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):||24 February 2007|
|PDF File Size:||16.51 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.96 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
His language is so steeped in a fireside chat mentality that the meat of his ideas is completely devoured by his good-natured cleverness. The consequence is that a perspective a mind is a culmination of a unique pattern of symbolic activity in our nervous systems, which suggests that the pattern of symbolic activity that makes identity, that constitutes subjectivity, can be replicated within the brains of others, and perhaps even in artificial brains.
I Am a Strange Loop
True, I could of course think something like “I’m a great tennis player,” and so thinking that would be part of my self-symbol even while I actually suck at tennis, but something like Sartre’s concern about playing at being a waiter becomes not so pressing. And why does he keep bringing animals into it? It was so cool to hear him unashamedly demonstrate his passions for the rigorous and logical study of mathematics and then discuss the definition of a soul and how we live in many people, live on in others to some extent, that this offers some consolation when people pass.
These things together make the book uninteresting and no fun to read. This isn’t a bad book, apart from the constant use of reference to the “dear reader”, it’s just redundant because of the above and not nearly as much fun as GEB.
Twenty-eight years ago, Douglas Hofstadter published a book titled “Goedel, Escher, Bach” that earned him instant academic dtrange and a cultlike following. Other more recent models are Phaeaco implemented by Harry Foundalis and SeqSee Abhijit Mahabalwhich model high-level perception and analogy-making in the microdomains of Bongard problems dougls number sequences, respectively.
Strange loop – Wikipedia
It makes sense, assuming that this is really how the brain works, but Hofstadter is the son of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Hofstadter. As he observes, each of us is a ,oop than just a self; we are a collection of selves. But for me, it is just a page to get through before we go back to the fun philosophy.
He starts out sounding non-deterministic but in the end came out pro-deterministic. Maybe not, but hofstadher objection is that this idea of “interiority” is not shown to be the only meaningful expression of consciousness or “souledness. Douglas grew up on the campus of Stanford University, where his father was a professor.
Poetically speaking, Bach, Mozart, Shakespeare, Plato, Socrates and our loved ones can live on through us insofar as we can see the world through their eyes.
Osim metafora iznosi malo dokaza za svoje pretpostavke, uz neke krajnje olake kvalifikacije. The key difference being that by his own definition the Self is a self-reflexive symbol but my symbol of someone else—no matter how detailed it is, no matter how intimate we were—does not provide feedback to itself. 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.
The parts I liked were great, were what literature is for, really. It doesn’t hold water. This ” see also ” section may contain an excessive number of suggestions.
He does not believe in free will, which makes sense, and he doesn’t believe either in mystical, incorporeal souls. So in that way it was personally transformative.
As reading experiences go, I’d rate this a 4-star book. 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, strsnge the environment acts on a substance and leaves marks, those marks symbolize that feature of the environment.
You know what they like, how they judge things, how they react, and the more you’re around them, the more you “absorb” them, the more you yourself not only might come to be like them altering your own self-structurebut moreover and even in the absence of your steange changing your self-structureyou find yourself able to shift gears and in a sense be that person, albeit the low-res version.
This leads to the sort of paradoxes seen in statements such as ” This statement is false ,” wherein the sentence’s basis of truth is found in referring to itself and its assertion, causing a logical paradox.
My beef with Hofstadter is that his research does not seem focused on testing what seems to be the crux axiom of his theory. For instance, he characterized Bach as large-soul liop that only the large-souled can really understand and vibrate with.
So consciousness will be a matter of degree: And I’m bringing all that frustration to this book, because if I made half. Except that plants don’t usually kill other beings in order to live. Jan 29, Mishehu rated it it was amazing. The one place where he goes out on thin ice is the persistence of “selves” after death via the symbols in other peoples’ minds. More difficult, I thought, than it needed to be.
Overall, the book, like his more famous one, moves slowly but pleasantly, and to me reads like an introductory primer to a position than then needs more rigorous, systematic, and footnoted treatment in a more traditionally academic paper, which I of course would then probably not get around to reading.
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.