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):||27 December 2005|
|PDF File Size:||14.46 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.26 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Aug 23, Fredrik rated it liked it Shelves: I actually agree that this is possibly an accurate way to describe much of the Ego. This section needs additional citations for verification. One could make the argument that I’m not qualified to complain about the reasoning going in this book. One of the points of phenomenology Doug dwells on is how we experience people who have died.
He tries to keep his discussion purely on mathematical and scientific terms. He does so by describing the mind’s process of something like ” The purpose of this book is to explain the mystery of consciousness. Hofstadter’s many interests include music, visual art, the mind, creativity, consciousness, self-reference, translation and mathematics.
So why d Twenty-eight years ago, Douglas Hofstadter published a book titled “Goedel, Escher, Bach” that earned him instant academic renown and a cultlike following. And for this reason, it strikes me as less significant that a brain can think of itself, because brains clearly have flexibilities that formal systems don’t have.
If you remember back to our Owen Flanagan interviewhowever, you’ll know that besides this being a doctrine in Buddhsim this is also one of the main positions within the analytic philosophy of mind, due perhaps largely to Derek Parfitthough the idea goes back to Hume at least. The mathematical phenomenon of polysemy has been observed to be a strange loop. Finally, in his conclusion, Hofstadter tries to bucket all people into two categories an annoying habit he has: Yet his forays into the philosophical implications of his ideas, though often provocative, are the most frustrating part of his book.
This isn’t really AI — they’re just essentially complicated math solutions.
Most likely they will not. A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system.
In all my reading of the popular literature on theory of mind and consciousness, only a very few books have made me feel as though, reading them, I were seeing a bit of the veil pulled back. According to Doug, these would BOTH be the same person, at least at that moment before the two of them start having divergent experiences.
I didn’t expect this, and as Hofstadter himself worries, it is hard not to think that the sections about doulas family and the idea that two consciousnesses can share the same brain or many consciousnesses can share many brains, came from his own need to share his suffering, not from a need to teach us anything about consciousness. Better luck next time.
Dokglas bought and read “I am a strange loop” because the jacket liner began with the following: I love Hofstadter but the good parts of this book were a rehashing of GEB and The Mind’s I, and the parts I struggled through were off the mark as believable cognitive philosophical theory. The question, then, becomes why is the “I” concept uniquely strangee This means that he repeats himself over and over again.
Hofstadter claims a similar “flipping around of causality” appears to happen in minds possessing self-consciousness.
I read Hofstadter’s “Le Ton Beau de Marot” a few years ago and was amazed by the author’s enormous knowledge. The “strangeness” of a strange loop comes from our way of perception, because we categorize our input in a small number of “symbols” by which Hofstadter means groups of neurons standing for one thing in the outside world.
He assumes a universal nature for thought, which proven wrong quite simply, and on the abstract level the actual nature of thought is irrelevant for philosophical musings.
The problem is that if consciousness and brain function if that is really the essence of humanity were truly understood, scientists should be able to program it into a computer. And I challenge anyone to take as many good ideas as I had and make such bad grades out of them. Show me your world, Douglas. Hofstadter agrees with Buddhism that the Self is an illusion, but he off-handedly says striving to get past the illusion as Buddhism suggests is a pointless, dead-end pursuit.
Basically an argument for the nature of consciousness that all but proves Descartes’ proposition. Thanks for alerting me to its publication.
In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference. Still there’s plenty of thought-provoking stuff in the earlier sections, even if much of it is a retread of material he’s covered before it’s been long enough that I was ripe for reruns. diuglas
The boundaries of our souls are indeed beyond all measure. This was tough going, but ultimately worth it for this non-mathematician. I would have loved to be your mom because you were obviously the kind of kid you could leave in a house alone for dayslike a cat, and come back to find you sitting in the exact same spot you left them staring fixedly at his own hofstadtdr.
This book is the painful rantings of a man suffering a great loss. The ” chicken or the egg ” paradox is perhaps the best-known strange loop problem.
I’m writing this review as I go along because the book is long. Those who won’t kill a deer would kill dozens of chickens or thousands of plants to get the same nutrition that a single deer supplies. Efron’s dice are four dice that are intransitive under gambler’s preference.
I liked this book, but there was a lot I think I missed. Notify me of new posts by email. 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 After about pages of reading I still was unsure what the point was supposed to be. I would have been surprised to find Gurdjieff listed in his index. Hofstasdter has not done the experiment, followed the procedures, practiced the practices, that allows one to approach an awareness of the Self.
Logically, there is no real answer to this contention, but pragmatist G. Hofstadter thinks our minds appear to us to determine the world by way of “downward causality “, which refers to a situation where a cause-and-effect relationship in a system gets flipped upside-down.
Consciousnessstrange loopsintelligence. Anyways to get the full picture of my own family and friends I often have to ask around and hear things secondhand because whatever someone disapproves of that they’re doing, they don’t tell me!