Originally, I mainly chose to read this book because I figured it is time to better understand the brain if I want to get a more and more complete picture of the field of AI.
So instead of going for some heavy scientific literature, I wanted something that leaves me engaged and curious for more, and with some sort of intuition for neuroscience.
David Eagleman's work fully accomplished this. The book is full of fascinating anecdotes about which, to be fair, you have probably read about already in 60% of the cases. However I never read about them embedded in a coherent framework, which is:
a) you are aware of very little in your head.
b) defining "you" is really hard.
c) we have numerous competing systems in our brain that want to have a saying. He often uses analogies to a government or companies with different parties etc. I personally liked this analogy but can see more professional neuroscientists labeling them as too simplistic.
d) blameworthiness is the wrong question to ask about human behaviour.

Even if I don't know much more about the hard science of neuroscience now, it gives you a lot to ponder about and for the introspection of your mind (or the people around you).
Additionally I found the idea of team-of-rivals helpful, together with many examples that wouldn't come to my mind on my own.
At the end the book becomes more philosophical. There were no really new arguments for me regarding free will and mostly nothing new regarding how to improve the legal system from a neuroscience point of view (I agree with him on both). What actually gave me new ideas to think about whas his line of thinking about reductionism (brain = biology = chemistry = particle physics...).
So all in all, a light read, encouraging to learn more, a few interesting philosophical points & opportunities for introspection.