I'm kinda joining in halfway through, because I feel the need to talk about Blindsight. People here recommended it so much, in Quorum and elsewhere, that I had no choice but to read it. I'm gonna state upfront that it was absolutely enjoyable, and now being in the loop I totally support the recommendations. Seriously, if you haven't read it yet, then give it a try, it's very unlikely to disappoint.
The only thing is, for a book dealing largely with the same themes and concepts as TSA (mainly consciousness and p-zombies as a lead-in to it or a tool of examining it), I expected - how should I put it - more thought...? Blindsight goes like this: here's a concept developed by the scientific community and around it some years ago. The concept is well-known, and you've probably heard about it and understand what it is, but all the same, here's a clinical, encyclopedicly correct explanation of it. A-a-and... we're done. Move on to another concept, which is going to be likewise explained in detail, as though you're browsing Wikipedia.
There is no creative spin on it, no thought imparted by the work itself. It's all just reiterations of certain scientific/philosophical concepts and arguments wrapped in an enjoyable sci-fi narrative. This is in stark contrast to TSA, where nothing is explained, because you should already know about it, and if you don't, then you're a loser and understand nothing, ha-ha! But let's say you've actually done your homework and are aware of the matters that TSA deals with. Then it offers you a perspective. A new, original way to understand things, if not outright a step in the direction of some answers. TSA doesn't explain, it thinks. In that regard, Blindsight falls short.
Still, a very good book, and I absolutely recommend it to anyone, even though I found its core arguments lacking internal logic. But that may be because the problem is in the mirror.
Now please excuse me, I'm off to read Echopraxia.
