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.