Books like Minds, brains, and science by John R. Searle

Roger Penrose argues that human thought is rooted in deep, non-computable aspects of physics, suggesting true intelligence cannot be fully replicated by any machine.

This book argues against Cartesian dualism and traditional views of consciousness, proposing a new theory that consciousness is a product of a computer-like virtual machine.

Marvin Minsky presents an interconnected framework that explains human cognition and its implications for artificial intelligence.

Explores how emerging mathematics and neuroscience can unravel the mysteries of consciousness, brain function, and the future of mind‑computer interfaces.

Mind Mapping is a system of planning and note-taking that has changed the lives of people across the world. This guide explains how Mind Maps can make it easy to: - plan a presentation or report - think up

Hector Levesque explores how AI can illuminate the mind by focusing on commonsense intelligence and proposing the Winograd Schema Test as a true measure of real artificial intelligence.

Roger Penrose explores the limits of computation, quantum mechanics, and microbiology to argue that consciousness may transcend current scientific understanding.

Searle reviews selected works of six prominent consciousness researchers (two philosophers, three neurobiologists, and one mathematician). Two chapters, bracketing the others, represent his own views. I find the title a hair misleading. Searle generally purports to be a naturalist rather than a mysterian. By mystery, he merely means the question, how exactly does the brain cause the mind? A majority of the book deals with analyzing the faults of the other authors rather than directly addressing this question. By the end of the book, we are maybe one tiny increment closer to an understanding of the problem. The most entertaining parts of the book are Searle's dialogues with the two philosophers, Dennett and Chalmers. But Searle's sympathies lie more with the neurobiologists. At least two of the three neurobiological accounts are highly speculative, and are perhaps likely to be shortly rendered obsolete except as historical footnotes. But they at least give a peek as to what Searle might regard as the right *flavor* of account. That is, once you strip them of obvious philosophical errors.