ancient riddle has been reframed into a seemingly narrower and more fundamental question - the problem of how physical matter be self-aware, how can the brain think and feel? The central question may have become more focused, yet suddenly it is not just the philosophers who are discussing it. The study of consciousness is now truly a multi-disciplinary subject, drawing in experts in psychology and neuro-science amonst others. Suddenly a subject so old and profound appears to be one of the most exciting fields in academia. One that might even be on the verge of providing answers that would transform our very sense of self and identity.

Susan Blackmore does a remarkably good job here of introducing such a complex and wideranging subject. You really do get a sense of what the question is and just why it is so challenging. Not only that but you should get a feel of why the subject is particularly exciting at the moment and for those versed in the 'traditional' formulations of the philosophy of mind, this book stands as testamant to the fact that the study of consciousness is really a subject in its own right now.

Having said all that, this book (and others by Susan Blackmore) really should come with a government health warning. I've read David Hume's reflections on the illusory nature of the self, as well as some of those of Eastern Philosophy. Like Hume, I feel largely able to set aside such considerations as soon as I attend to other matters. Reading Blackmore, I really do feel a little shaken. I can give up the idea of a concrete self lurking behind my eyes controlling my fingers as I type this review, but when plausible argument after plausible argument chips away at the belief in consciousness itself, or at least our faith that there is a stream of consciousness, then the effect is rather more disturbing and profound.

Blackmore introduces all the main theories relating to consciousness here, in a very readable and succinct manner. You are fully made aware of her own viewpoint, but that is not a bad thing, as they are clearly put in contrast with the others and in a way that helps you come to your own conclusion, though as I just said, it may leave you a little unsettled.

Though the stream of consciousness mayby some kind of 'grand illusion' as Blackmore and of course Daniel Dennet quite persuasively argue for, its not clear that the problem of explaining consciousness is in anyway diminished. No matter how many insignificant little pieces you try to break conscious awareness into, the fundamental problem still remains : how does physical matter achieve any consciousness at all?

A must read introduction for those interested in the study of consciousness and the philosophy of mind. I'd also fully recomend her longer introduction (as a follow up) which has student exercises and chapter summaries etc. Just take care!

A great little primer on the subject, 18 Oct 2007
A terrific little book that should only have taken me a few hours to read, but instead took a week because I frequently stopped to ponder the philosophically challenging examples she uses. I thought I already knew the subject reasonably well, but there's plenty in this small volume I found new and challenging.

Well worth reading her other book too: Conversations on Consciousness in which she talks to several leading figures in the field, and where her own biases on the subject rub up against theirs.

Very easy to read, with illustrations and no jargon. Heartily recommended!

"The subjective experience is only a fleeting event that gives rise to a delusion.", 25 Sep 2007
And what's worse, "If you go on believing you are always conscious, and construct metaphors about streams and theatres, then you only dig yourself deeper and deeper into confusion."

First we're introduced to the influence of specific brain regions on consciousness. So the temporal cortex is responsible for our changing perceptions, whilst the visual cortex simply processes retinal input which is interpreted later. All this might suggest the temporal cortex is more `subjective', but as Blackmore points out, "correlations alone do not solve the mystery... how can some cells give rise to subjective experience and some not?"
Delving deeper into the brain only confuses the issue though. It turns out that much of what we think we're conscious of is in fact illusion. Chapters 3 & 4 concentrate on these illusions. Libet's `neuronal adequacy for consciousness', the cutaneous rabbit experiment, daydreaming and such are all pulled in to break up William James' good old-fashioned stream-of-consciousness theory. Some visual games emphasise how much of our sensory world is constructed; inattentional blindness and Ramachandran's `filling-in' are the main culprits.
With all these thrown at our sense of the world, Blackmore then proceeds towards our concept of the self. Most religions and common sense generally perceive a continuous I, a self, in relation to the world; this is ego-theory. Against this is Buddhism and the 18th century Scot, David Hume, who said that the self is more like a "bundle of sensations" threaded together by memory and relationships. The self then becomes a "centre of narrative gravity", "a useful fiction" for relating experiences to each other. But though Bundle theory is useful in relation to some strange neurophysiological effects, it soes remain deeply counter-intuitive.
Finally, even our sense of free-will is preceded by electrical stimuli, shown in Libet's `consciousness-timing' experiments, leading psychologists to produce true-order diagrams for thought processes along the lines of, 1) the brain begins planning an action, 2) the brain activity leads to thought about the action, 3) we assume the thoughts caused the action. She concedes by the end that Dennett's `multiple draft' theory may be the closest have to understanding all of what we don't know; the brain plays out parallel translations of the world of its own accord and not until it's asked to account for its experience does it bother at all with consciousness. In this way maintaining consciousness becomes (for Blackmore at least) a matter of application, of repeating Zen koan-style questions, like `Am I conscious now?', or `Who am I?', etc.

Overall, this is a good read. The visual games (like those of the VSI to the Brain) are a good, cheap laugh, and the sheer number of theories sketched show just how confused consciousness studies is at the moment. The only gripe is that the theories are spread about between the chapters rather than coherently stated and contrasted. Blackmore's priority is the brain and the faculties of consciousness it attends to, only sprinkling along the way parts of related theories which by the end became, for me, confused and nebulous. Anyway, good for prodding your bonce. Definitely recommended.

Understanding consciousness: A brief review, 29 Aug 2007
What is consciousness? How do a set of electrical responses of millions of brain cells produce private, subjective conscious experience? Several theories have been proposed, and they include, grand unifying theories, quantum mechanical theories, biophysical/neurochemical mechanisms, philosophical, and spiritual theories. None of these completely explain the relationship between mind and brain (body), or subjective and objective thoughts. That is, the way things seem to me as opposed to how they should be objectively; in other words, the theory has to explain how subjective experience arises from objective brains? How billions of interconnections of neurons produce perception, learning, memory, reasoning, language, and finally consciousness. Different areas of brain perform different functions, such as, vision, hearing, speech, body image, motor control, and many other tasks. They are linked to each other but not into one control processor to produce consciousness. For example, pain is visible to a certain extent, but one can not fully comprehend another person's pain unless one experience that pain oneself.

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists proposed some form of dualism that mind and brain are different, however, some scientists prefer monism; the mind and body are one and the same, but this does not explain a consistent physical world. A third form preferred by physicists is materialism, which makes matter most fundamental. This also does not explain how a physical brain (matter) can give rise conscious experience. It is also unclear if consciousness is a power (energy) or a force but the laws physics relate each other.

Could consciousness lags behind the events of the world? The experimental results of Benjamin Libet are discussed (chapter 3) in light of dualist theories, quantum mechanics, Higher order of thought (HOT) theory, and Global workplace theory. Each theory offers explanation for certain aspect of consciousness, but eludes from addressing the subjectivity experience. In chapter 4, there is a brief discussion of weather consciousness is a grand illusion: Much of this concept depends on individual visual awareness. In chapter 5, the spirit, self and souls are discussed in light of many theories. The Upanishads, the sacred scriptures of Hindus, and Buddhist philosophy propose self is as an independent entity, but modern philosophers such as David Hume claim that self is a bundle of sensations. The experimental results of psychologists Roger Perry, Michael Gazzaniga, and Earnest Hilgard have been discussed. Most theories equate self with a particular brain process, but fail to explain the relationship of self with consciousness. Chapter 6 discusses the origin of free will that makes the decision or expresses willingness, is that inner self or due to power of consciousness? Since all events in the universe are deterministic, i.e. all events are determined by prior events. It follows that everything happens in future is inevitable; hence no room for free will! However some philosophers argue that deterministic process is chaotic and outcomes are complex, which may not be predictable. Therefore both determinism and free will could coexist independently. Many psychologists believe that free will is an illusion. In chapter 7, altered states of consciousness, due to sleep and dream, psychoactive drugs, stimulants, out of body experiences, and meditation are discussed in relation to mind and consciousness. The last chapter presents an interesting discussion about the evolution of consciousness and examines if animals have consciousness. The author presents arguments in favor of lack of consciousness in animals because they do not have language skills. It is proposed that language and mathematical skills coupled with deep thoughts help humans to communicate about past, present and future that may confer consciousness. This argument is unclear since the term consciousness itself needs to be defined. This book is well written and it is recommended.


A great scientist takes a wrong turning, 12 Aug 2007
I first encountered Blackmore when, after searching long and hard for a scientific explanation of out-of-body experiences, I came across her book Beyond the Body. It was astonishingly well researched and offered a rational, convincing explanation for phenomena that were usually neglected by the scientific community. I became an instant fan and have followed her work ever since. But now, alas, she has aligned herself with the Dawkins/Dennett axis of drivel, and my loyalty to her is badly shaken. In this book (a shorter version of her Consciousness: An Introduction) she follows Dennett by denying the existence of consciousness and then indulging in much speculation about the properties and evolutionary history of this non-existent entity. Consciousness, she maintains, is an 'illusion', which she defines as something that exists but does not have the properties it appears to have. She then proceeds to discuss it as if it does not in fact exist, and slips into calling it a 'delusion', which she apparently regards as a synonymous term. So far, so Dennett. She follows Dawkins by labeling just about everything a 'meme' (as Poe might have said 'All that we see or seem is but a meme within a meme'), unless she happens not to approve of it, in which case it is 'a virus of the mind'. As an example, she indulges in a quite intemperate and completely irrelevant rant against religion, in which Roman Catholicism is described as a parasitic infection. Like Dennett and Dawkins, she leaves no axe unground.

So why do I give the book 5 stars if I disagree with so much of it? Well, I guess you can't keep a good scientist down, and Blackmore is still a great scientist. She brings considerable knowledge and erudition to the subject, presents fair summaries of opposing views, and gives excellent descriptions of odd phenomena like Libet's Delay and the Cutaneous Rabbit. And her style is as readable as ever. I was suspicious when I saw that her son Jolyon had contributed many of the illustrations - it smacked of nepotism - but I have to say his drawings are really charming and add greatly to the text. The other illustrations are useful too - with the possible exception of a photograph of the author opening a fridge door - which isn't always the case with this series. The book ends with a very useful Further Reading list. It's thus an excellent introduction to the subject (although I think John Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness is still the best place to start).

So, I shall keep the faith and continue to read everything Susan Blackmore publishes. I just hope that one day, just as she once abandoned a belief in the paranormal, she sees the light and abandons the axis of drivel.



fantastic, 02 May 2006
This book is amazing. A fantastic read about the concept and argument surrounding nature and nurture, genetics vs environment. On a par with his other book.

One of the best books I've read, 19 Jan 2006
I have a strong interest in this field. For me Ridley puts flesh on the bones of human evolution (Why we evolved like we did), as well as defining what we are. Some interesting anecdotes keeps things lively, as well as some up to date thinking on the Genome project of which from memory he was a part of.
By it's very nature, any book on this subject will quickly date, and I look forward to future books by the same author.

Excellent stuff, 15 May 2005
This book will get you thinking, guaranteed. The accesible writing style combined with the analogies, stories, and up to date views on the origins of so much of what makes us human is fascinating and it is barely an exagerration to say there is a revelation on every page for the reader new to the subject. Doing Pavlov, Skinner, and others for A Level Biology, the book provides an interesting view of the big names of behavioural science from a perspective outside a textbook. Deconstructing both science and accepted folk wisdom on the origins of personality, psychosis and homosexuality among so many other topics, 'Nature via Nurture' presents the cutting edge of its topic in an endlessly intriguing style.

Twisting linguistics [biologically], 04 Jan 2005
Many similes have been used to introduce us to our genome; our DNA. It's a plan. It's a recipe. It's a blueprint. It's a code. Ridley shows how these metaphors miss the point - they're all too fixed to compare with the dynamics of the fundamental molecule of life. He shows how our genome, indeed, the genome common to all life, uses the same elements to say many things. Instead of terms identifying fixed elements, he suggests the image of language. The genome has a limited lexicon of phrases with which to build bodies and personalities, yet manages an immense variation in the results. How like a chimpanzee are you?, he asks. Depending on how you make the comparison - very little or very much. If you count the entire number of "base pairs" making up chimpanzees and humans, the difference is minimal - perhaps 30 thousand out of 3 billion. If, instead, you visit the zoo [or, better, Gombe] the differences are striking.

In Ridley's view, the striking differences are due to "word order" contained in the genome. All the words are essentially the same, but different locations and different interactions produce different characteristics. Including behaviour. In the six or seven million years since the chimpanzee-human line diverged, lifestyles, diet, social structure and living environment have helped guide how the genome produces a body and how that body will likely act in a given situation. Environment and the genome, then, are in a constant interactive flux. They feed signals through the organism to determine whether the organism will survive and reproduce. Nature isn't in the driver's seat, and if we fail to learn or adapt to the vagaries of environment, we won't survive to have descendants. Nature, then, is achieved via nurture.

All this should seem self-evident in today's world, but Ridley shows we have yet to fully understand and accept our role in Nature. There are few writers as articulate and expressive in dealing with these issues as Ridley. His grasp of the science involved is firm, yet he maintains a conversational tone throughout the narrative. While you will encounter much that is new to you in this book, you may close it [the first time], confident that his explanations have neither overwhelmed you nor left you unsatisfied. Of course, as Ridley points out, there is much work remaining in understanding the genome's impact on life. With luck, this book may impel others to follow his lead and uncover more of life's mysteries. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Nature via Nurture by another name, 13 Oct 2004
Having bought this along with Nature via Nurture (a wonderful book) I was surprised to discover that it's the *same* book, it just has a different name.
Perhaps this is obvious from the available information, but since I managed to miss it, I thought it was worth warning others. I love Matt Ridley's books (hence the 5), but not enough to want two copies...

A Quantum Achievement, 19 Jul 2008
Quantum Success has to be THE most insightful treatise on the subject of personal wealth creation that I have ever read. Why? Because the author, Sandra Anne Taylor, genuinely narrates a philosophy that is wholey grounded in metaphysics and plain common sense. If you have ever studied the Cosmic Ordering approach to getting what you want and found that it simply does not work then I emplore you to buy this book for within its pages are contained one essential revelation after another. It took me over six months to read it for time and again I would have to pause over a sentance, or even a simple statement, and allow it to become absorbed into my sub-conscious before moving on. It is a joyous and thoroughly illuminating read. It changed my life - which after reading several hundred publications on the same subject, I had given up hope of ever finding a book that would do so. Wonderful!

pseudo-science, 07 Jun 2008
Urghh - yet another wannabe leaping onto the bandwagon of the so-called Laws of: attraction, magnetism, letting go, etc, etc! The front cover alleges it's about "the astounding science of wealth and happiness" but the book barely refers to a single piece of scientific research. I'm fed up with this sort of pseudo-science, which wasted so much of my time and money till I got wiser to it all.

If you really want to know about happiness and success, read "The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want" by Sonja Lyubomirsky - someone who has spent decades researching happiness and studying the literature on happiness research. Also "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne McTaggart, totally based on research. Every suggestion they offer is proven to work.


A Fascinating Read, 27 Mar 2008
This is a book about manifesting your true and innocent heart's desires by harnessing the energy of the Universe through the power of quantum physics.

This book is very well written in an engaging style which does not talk down to the reader. The writer's tone is very loving and giving.

It describes the different powers (eg power of attraction) etc which make up the quantum fields, and how you can use them to manifest the things you need in life.

There are really helpful exercises at the end of each chapter which you use your success journal to do, and after the exercises are a number of affirmations you can say each day to give yourself that extra boost.

This book is so well written it will even change the beliefs of firm scientists who refuse to believe in anything other than what they can see and touch!

I definitely recommend this book to add to any collection on manifestation.

thought provoking, 18 Nov 2007
this book will make you think that you can control your life, apply the affirmations and trust and have faith. This book has made me realise that life is not a random series of dramas, it is all that I have imagined and feared. After reading this book I now know that I have the ability to change the route and meaning of my existence, but it takes courage, persistence and application. This book will help you to understand that you can achieve all that you have desired. Sandra Anne Taylor writes in a way that enables the reader to believe that all is possible and that life has a meaning if we so wish it. This is a book to read in your darkest moments and brightest of hours for it will transport you to the world of possibilities and the realisation of the most delicious dreams.
Read and enjoy.

No other book will beat this one!, 19 Oct 2007
This is the best book i've ever read! Ladies and gents, achieving success is not as hard as we think! All I can say; read this book, you will NOT regret it!
Best wishes to all of you!

I wish I hadn't bought this, 20 May 2008
Like other reviewers I find this dictionary constantly frustrating. It is not comprehensive, and more often than not it doesn't have the term I am looking for, meaning I have to resort to the internet or textbooks. For example, it has the definition for 'jaw' but lacks 'qualia' and 'geosmins'. Not recommended for anyone above A level.

a little too basic for a Biology BSc., 22 Jan 2008
I have found this Biology dictionary to be lacking many important terms in the second year of my degree, and I have generally been disappointed with it. I believe it is fine for A-levels, and acceptable in a first year biology degree; but this needs companion texts for later degree years as modules advance.

Maintain that resting potential, now!, 01 Dec 2006
The question was: what (or whatever) maintains the resting membrane potential nowadays! I always thought that it was the sodium pump (or Na K ATPase etc.). Recently, I heard: No, it is not the sodium pump that maintains the resting potential. So I checked both the Oxford and the Penguin Dictionaries of Biology. Oxford says that the resting potential is maintained by the sodium pump; however, the Penguin says it is the leaky potassium channels, and sodium pump plays a slight role. Well, it is one of those academic debates, it would seem--which really mean nothing--because nothing is at stake! The debate is from confusing maintenance, recovery, and repair--perhaps. Is it the resting potential (a thing being maintained) or is it the repolarization after a depolarization (a thing in recovery) that we are talking about? Is maintenance still maintenance if you spend energy in extruding the smaller atoms out--well: a running car can be maintained only by spending money? Perhaps, after all, it is only the usual confusion of the frogs in a well: they can only see the stars in their own horizons. The whole biological process has several components, and to know which is the one--well, just take one out and see if the process holds and functions. Which brick is the most important in a wall? Clearly, the truth is never simple, and possibly there is no such thing as the truth. Things evolve using all of the components--and are what they are. So, I guess it is always the context and it is always relative: point of view etc. There is no simple correct answer because the question is incorrectly formulated--without the necessary context. What is more important in the running of a car: the engine or the gas? So get both the Oxford and Penguin--they complement, and both are useful when viewed and understood in the right context: neither can replace the textbook; and no textbook replaces all the source materials--but you need to start somewhere. For a rich fantasy life read Ayul Zamir's Intern Beth. Now, whatever maintains that resting membrane potential!

What not to buy, 13 Dec 2005
if your looking for a dictionary for a degree course this would not be it. many biological terms and definitions are not listed. your better off buying either the henderson biological dictionary or the penguin one, as these have far more terms and are listed in a more clear and consise manner.

Just what you need, 02 Jul 2005
This is an excellent dictionary for any biology student in school or university. Contains clear direct definitions of words and has a clear lay-out also, a must buy for the biologist of today.

Perfect introduction to a complex and profound subject, 06 Jul 2008
The relationship between mind and body, and the tremendous difficulty of explaining that relationship, has been a central theme in modern philosophy since Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum'. In the subsequent centuries the entire heavy artillary of analytical philosophy has been brought to bear, categorical mistakes have been claimed, behavourist theories championed, yet the awkard I stubbornly remains, peering out at the world. A bundle of neurons and synapses themselves composed of randomly spinning atoms and electrons, somehow able to ask questions 'why am I? who am I? What am I?'.

Recently however, the problem of mind has taken on a new academic guise - the study of consciousness. The ancient riddle has been reframed into a seemingly narrower and more fundamental question - the problem of how physical matter be self-aware, how can the brain think and feel? The central question may have become more focused, yet suddenly it is not just the philosophers who are discussing it. The study of consciousness is now truly a multi-disciplinary subject, drawing in experts in psychology and neuro-science amonst others. Suddenly a subject so old and profound appears to be one of the most exciting fields in academia. One that might even be on the verge of providing answers that would transform our very sense of self and identity.

Susan Blackmore does a remarkably good job here of introducing such a complex and wideranging subject. You really do get a sense of what the question is and just why it is so challenging. Not only that but you should get a feel of why the subject is particularly exciting at the moment and for those versed in the 'traditional' formulations of the philosophy of mind, this book stands as testamant to the fact that the study of consciousness is really a subject in its own right now.

Having said all that, this book (and others by Susan Blackmore) really should come with a government health warning. I've read David Hume's reflections on the illusory nature of the self, as well as some of those of Eastern Philosophy. Like Hume, I feel largely able to set aside such considerations as soon as I attend to other matters. Reading Blackmore, I really do feel a little shaken. I can give up the idea of a concrete self lurking behind my eyes controlling my fingers as I type this review, but when plausible argument after plausible argument chips away at the belief in consciousness itself, or at least our faith that there is a stream of consciousness, then the effect is rather more disturbing and profound.

Blackmore introduces all the main theories relating to consciousness here, in a very readable and succinct manner. You are fully made aware of her own viewpoint, but that is not a bad thing, as they are clearly put in contrast with the others and in a way that helps you come to your own conclusion, though as I just said, it may leave you a little unsettled.

Though the stream of consciousness mayby some kind of 'grand illusion' as Blackmore and of course Daniel Dennet quite persuasively argue for, its not clear that the problem of explaining consciousness is in anyway diminished. No matter how many insignificant little pieces you try to break conscious awareness into, the fundamental problem still remains : how does physical matter achieve any consciousness at all?

A must read introduction for those interested in the study of consciousness and the philosophy of mind. I'd also fully recomend her longer introduction (as a follow up) which has student exercises and chapter summaries etc. Just take care!

A great little primer on the subject, 18 Oct 2007
A terrific little book that should only have taken me a few hours to read, but instead took a week because I frequently stopped to ponder the philosophically challenging examples she uses. I thought I already knew the subject reasonably well, but there's plenty in this small volume I found new and challenging.

Well worth reading her other book too: Conversations on Consciousness in which she talks to several leading figures in the field, and where her own biases on the subject rub up against theirs.

Very easy to read, with illustrations and no jargon. Heartily recommended!

"The subjective experience is only a fleeting event that gives rise to a delusion.", 25 Sep 2007
And what's worse, "If you go on believing you are always conscious, and construct metaphors about streams and theatres, then you only dig yourself deeper and deeper into confusion."

First we're introduced to the influence of specific brain regions on consciousness. So the temporal cortex is responsible for our changing perceptions, whilst the visual cortex simply processes retinal input which is interpreted later. All this might suggest the temporal cortex is more `subjective', but as Blackmore points out, "correlations alone do not solve the mystery... how can some cells give rise to subjective experience and some not?"
Delving deeper into the brain only confuses the issue though. It turns out that much of what we think we're conscious of is in fact illusion. Chapters 3 & 4 concentrate on these illusions. Libet's `neuronal adequacy for consciousness', the cutaneous rabbit experiment, daydreaming and such are all pulled in to break up William James' good old-fashioned stream-of-consciousness theory. Some visual games emphasise how much of our sensory world is constructed; inattentional blindness and Ramachandran's `filling-in' are the main culprits.
With all these thrown at our sense of the world, Blackmore then proceeds towards our concept of the self. Most religions and common sense generally perceive a continuous I, a self, in relation to the world; this is ego-theory. Against this is Buddhism and the 18th century Scot, David Hume, who said that the self is more like a "bundle of sensations" threaded together by memory and relationships. The self then becomes a "centre of narrative gravity", "a useful fiction" for relating experiences to each other. But though Bundle theory is useful in relation to some strange neurophysiological effects, it soes remain deeply counter-intuitive.
Finally, even our sense of free-will is preceded by electrical stimuli, shown in Libet's `consciousness-timing' experiments, leading psychologists to produce true-order diagrams for thought processes along the lines of, 1) the brain begins planning an action, 2) the brain activity leads to thought about the action, 3) we assume the thoughts caused the action. She concedes by the end that Dennett's `multiple draft' theory may be the closest have to understanding all of what we don't know; the brain plays out parallel translations of the world of its own accord and not until it's asked to account for its experience does it bother at all with consciousness. In this way maintaining consciousness becomes (for Blackmore at least) a matter of application, of repeating Zen koan-style questions, like `Am I conscious now?', or `Who am I?', etc.

Overall, this is a good read. The visual games (like those of the VSI to the Brain) are a good, cheap laugh, and the sheer number of theories sketched show just how confused consciousness studies is at the moment. The only gripe is that the theories are spread about between the chapters rather than coherently stated and contrasted. Blackmore's priority is the brain and the faculties of consciousness it attends to, only sprinkling along the way parts of related theories which by the end became, for me, confused and nebulous. Anyway, good for prodding your bonce. Definitely recommended.

Understanding consciousness: A brief review, 29 Aug 2007
What is consciousness? How do a set of electrical responses of millions of brain cells produce private, subjective conscious experience? Several theories have been proposed, and they include, grand unifying theories, quantum mechanical theories, biophysical/neurochemical mechanisms, philosophical, and spiritual theories. None of these completely explain the relationship between mind and brain (body), or subjective and objective thoughts. That is, the way things seem to me as opposed to how they should be objectively; in other words, the theory has to explain how subjective experience arises from objective brains? How billions of interconnections of neurons produce perception, learning, memory, reasoning, language, and finally consciousness. Different areas of brain perform different functions, such as, vision, hearing, speech, body image, motor control, and many other tasks. They are linked to each other but not into one control processor to produce consciousness. For example, pain is visible to a certain extent, but one can not fully comprehend another person's pain unless one experience that pain oneself.

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists proposed some form of dualism that mind and brain are different, however, some scientists prefer monism; the mind and body are one and the same, but this does not explain a consistent physical world. A third form preferred by physicists is materialism, which makes matter most fundamental. This also does not explain how a physical brain (matter) can give rise conscious experience. It is also unclear if consciousness is a power (energy) or a force but the laws physics relate each other.

Could consciousness lags behind the events of the world? The experimental results of Benjamin Libet are discussed (chapter 3) in light of dualist theories, quantum mechanics, Higher order of thought (HOT) theory, and Global workplace theory. Each theory offers explanation for certain aspect of consciousness, but eludes from addressing the subjectivity experience. In chapter 4, there is a brief discussion of weather consciousness is a grand illusion: Much of this concept depends on individual visual awareness. In chapter 5, the spirit, self and souls are discussed in light of many theories. The Upanishads, the sacred scriptures of Hindus, and Buddhist philosophy propose self is as an independent entity, but modern philosophers such as David Hume claim that self is a bundle of sensations. The experimental results of psychologists Roger Perry, Michael Gazzaniga, and Earnest Hilgard have been discussed. Most theories equate self with a particular brain process, but fail to explain the relationship of self with consciousness. Chapter 6 discusses the origin of free will that makes the decision or expresses willingness, is that inner self or due to power of consciousness? Since all events in the universe are deterministic, i.e. all events are determined by prior events. It follows that everything happens in future is inevitable; hence no room for free will! However some philosophers argue that deterministic process is chaotic and outcomes are complex, which may not be predictable. Therefore both determinism and free will could coexist independently. Many psychologists believe that free will is an illusion. In chapter 7, altered states of consciousness, due to sleep and dream, psychoactive drugs, stimulants, out of body experiences, and meditation are discussed in relation to mind and consciousness. The last chapter presents an interesting discussion about the evolution of consciousness and examines if animals have consciousness. The author presents arguments in favor of lack of consciousness in animals because they do not have language skills. It is proposed that language and mathematical skills coupled with deep thoughts help humans to communicate about past, present and future that may confer consciousness. This argument is unclear since the term consciousness itself needs to be defined. This book is well written and it is recommended.


A great scientist takes a wrong turning, 12 Aug 2007
I first encountered Blackmore when, after searching long and hard for a scientific explanation of out-of-body experiences, I came across her book Beyond the Body. It was astonishingly well researched and offered a rational, convincing explanation for phenomena that were usually neglected by the scientific community. I became an instant fan and have followed her work ever since. But now, alas, she has aligned herself with the Dawkins/Dennett axis of drivel, and my loyalty to her is badly shaken. In this book (a shorter version of her Consciousness: An Introduction) she follows Dennett by denying the existence of consciousness and then indulging in much speculation about the properties and evolutionary history of this non-existent entity. Consciousness, she maintains, is an 'illusion', which she defines as something that exists but does not have the properties it appears to have. She then proceeds to discuss it as if it does not in fact exist, and slips into calling it a 'delusion', which she apparently regards as a synonymous term. So far, so Dennett. She follows Dawkins by labeling just about everything a 'meme' (as Poe might have said 'All that we see or seem is but a meme within a meme'), unless she happens not to approve of it, in which case it is 'a virus of the mind'. As an example, she indulges in a quite intemperate and completely irrelevant rant against religion, in which Roman Catholicism is described as a parasitic infection. Like Dennett and Dawkins, she leaves no axe unground.

So why do I give the book 5 stars if I disagree with so much of it? Well, I guess you can't keep a good scientist down, and Blackmore is still a great scientist. She brings considerable knowledge and erudition to the subject, presents fair summaries of opposing views, and gives excellent descriptions of odd phenomena like Libet's Delay and the Cutaneous Rabbit. And her style is as readable as ever. I was suspicious when I saw that her son Jolyon had contributed many of the illustrations - it smacked of nepotism - but I have to say his drawings are really charming and add greatly to the text. The other illustrations are useful too - with the possible exception of a photograph of the author opening a fridge door - which isn't always the case with this series. The book ends with a very useful Further Reading list. It's thus an excellent introduction to the subject (although I think John Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness is still the best place to start).

So, I shall keep the faith and continue to read everything Susan Blackmore publishes. I just hope that one day, just as she once abandoned a belief in the paranormal, she sees the light and abandons the axis of drivel.



fantastic, 02 May 2006
This book is amazing. A fantastic read about the concept and argument surrounding nature and nurture, genetics vs environment. On a par with his other book.

One of the best books I've read, 19 Jan 2006
I have a strong interest in this field. For me Ridley puts flesh on the bones of human evolution (Why we evolved like we did), as well as defining what we are. Some interesting anecdotes keeps things lively, as well as some up to date thinking on the Genome project of which from memory he was a part of.
By it's very nature, any book on this subject will quickly date, and I look forward to future books by the same author.

Excellent stuff, 15 May 2005
This book will get you thinking, guaranteed. The accesible writing style combined with the analogies, stories, and up to date views on the origins of so much of what makes us human is fascinating and it is barely an exagerration to say there is a revelation on every page for the reader new to the subject. Doing Pavlov, Skinner, and others for A Level Biology, the book provides an interesting view of the big names of behavioural science from a perspective outside a textbook. Deconstructing both science and accepted folk wisdom on the origins of personality, psychosis and homosexuality among so many other topics, 'Nature via Nurture' presents the cutting edge of its topic in an endlessly intriguing style.

Twisting linguistics [biologically], 04 Jan 2005
Many similes have been used to introduce us to our genome; our DNA. It's a plan. It's a recipe. It's a blueprint. It's a code. Ridley shows how these metaphors miss the point - they're all too fixed to compare with the dynamics of the fundamental molecule of life. He shows how our genome, indeed, the genome common to all life, uses the same elements to say many things. Instead of terms identifying fixed elements, he suggests the image of language. The genome has a limited lexicon of phrases with which to build bodies and personalities, yet manages an immense variation in the results. How like a chimpanzee are you?, he asks. Depending on how you make the comparison - very little or very much. If you count the entire number of "base pairs" making up chimpanzees and humans, the difference is minimal - perhaps 30 thousand out of 3 billion. If, instead, you visit the zoo [or, better, Gombe] the differences are striking.

In Ridley's view, the striking differences are due to "word order" contained in the genome. All the words are essentially the same, but different locations and different interactions produce different characteristics. Including behaviour. In the six or seven million years since the chimpanzee-human line diverged, lifestyles, diet, social structure and living environment have helped guide how the genome produces a body and how that body will likely act in a given situation. Environment and the genome, then, are in a constant interactive flux. They feed signals through the organism to determine whether the organism will survive and reproduce. Nature isn't in the driver's seat, and if we fail to learn or adapt to the vagaries of environment, we won't survive to have descendants. Nature, then, is achieved via nurture.

All this should seem self-evident in today's world, but Ridley shows we have yet to fully understand and accept our role in Nature. There are few writers as articulate and expressive in dealing with these issues as Ridley. His grasp of the science involved is firm, yet he maintains a conversational tone throughout the narrative. While you will encounter much that is new to you in this book, you may close it [the first time], confident that his explanations have neither overwhelmed you nor left you unsatisfied. Of course, as Ridley points out, there is much work remaining in understanding the genome's impact on life. With luck, this book may impel others to follow his lead and uncover more of life's mysteries. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Nature via Nurture by another name, 13 Oct 2004
Having bought this along with Nature via Nurture (a wonderful book) I was surprised to discover that it's the *same* book, it just has a different name.
Perhaps this is obvious from the available information, but since I managed to miss it, I thought it was worth warning others. I love Matt Ridley's books (hence the 5), but not enough to want two copies...

A Quantum Achievement, 19 Jul 2008
Quantum Success has to be THE most insightful treatise on the subject of personal wealth creation that I have ever read. Why? Because the author, Sandra Anne Taylor, genuinely narrates a philosophy that is wholey grounded in metaphysics and plain common sense. If you have ever studied the Cosmic Ordering approach to getting what you want and found that it simply does not work then I emplore you to buy this book for within its pages are contained one essential revelation after another. It took me over six months to read it for time and again I would have to pause over a sentance, or even a simple statement, and allow it to become absorbed into my sub-conscious before moving on. It is a joyous and thoroughly illuminating read. It changed my life - which after reading several hundred publications on the same subject, I had given up hope of ever finding a book that would do so. Wonderful!

pseudo-science, 07 Jun 2008
Urghh - yet another wannabe leaping onto the bandwagon of the so-called Laws of: attraction, magnetism, letting go, etc, etc! The front cover alleges it's about "the astounding science of wealth and happiness" but the book barely refers to a single piece of scientific research. I'm fed up with this sort of pseudo-science, which wasted so much of my time and money till I got wiser to it all.

If you really want to know about happiness and success, read "The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want" by Sonja Lyubomirsky - someone who has spent decades researching happiness and studying the literature on happiness research. Also "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne McTaggart, totally based on research. Every suggestion they offer is proven to work.


A Fascinating Read, 27 Mar 2008
This is a book about manifesting your true and innocent heart's desires by harnessing the energy of the Universe through the power of quantum physics.

This book is very well written in an engaging style which does not talk down to the reader. The writer's tone is very loving and giving.

It describes the different powers (eg power of attraction) etc which make up the quantum fields, and how you can use them to manifest the things you need in life.

There are really helpful exercises at the end of each chapter which you use your success journal to do, and after the exercises are a number of affirmations you can say each day to give yourself that extra boost.

This book is so well written it will even change the beliefs of firm scientists who refuse to believe in anything other than what they can see and touch!

I definitely recommend this book to add to any collection on manifestation.

thought provoking, 18 Nov 2007
this book will make you think that you can control your life, apply the affirmations and trust and have faith. This book has made me realise that life is not a random series of dramas, it is all that I have imagined and feared. After reading this book I now know that I have the ability to change the route and meaning of my existence, but it takes courage, persistence and application. This book will help you to understand that you can achieve all that you have desired. Sandra Anne Taylor writes in a way that enables the reader to believe that all is possible and that life has a meaning if we so wish it. This is a book to read in your darkest moments and brightest of hours for it will transport you to the world of possibilities and the realisation of the most delicious dreams.
Read and enjoy.

No other book will beat this one!, 19 Oct 2007
This is the best book i've ever read! Ladies and gents, achieving success is not as hard as we think! All I can say; read this book, you will NOT regret it!
Best wishes to all of you!

The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, 09 Oct 2008
To all of you who know me, you know that I love this type of book but this one is the cake with the cherry on the top. It makes most of the others appear shallow in a strange way. This is short,only 111 pages but it packs a mighty punch. I found that I was reading it slowly as I didn't want it to end. It outlined in such clear terms what others have been saying on the laws of the universe and how to tap into them to receive what you need out of life. One chapter that hit me between the eyes was how we are responsible for our feelings. I knew this as an academic concept but perhaps because of the wording, I realised that if someone said something to me which upset me, then it wasn't their fault but mine for feeling the way I did. I started to see events and conversations in a different way. I accepted responsibility for my feelings in a way I had never done before and this movement from abstract understanding of an academic concept to full personal responsibility of thoughts and feeling was new and extremely powerful. Sometimes we need someone to say something in a different was for the full penny to drop into the slot and we have that ah ha moment. This book was my ah ha moment. I know that it is not a new book but I hope that you get as much out of this pocket book as I did.

Experience the joy of life, 12 Apr 2008
It's a co-incide-ence that 'seven' years into my career as a success coach I came across this, the wisest book that I have ever read.

Normally when a book says you will want to read it again and again you take that comment with a pinch of salt.

I read the original book three times, then the handbook and now I continually play the wonderful CD and DVD. With every experience a new learning flows through me.

Those studying the likes of the secret law of attraction, the four agreements and the power of now, should read this book to find an even more moving, powerful and yet practical way to live a life of joy, love and inner peace.

At the end of my seven step (another synchronistic co-incide-ence) success transformation programme I leave all my new clients in the capable hands and wise mind of Deepak and his life changing seven laws.

Tim



The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, 16 Nov 2007
The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success is a labelled as one hour of wisdom, a pocketbook guide to fulfilling your dreams.