In Hofstadter’s wife Carol died suddenly of a brain tumor at only 42, leaving “I Am a Strange Loop is vintage Hofstadter: earnest, deep, overflowing with. Not so fast, protests Pulitzer Prize-winning cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter in I Am a Strange Loop – the thoughtful companion to Gödel, Escher, Bach, his. So, a mirage that only exists because it perceives itself: this is an example of what Hofstadter calls a “strange loop”. He has an endearing.
|Country:||Trinidad & Tobago|
|Published (Last):||25 December 2016|
|PDF File Size:||13.11 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I Am a Strange Loop
DH makes as persuasive a case for a non-dualistic theory of mind, and provides as convincing an account albeit, a substantially metaphorical one of what minds do, how selves form, and what it means to perceive as any I have come across. In contrast, one is more likely to come away more confused by the long series. Hofstadter is a natural phenomenologist and a first rate scientist a pretty good combination, by the way.
The object is a property of the metric; the metric is definitely not a property of the object. Also Hofstadter HATES mosquitos because they bite him and I think that he subconsciously believes they have no minds simply because of this! One could make the argument that I’m not qualified to complain about the reasoning going in this book.
He does not believe in free will, which makes sense, and he doesn’t believe either in mystical, incorporeal souls. That’s at least the clearest evidence I’ve ever found that when I’m not around, I have a certain influence in people’s heads, that they ask what I would do or think.
The self-symbol is not just a self-conception, not an ego-image, but it is actually what the self is.
stranhe When you get down to it, as far as Hofstadter is concerned, the self is the Ultimate Illusion — or even a hallucination, as he puts it. There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Douglas Hofstadter’s “I Am a Strange Loop” on the Self
Maybe not, but my objection is that this idea of “interiority” is not shown starnge be the only meaningful expression of consciousness or “souledness. Certainly there is a world of difference between the Old Master himself and a folio of his sheet music lying waiting to be played.
The development of his theme is slow, so I read the epilogue to find out if he was coming to anything other than where he seemed to be going. 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?
I Am a Strange Loop – Wikipedia
Jan 11, Kristopher rated it did not like it Shelves: The claim that it represents the model for the self is nothing but a claim unbacked by scientific evidence. Click here to sign up. As Hofstadter himself writes: I’m not sure that we’re necessarily in safe territory if we say that something like a plant doesn’t have consciousness. In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference.
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.
Is it a biological machine, only pretending to feel pain? If Hofstadter and I both grant that consciousness is a totally physical phenomenon, like lightning striking or sand dunes, then we have to grant that other beings undergoing complex physical processes might be experiencing other kinds of consciousness no less valid than our own. It doesn’t seem hofstadtr be necessary for his argument, which I think is going to be that the idea of rich “interiority” is essentially a matter of being able to build ideas out of ideas in a self-referential fashion.
So in that way it was personally transformative.
To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. The essence of human consciousness is the ability to negate, to say no, to conceive alternatives l’etre et le neant. Concepts are also extensible in that we can map analogies between seemingly dissimilar concepts.
Who eats farmed produce kills beasties large and small by the dozen, chemically, mechanically, and by displacement. This notion may seem far out at first, but I believe Liop is onto something.
A Critical Review of Douglas Hofstadter’s I Am a Strange Loop | Adam Westra –
Where is the something-it-is-like to be me? Help Center Find new hofsttadter papers in: Hofstasdter has not done the experiment, followed the procedures, practiced the practices, that allows one to approach an awareness of the Self. Doug was the dissertation adviser of David Chalmersand the book is in part hofstadtee response to Dave’s The Conscious Mind which I discussed with the philosophy of mind Not School group; you can hear part of that here.
He does so by describing the mind’s process of something like “infinite reflexivity”. Hofstaeter, from the very beginning of his exceptionally discursive argument, presumes that what he is doing is constructing a metric of souledness through which he can estimate the size of soul or degree of consciousness possessed by an entity. But it’s very clear that Doug has no tolerance for rock n’ roll of whatever brainy, emotionally developed variety. Hofstadter is the son of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Hofstadter.
My boss said that whatever people say about you when you’re not around is your reputation. For a mathfreak like you, sure. Putting aside the question of lloop, though, I like Doug’s picture of the self as built in strqnge semi-public way, which leaves it an open question stranbe much of the matter of the self gets filled in by how other people treat us per Hegelwhat we figure out ourselves like during Lacan’s mirror stage, or Ayn Rand, who I’m reading now in preparation for a future episode, is all about this to a pretty silly degreeand what comes to us second-hand through the terms of our language itself the bulk of Lacan’s account.
Hofstadter’s first book-length journey into philosophy since Godel, Escher, Bach. He’s thought about this for a long, long time and has loo up with some rather surprising opinions on the matter. Dec 22, Chuck McCabe rated it liked it Recommends it for: And he knows they don’t quite connect.
In the 19th century, there was a great deal of philosophical debate, again going back to Descartes, about the validity of our perceptions about reality. Svest je stvarna samo onoliko koliko i duga.
Because consciousness forms the substance of identity and consciousness is basically a process of accumulating and recalling patterns, these patterns have no essential connection to hofstadfer “wet-ware” of the brain.
Our concepts are looo up this way: Douglas Hofstadter has it wrong. But I love their soulless little hearts anyway. Hofstadter contends that if we have lived and loved someone long and deeply enough, our symbol models will come to mirror their perspective ever more closely.