Pop-sci is useless in this area. There is plenty of good research on the topic, but pop-sci on the brain is just as bad as pop-sci on quantum mechanics or computers.

EX: People making decisions based on eye tracking not matching up with the subjective experiences. Or the classic you chose not to do something, but your arm is already in motion and you can't stop it fast enough.

Maybe I'm miscalibrated on what's considered "pop sci" - but anything sensationalizing those EEG experiments or debunking "free will" shouldn't count IMO. That garbage nobody should be reading.

> or debunking "free will"

Interesting. I thought that "free will" was utterly debunked by the economy :). Not to mention the advertising industry, which is basically applied exploitation of the limits of human "free will" :).

I will probably be down voted for this.. But I enjoyed Kurzweil's "How to create a mind" and "on intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins . Even though these books aren't super scientific i really like how these guys think about consciousness and intelligence.

Thanks, "On Intelligence" has been on my reading list for a while after seeing him give a keynote a few years ago.

I read theory-of-mind pop sci constantly, I'd say Penrose has the vitalist perspective and Kurzweil has the physicalist perspective. Hofstadter is a lovely read too (physicalist).

Daniel Dennett's book Consciousness Explained.