Amazon.com Review
Amazon Significant Seven, December 2007: Proust may have been more neurasthenic than neuroscientist, but Jonah Lehrer argues in Proust Was a Neuroscientist that he (and many of his fellow artists) made discoveries about the brain that it took science decades to catch up with (in Proust's case, that memory is a process, not a repository). Lehrer weaves back and forth between art and science in eight graceful portraits of artists (mostly writers, along with a chef, a painter, and a composer) who understood, better at times than atomizing scientists, that truth can begin with "what reality feels like." Sometimes it's the art that's most evocative in his tales, sometimes the science: Lehrer writes about them with equal ease and clarity, and with a youthful confidence that art and science, long divided, may yet be reconciled. --Tom Nissley --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Publishers Weekly
With impressively clear prose, Lehrer explores the oft-overlooked places in literary history where novelists, poets and the occasional cookbook writer predicted scientific breakthroughs with their artistic insights. The 25-year-old Columbia graduate draws from his diverse background in lab work, science writing and fine cuisine to explain how Cézanne anticipated breakthroughs in the understanding of human sight, how Walt Whitman intuited the biological basis of thoughts and, in the title essay, how Proust penetrated the mysteries of memory by immersing himself in childhood recollections. Lehrer's writing peaks in the essay about Auguste Escoffier, the chef who essentially invented modern French cooking. The author's obvious zeal for the subject of food preparation leads him into enjoyable discussions of the creation of MSG and the decidedly unappetizing history of 18th- and 19th-century culinary arts. Occasionally, the science prose risks becoming exceedingly dry (as in the enthusiastic section detailing the work of Lehrer's former employer, neuroscientist Kausik Si), but the hard science is usually tempered by Lehrer's deft way with anecdote and example. Most importantly, this collection comes close to exemplifying Lehrer's stated goal of creating a unified third culture in which science and literature can co-exist as peaceful, complementary equals. 21 b&w illus. (Nov.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
【The Invisible Cities】by Calvino reminded me this book【Proust was a Neuroscientist】 so I took it down my shelf and read it again. The pages have turned yellow - it’s been a while, published in 2007. The author Jonah Lehrer used to work in the lab of Er...
评分【The Invisible Cities】by Calvino reminded me this book【Proust was a Neuroscientist】 so I took it down my shelf and read it again. The pages have turned yellow - it’s been a while, published in 2007. The author Jonah Lehrer used to work in the lab of Er...
评分【The Invisible Cities】by Calvino reminded me this book【Proust was a Neuroscientist】 so I took it down my shelf and read it again. The pages have turned yellow - it’s been a while, published in 2007. The author Jonah Lehrer used to work in the lab of Er...
评分【The Invisible Cities】by Calvino reminded me this book【Proust was a Neuroscientist】 so I took it down my shelf and read it again. The pages have turned yellow - it’s been a while, published in 2007. The author Jonah Lehrer used to work in the lab of Er...
评分【The Invisible Cities】by Calvino reminded me this book【Proust was a Neuroscientist】 so I took it down my shelf and read it again. The pages have turned yellow - it’s been a while, published in 2007. The author Jonah Lehrer used to work in the lab of Er...
这本书的标题,起初让我觉得有些“剑走偏锋”,但正是这种不落俗套的组合,反而激起了我极大的阅读兴趣。《Proust Was a Neuroscientist》,它暗示了一种非常规的视角。我脑海中立刻浮现出一种可能性:作者是否在借由普鲁斯特的文学创作,来剖析人类感知世界的复杂性,并将其与神经科学对感觉通道、信息处理的解释进行对比?比如,普鲁斯特笔下对色彩、声音、气味等细节的极致描绘,是否暗合了神经科学对这些感官信息在大脑中如何被编码、转换和解读的研究?我猜想,这本书可能会深入探讨,文学作品中那些细腻的情感描绘,是如何与我们大脑中负责情绪反应的区域息息相关的。又或者,作者是以普鲁斯特的视角,来反观现代神经科学的局限性?也许,在某些领域,艺术家的直觉和洞察力,比冰冷的科学仪器更能捕捉到人类经验的精髓。这种“反向思考”,本身就充满了智慧和挑战。我期待在这本书中,能够看到一场文学与科学的精彩对话,一场关于人类体验本质的深度探究,而不仅仅是简单的理论堆砌。
评分我承认,最初吸引我翻开《Proust Was a Neuroscientist》这本书的,是它那个听起来有些怪诞的书名。普鲁斯特?那位以《追忆似水年华》闻名于世的法国作家,怎么会跟“神经科学家”扯上边?这种跨界的联想本身就充满了某种难以言喻的吸引力,仿佛一个古老的谜语,让人迫不及待地想要探寻其背后隐藏的答案。我一直认为,伟大的艺术往往能触及人类最深刻的本质,而科学则试图以理性的方法去解构和理解这些本质。当一个作家,一个以情感、记忆、意识流见长的艺术家,被冠以科学家的名头时,这本身就构成了一种极大的反差与张力。我脑海中浮现出无数种可能性:或许作者是在探讨普鲁斯特作品中对人类感知、情感流动,甚至是无意识过程的描绘,如何巧妙地预示了现代神经科学的某些发现?又或许,这本书试图颠覆我们对科学与艺术二分法的刻板印象,揭示它们在探索人性边界时,可能存在的深层联系与共通之处。这种跨领域的融合,正是文学作品最令人兴奋的特质之一——它能够拓宽我们的视野,挑战我们既有的认知框架,让我们以全新的角度去审视那些熟悉的事物。我期待在这本书中,看到作者如何将普鲁斯特那如同万花筒般斑斓的内心世界,与神经科学那些严谨而又充满魅力的探索巧妙地结合起来,共同编织出一幅关于人类心智的独特画卷。
评分在我看来,一本真正引人入胜的书,往往在于它能否激起读者内心深处的共鸣,并引发更广泛的思考。《Proust Was a Neuroscientist》这本书,在我翻阅的过程中,就不断地触动我关于“记忆”这一概念的理解。我们都知道,普鲁斯特的宏篇巨著《追忆似水年华》最核心的主题便是对过去的回溯与重现,那些看似微不足道的味蕾触动,一段旋律,一种气味,都能瞬间将人拉回遥远的时光。我一直在思考,这种“无意识的”记忆唤醒,在现代神经科学的语境下,是否可以找到相应的解释?书中是否会探讨,那些编码在神经通路中的童年经历,是如何以如此强大的力量,塑造了我们的情感和行为?抑或是,作者是否在尝试将文学中的“意象”与神经科学中的“神经元连接”进行某种类比,以揭示创造力与大脑活动的内在关联?我对此充满了好奇,因为我总觉得,那些最触动人心的文学描写,背后一定隐藏着某种深刻的生理或心理机制。这本书的名字,就像一把钥匙,让我对这种跨学科的探索充满了期待。我希望它不仅仅是简单地将普鲁斯特的作品与神经科学术语进行嫁接,而是能够深入地挖掘两者之间更深层次的哲学和科学内涵,比如,关于主观体验的本质,关于意识的产生,以及我们如何构建对自身和世界的认知。
评分我通常不会轻易被一本看似“学术”的书籍所吸引,但《Proust Was a Neuroscientist》这个名字,却让我产生了异样的感觉。它像一个悖论,又像一个邀请,邀请我去探索一个未知的领域。我好奇作者是如何在普鲁斯特那如梦似幻的叙事中,发掘出与神经科学的共鸣点。是关于时间的感知?关于记忆的编码与检索?还是关于自我意识的形成?我设想,这本书可能会挑战我们对“科学”和“文学”的传统认知,证明它们并非截然不同的学科,而是殊途同归,都在试图理解人类最核心的奥秘。也许,作者会通过普鲁斯特的观察,来揭示某些神经科学尚未完全解答的谜题,或者,通过神经科学的工具,来印证普鲁斯特早已在文学中展现的深刻洞见。这种跨学科的“对话”,对我来说极具吸引力。我期待它能为我打开一扇新的窗户,让我能够以一种全新的方式去理解人类的心智,以及那些构成我们生命体验的复杂织锦。
评分当我第一次看到《Proust Was a Neuroscientist》这个书名时,我并没有立刻联想到具体的书籍内容,但它所蕴含的“碰撞感”却深深地吸引了我。普鲁斯特,一位以细腻描绘主观感受和意识流动著称的作家,与“神经科学家”,一个以客观、理性著称的学科,这两者结合起来,本身就充满了巨大的想象空间。我开始揣测,这本书是否在探讨人类情感和意识的神经基础?普鲁斯特对人物内心世界的深入剖析,是否能为我们理解大脑的运作机制提供某种独特的视角?或者,作者是否在运用神经科学的理论,来解读普鲁斯特作品中那些关于记忆、时间、感知的描写,揭示其背后隐藏的生物学或心理学原理?我设想,这本书的魅力在于它能够模糊科学与艺术的界限,让我们看到,伟大的艺术创作,或许本身就蕴含着对人类心智的深刻洞察,而这些洞察,又可能在科学的探索中得到印证或升华。我期待这本书能够带给我一种耳目一新的阅读体验,让我能够以一种全新的方式,去审视那些构成我们内心世界的最基本元素。
评分這是文藝隨筆,跟科學沒太大關係——大概算是給文藝青年看的科普書籍⋯⋯
评分We now know that Proust was right about memory, Cezanne was uncannily accurate about the visual cortex, Stein anticipated Chomsky, and Woolf pierced the mystery of consciousness; modern neuroscience has confirmed these artistic intuitions.
评分We now know that Proust was right about memory, Cezanne was uncannily accurate about the visual cortex, Stein anticipated Chomsky, and Woolf pierced the mystery of consciousness; modern neuroscience has confirmed these artistic intuitions.
评分We now know that Proust was right about memory, Cezanne was uncannily accurate about the visual cortex, Stein anticipated Chomsky, and Woolf pierced the mystery of consciousness; modern neuroscience has confirmed these artistic intuitions.
评分We now know that Proust was right about memory, Cezanne was uncannily accurate about the visual cortex, Stein anticipated Chomsky, and Woolf pierced the mystery of consciousness; modern neuroscience has confirmed these artistic intuitions.
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有