1) Dr. P’s case was one of the most interesting of the three stories discussed in the text. Not only because it is the most fresh in my mind, but because there was a sense of a personal relationship between reader and subject. I could not understand how Dr. P does not recognize that an extreme change has taken place in his neural activity. The transition must have been slow or the shift in personality must have come as natural to him as the activity in his shift in neural activity. The text was appealing because the writer seemed very passionate about the subject, Dr. P and his condition. The tone was serious but the writers analysis of the patient would be interrupted by personal accounts from the writer’s perspective of how astonished and amazed he was at how the patient behaved. This style, mixed with some accounts of the patient’s behavior when it came to his family made me more sympathetic towards the subject.

Dr. Cicoria’s case is very interesting as well. His account makes me want to get hit by lightning! One thing that was mentioned later on in the text was that perception is affected with no sense of reality. The tone seemed positive I like that it focused on how Cicaria’s life has been affected.

2) All the text had who’s, what’s, and why’s even though they all went in different directions with their explanations. All had some visible tone. The first was shocking, no pun intended, the middle was a bit of a downer, and the third was almost personal in that it mentioned the relationship between the subject and the observer from the observer’s point of view. All had interesting data but I personally found the personal accounts of people with irregular brain activity to be more interesting than research on n infection, although the connections between them, like proteins’ role in enhancing perception, made all the articles more interesting.

I think it’s important for scientists and philosophers to write in an appealing matter because for many people, what scientists or philosophers specialize in may not be immediately appealing. However great some ideas or discoveries may be mainstream society is only interested in things that have an obvious influence on their lives. I base this on what I see on the media. Whatever the topic being covered is, it usually has affected a large part of the population and when scientists or philosophers are welcomed into the discussion they have insightful information and perspectives but they’re tone must be delivered in an appealing way for people to be interested and listen. In any field this is the case. Philosophers and scientists however take on some of humanities more intellectual problems and need to tune their messages in ways that people can understand and take interest in.