I Am a Strange Loop has ratings and reviews. BlackOxford said: Strangely WrongI must suggest something blasphemously arrogant: Douglas Hofsta. “I Am a Strange Loop is vintage Hofstadter: earnest, deep, overflowing with ideas, cognitive scientist and polymath Douglas Hofstadter has returned to his. Scott O’Reilly loops the loop with Douglas Hofstadter.
|Published (Last):||26 July 2006|
|PDF File Size:||9.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.94 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Want to Read saving….
Douglas Hofstadter’s “I Am a Strange Loop” on the Self
Second, when push comes to shove, Hofstadter, dyed in the wool scientist that he is, opts for the lawful, deterministic, and in principle entirely predictable universe of matter and physical forces as the most appropriate candidate for Ultimate Reality.
It would be our moral duty to let ourselves be sucked dry then, and swatting would be an unforgivable crime. So the idea is that the brain, too, works on the basis of symbols, and not in the sense of symbols that someone is reading and I’m just not clear whether this concept can be fruitfully connected to Lacan’s notion of symbols in the unconsciousbut in the sense that, broadly speaking, if the environment acts on a substance and leaves marks, those marks symbolize that feature of the environment.
As brains get bigger and more complex, able to hold more and more images and symbols, a critical mass is reached and consciousness appears. OK, I finished Hofstatder’s book months ago and I have been pondering his ideas. Hofstasdter has not done the experiment, followed the procedures, practiced the practices, that allows one to approach an awareness of the Self. This gives the Strange Loop the character of quantum uncertainty: Yet as a scientist he must have the habit of experimental verification of results.
I would suggest that with careful work, he could learn to observe both universes in his own life and experience. The point, I suppose, is that because of the depth and arbitrary complexity of human thought, it is difficult to define in discrete terms, although this fact does not make it any less grounded in purely scientific and reasonable terms. So why wouldn’t you?! I have long been interested in the nature and origin or human consciousness and sense of self, and as an irreligious materialist, the traditional explanations offered by our dominant social institutions were unsatisfactory.
Feb 14, Zach rated it it was ok. The latter sense is not demonstrated to definitely exist in the first place, nor is it conclusively argued that interiority itself is a meaningful measure from which to judge the “size” of a soul. Isn’t it at least possible that things like plants or worms have a kind of consciousness that is very important to them, but which, being so physically different from them, we can’t understand?
Hofstadter always has an intriguing and playful way to present his thinking. May 03, Greg rated hofstacter it was ok.
For some very complex hofstadtter, one of these structures is “myself,” and once you add the ability to linguistically cognize to the brain, then the number and connections between these symbols get very elaborate, so that our “self” symbol is complicated, and constantly built upon, in that our every experience adds something to it, such that, e.
I believe the soul is a smithy, albeit an imperfect one, because I’ve seen evidence of it. This was tough going, but ultimately worth it for this non-mathematician. Along the way we learned that a young Hofstadter played around with video cameras – daring to point the camera back at the TV screen to create swirling loops, endless corridors and infinite regressions.
Douglas Hofstadter’s “I Am a Strange Loop” on the Self
Better to draw some other kind of line than a soul-based line, and base it on environmental concerns or cruelty concerns, I think. Douglas Richard Hofstadter is an American academic whose research focuses on consciousness, thinking and creativity.
Conceptually, I guess you could say, I enjoyed it, but the presentation – the language of the author, the over-long format, and the strange mixture of hard math and elementary philosophy – diminished and diluted the content to the point that it was barely lopo reading. And it’s probably best to do so. How Mind Emerges from Matter.
For example, human brains can deduce false ideas starting with true premises because strznge errors of construction. The “I” in the title refers to the concept of the “I” in all of us.
The one place where he goes out on thin ice is the persistence of “selves” after death via the symbols in other peoples’ minds. And the book does an excellent job of presenting his views on just how the “I” forms in a brain, what kind of hardware may be necessary for an “I”, what kinds of “I” am out there, and on how many brains a single “I” may live.
Strange loop – Wikipedia
Svest je stvarna samo onoliko koliko i duga. All FARG computational models share certain key principles, among which are: An Eternal Golden Braid, with some ideas from Le Ton Beau de Marot thrown in but most of the fun stuff taken out; if you’ve read those, you don’t need to read this. The philosophical world he describes about midway through the book, Twinwirld, was extremely fun to play with.
Normally, one cannot merely look at what a mathematical conjecture says and simply appeal to the content of that statement on its own to deduce doyglas the statement is true or false.
I Am A Strange Loop. In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference. Hofstader is certainly no Cartesian dualist, but his ideas are neither what you would expect from a material monist. Or do they act as if they could decide that douglaas local taqueria is a better choice? That our ability to be friends, to have empathy and affection for others, are aspects of our higher-level yofstadter, according to H.
But it’s a delightful tromp on minds thru a fascinating mind. Not only is this a potentially flawed way of thinking, as I said above, it’s also an abdication of responsibility for killing. It may well be that growth in the self-symbol correlates to increased consciousness this seems a very plausible and highly useful result of this bookbut I also buy Chalmers’s charge that strangge you’ve explained consciousness in the first hofstaeter, then pointing to self-consciousness is not going to solve the problem.
But if I make people want to be better, I love it.
I know I do. If it were true that his interest in nested selves predated any emotional perturbation, positive or negative, wouldn’t there be more consideration of more germane cases of people who literally switch selves, like multiple personality cases, method actors, or more discussion of authors, as opposed to the couples-first approach?
It’s not at all clear to me that this book has any genuine insights to offer, but that may be that it is lost on me as I find his writing style clear, but amateurish However, because they have the ability to persistently represent external events, and to manipulate those “symbols” in such a way that ideas can accrete to other ideas, where a high-level concept like “sitcom” might include “television” which includes “screen” which includes “image”, etc, it reaches a threshold where the system is able to conceive of itself in symbolic terms, even though at the symbolic level of thought, there one doesn’t observe the individual neurons that physically cause that phnomenon.
What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle? Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. Or maybe something completely other is true that we have never even imagined. Become a PEL Citizen!