The Times has a nice write-up, with lots of links. Berkeley's Alva Noe has the distinction (of sorts) of being the only philosopher in the mix to sort of come to Nagel's defense. He is also quoted as saying, oddly, that Nagel "is questioning a certain kind of orthodoxy, and they [all the other philosophers and scientists] are responding in the way the orthodox respond," which hardly describes the actual and detailed critical arguments against Nagel that have been put forward. It would have been just as apt to say that Nagel "is questioning knowledge on the basis of falsehoods and confusions, and the knowledgeable are responding the way the knowledgeable respond," i.e., with evidence and counter-arguments. But that's less clever-sounding, of course!
UPDATE: And here's a good example of the mischief the intelligent design creationists will make with the book: it is invoked here as evidence that there is a serious "scientific critique" of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection! But as we have noted long ago, this is the standard strategy of the ID proponents.
AND YET ANOTHER critical assessment.