I’m very sad to give this book such a low review. I thought a lot of the discussion was so interesting: learning about different neurosurgery patients, and how little brain matter an individual needs to still express individuality; the discussion on AI and how it can fundamentally never be creative (which I wholeheartedly agree with); and the chapter on the different schools of thought regarding consciousness, which I have read a few books and papers on before this. However, I thought the author’s personal views interfered with the delivery of information. I do not disagree with expressing one’s own religious beliefs when it comes to a topic as this, but I do disagree with pushing it so aggressively that it cannot be generalized to other belief systems.

I have an advanced degree in neuroscience and am rather interested in the topic of consciousness, so I have read much material on it. Besides old-school philosophy, I have never read anything that expresses a strict religious view (in this case, Christianity) when discussing theories of consciousness. Personally, I am not religious, but I do consider myself to be spiritual, and so I agree that people have souls, but I also don’t agree that this HAS to be the Christian God’s doing. This becomes a much more complicated discussion when you bring specific religious and political beliefs into the mix. But, I digress.

As an educated individual genuinely intrigued by the topic of this book, I enjoyed only some of it, as much of it seemed to be extremely biased and not based in scientific or neurophilosophical fact at all.

I've always been fascinated by the brain, so when this book appeared as a selection to be reviewed, I immediately chose it! In it, Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon who was once an atheist, recounts his experiences as a doctor and scientist and why they lead him to believe that our mind, or consciousness (or soul) is separate from the brain. He looks at the evidence by examining what happens when parts of the brain are removed, or absent. He also examines the phenomenon of near-death experiences, conjoined twins, and whether it's reasonable to expect artificial intelligence to evolve into consciousness</p>

Essentially a work of apologetics, Egner's work attacks Darwinism and models of the brain that are put forth by many scientists to explain what is unexplainable -- or what is best explained by the existence of a Creator who has endowed human life with something special and different from other life forms -- a mind or soul that survives all sorts of brain injuries and even death. He makes a solid scientific case for the belief that the soul is immortal. He also points out how this belief, is what gives our lives as individuals meaning and purpose and leads society to value compassion and justice.

In this book, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor presents a compelling and convincing case that the mind can act independently of the brain and is, in fact, immortal. Michael tends to treat the mind and soul as interchangeable, but it is essential to recognize that there is a distinction. The mind is usually defined as the intellectual or cognitive aspect of a person, while the soul pertains to our spiritual identity. Michael’s idea of the soul is more all-encompassing, controlling all the body’s activities.
The first part of the book is most effective as it draws upon Michael’s very extensive experience as a neurosurgeon, as well as those of colleagues. He illustrates that the mind can function even when very little brain tissue remains in patients. Patients exhibit awareness even in a deep coma, as evidenced by MRI machine responses. Even patients’ recollections of near-death experiences when the brain is essentially non-functional are presented as evidence. Michael effectively refutes all material explanations for near-death experiences.
At a point in his life, Michael had a personal crisis resulting in his conversion from atheist to Christian. As a result, Michael extensively inserts his religious views in the second part of the book. He shows disdain for Darwinian evolution, as he feels humans are unique from animals. However, the theory of evolution is a bedrock of biology, whose principles are widely confirmed. He thinks that the evidence supporting the existence of the human soul, its spirituality, and its immortality is so overwhelming that the scientific community should embrace it. However, scientists are bound by the application of the scientific method. They believe that religion and spirituality are distinct disciplines.
Overall, this is an important and thought-provoking book that is well worth reading.

A little bit scary as in the ‘fear of the unknown’ is scary. Some well accepted scientific theories are presented and then proved false. To me it reinforces that science is fluid and that what once was thought to be true may not be entirely true today. A very interesting book that also answers some questions about immortality and the existence of God. Then there’s the chapter on AI and conscious computers which made my head spin. This book definitely made me think. Although I do agree with much of the authors’ beliefs, in the Conclusion there were a number of topics that I do not agree with and don’t feel they gave any rational for. All in all a very interesting book.

As the views of a neurosurgeon, I was looking forward to this as I find the subject fascinating.

Having performed many surgeries and observed the behaviours of many patients with various brain conditions, Michael Egnor is categorical is saying that there are clearly capabilities humans have which do not come from the brain. He has seen people operated on for seizures, those with a split brain who still have cohesion of thought. There are many instances of people with parts of their brain removed who function normally or almost so. He is convinced that brain plasticity does not explain this. There is also a personal anecdote (a very odd one) of him hearing a voice when he was at a chapel with fears of his youngest son being autistic. His son later developed well and he regards this as a miracle. He has observed comatose patients and those who have had near death experiences. He also makes a strong pitch for free will.

While evolution suggests we acquired our powers over time with a large measure of luck, Michael thinks otherwise – strongly separating humans from animals (with no evidence which I entirely disagree with). He points out that though many neuroscientists seem to be moving towards a view that we have no free will, there is not enough evidence to reach this conclusion (I agree). He goes on to suggest how meaningless such a world would be since none of us will be responsible for our actions – neither good nor bad.

This book is quite different from all other accounts I have read from neuroscientists. In that, it looks like Michael holds an independent and brave opinion. I appreciate that, as with lot of things unknown about our universe, brains & behaviours, it is important to be open to possibilities. There is a lot of speculative content based on his life experiences, but the book does a fairly decent job of providing a diverse set of viewpoints. I found the book interesting though there in many cases Michael seems to jump to conclusions based on his own beliefs. Nevertheless, a book with interesting content which is thought provoking.

I was initially drawn to The Immortal Mind because of its premise—a neuroscientific exploration of consciousness and the possibility of a soul. As someone interested in a scientific perspective on this topic, I was curious to see how the author, a neurosurgeon, would present his arguments. Unfortunately, I found myself unable to continue beyond the first ten pages.

Early in the book, the author recounts a deeply personal story about his fear that his infant son might have autism. Rather than presenting this as a neutral or scientific concern, he frames it in a way that is deeply troubling—suggesting that an autistic child would be incapable of love or connection. Even more concerning, he describes a moment where he "prayed away" his son's autism and claims to have received a divine message equating his own skepticism with being "autistic" toward God. This passage was not only irrelevant to the book’s supposed thesis but also deeply disrespectful to autistic individuals.

I was hoping for an unbiased, scientific discussion, especially given the author’s background as a neuroscientist and self-identified atheist. Instead, the book quickly veered into anecdotal, faith-based reasoning that felt disconnected from the intellectual exploration it promised.

Due to these issues, I chose not to continue reading. While I cannot speak for the book as a whole, I believe that a topic as profound as consciousness and the soul deserves a more thoughtful and respectful approach.