Help Me Pick a Cover For My Book

#3
This was my comment for the primarily yellow cover with the picture of the divided face:

I think this is best because:

1. The image displays the central theme of human being versus automaton (the pseudo-scientific, materialist view) at a glance. It's also nice that the left/right divide of the face reflects the popular notions of left vs right hemisphere function. There's also the difference in colour, which reflects ying and yang. Like I said, a simple, bold image, but rich in symbolism

2. It's a striking, bold design and colour theme; aesthetically pleasing. Black, yellow and red are the colours of dangerous animals and this is aiming to be a provocative book that does what it says on the tin.

I don't think I consciously applied a rating: I may have missed doing that. If I did, maybe others will too. My rating would have been full marks for it, with no comments or rating on the others, which I don't think anywhere near as good.
 
#4
This was my comment for the primarily yellow cover with the picture of the divided face:

I think this is best because:

1. The image displays the central theme of human being versus automaton (the pseudo-scientific, materialist view) at a glance. It's also nice that the left/right divide of the face reflects the popular notions of left vs right hemisphere function. There's also the difference in colour, which reflects ying and yang. Like I said, a simple, bold image, but rich in symbolism

2. It's a striking, bold design and colour theme; aesthetically pleasing. Black, yellow and red are the colours of dangerous animals and this is aiming to be a provocative book that does what it says on the tin.

I don't think I consciously applied a rating: I may have missed doing that. If I did, maybe others will too. My rating would have been full marks for it, with no comments or rating on the others, which I don't think anywhere near as good.
thx. I added one new one to the mix... see if you like the gears and the head.
 
#6
My 2c...

The 5th cover, the one with the funny alien guy doesn't work very well... the title text seems too dark on the already dark-ish background. Plus the alien is nice but doesn't feel very appropriate for the subject. Maybe it's a guy in a space suit (which suggests science) ... but I don't get it.

The two on the top are fine but the "meat robot" is not very meaty :D
It's more of a classic robot, made up of metal parts. Since "meat robot" has become a bit of a slogan in your interviews I'd like to see that concept more clear.

For the same reason I'd discard also the one with the guy running on the gears, lovely cover but not really on theme. Too generic.

And the winner is... (drumroll)... the yellow cover with the bright/dark face, half human, half robot! That's the one, imho :)

cheers
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#7
Picked yellow cover with cyborg-ish face.

Liked Kripal's quote about fighting back against the incoherent, nihilistic hole the materialist evangelicals would have us fall into in the supposed name of secular humanism....not that there's any humanism in materialism's empty, meaningless, and ultimately incoherent void.

This was my comment for the primarily yellow cover with the picture of the divided face:

I think this is best because:

1. The image displays the central theme of human being versus automaton (the pseudo-scientific, materialist view) at a glance. It's also nice that the left/right divide of the face reflects the popular notions of left vs right hemisphere function. There's also the difference in colour, which reflects ying and yang. Like I said, a simple, bold image, but rich in symbolism

2. It's a striking, bold design and colour theme; aesthetically pleasing. Black, yellow and red are the colours of dangerous animals and this is aiming to be a provocative book that does what it says on the tin.

I don't think I consciously applied a rating: I may have missed doing that. If I did, maybe others will too. My rating would have been full marks for it, with no comments or rating on the others, which I don't think anywhere near as good.
I picked the same cover...but you articulated Why a lot better than I could. :)
 
#9
My 2c...

The 5th cover, the one with the funny alien guy doesn't work very well... the title text seems too dark on the already dark-ish background. Plus the alien is nice but doesn't feel very appropriate for the subject. Maybe it's a guy in a space suit (which suggests science) ... but I don't get it.

The two on the top are fine but the "meat robot" is not very meaty :D
It's more of a classic robot, made up of metal parts. Since "meat robot" has become a bit of a slogan in your interviews I'd like to see that concept more clear.

For the same reason I'd discard also the one with the guy running on the gears, lovely cover but not really on theme. Too generic.

And the winner is... (drumroll)... the yellow cover with the bright/dark face, half human, half robot! That's the one, imho :)

cheers
thx for this feedback.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#11
Hey Alex,

I like the alien guy (18) and the yellow cover (26). I gave them the same rating as gears (5), though the latter has a more sober, classic look. The only ones I found weaker were 27 and 11.

The alien might actually be my favorite. The 26 color is a bit mustardy and could get tiresome after a while.
 
#16
I voted for number 26.

I am not as gung-ho about the evidence as I used to be. I think something could very well be going on, but there is just so much data to sift through. Its ambiguity, and the fact that I want to retain my intellectual honesty at all costs, have pushed me into the agnostic camp.

Still, I certainly hope reductive materialism is false. I am not going to go around raping and murdering if there is no spiritual dimension to life, but if life lacks meaning then there is absolutely no difference in the universe's (blind) eyes between such atrocities and what might go on in your backyard in the red, red world of the insects. In this sense, secular humanism offers as much false consolation as the religions it disparages. I think the bleak worldview of atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg is correct if reductive materialism is true.
 
#17
I think the bleak worldview of atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg is correct if reductive materialism is true.
This is from Rosenberg's wikipedia page:

In 2011 Rosenberg published a defense of what he called "Scientism"—the claim that "the persistent questions" people ask about the nature of reality, the purpose of things, the foundations of value and morality, the way the mind works, the basis of personal identity, and the course of human history, could all be answered by the resources of science.
It's possibly a bleak worldview... from a very confused person :)
 
#18
Reductive materialism can lead to absurdities, though. One case that immediately springs to mind is the opinion of biologist Jerry Coyne on punishment. Coyne denies free will and embraces determinism - the idea that everyone's actions have been predetermined by the laws of physics and there is no way to act otherwise. Hence, Coyne argues, criminals are not morally responsible for their actions. Nevertheless, he seems to forget these views when he heaps bile on those who were motivated to do (admittedly) wicked things by religion. Come on, Jerry, consciousness and free will don't exist. Follow your philosophy to its wicked denouement. The imman was predetermined to rape the 10 year old girl by the laws of physics. He could not have done otherwise.
 
Last edited:
#19
This is from Rosenberg's wikipedia page:

In 2011 Rosenberg published a defense of what he called "Scientism"—the claim that "the persistent questions" people ask about the nature of reality, the purpose of things, the foundations of value and morality, the way the mind works, the basis of personal identity, and the course of human history, could all be answered by the resources of science.
It's possibly a bleak worldview... from a very confused person :)
I don't think he's confused. I think he follows "scientism" through to its terrible conclusions. I think it is naturalists who want to have their cake and eat it too who are confused. Philosopher Edward Feser has an excellent series of posts on Rosenberg's views.
 
#20
I'd like to see caricatures of some of the "best" guests for example, Patricia Churchland ...."knocked out" by Alex with a big over the top boxing glove (a very soft glove mind you, we don't want to appear cruel) . Maybe another scenario, running rings around Novella or turning Kevin Nelson into a an angry adolescent with steam coming out of his ears...that kind of thing all over the front of the book. It could work if done right

I think that would be a nice climax to what has been quite a remarkable range of interviews taking to task these figures of scientific authority.
 
Top