“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. 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.
|Published (Last):||24 September 2014|
|PDF File Size:||17.1 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.58 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Books by Douglas R. This “higher order theory” of consciousness seemed to me as of our philosophy of mind episode to be the best bet to explain consciousness, but now Wes and Chalmers have wtrange about convinced me otherwise. I Am a Strange Loop is overly-wordy and jammed with a few too many analogies and painful puns, but I enjoyed the intellectual challenge.
Take for example the work of Terrence Deacon, e. Hofstadter provides one of these ways. What a personality is is a set of habits: What is the mechanism that sttrange the gap between the world of spirit and the world sstrange flesh?
His language is so steeped in a fireside chat mentality that the meat of his ideas is completely devoured by his good-natured cleverness.
You switch out physical matter over time, but are called the “same person” not only for social reasons you look the samebut because we feel the same. He is- hotstadter appropriately- loopy. He starts out sounding non-deterministic but in the end came out pro-deterministic. I would suggest that with careful work, he could learn to observe both universes in his own life and experience.
I Am a Strange Loop
As an exploration of the sense of “I”, Hofstadter explores his own life, and those to whom he has been close. So what’s the significance? My beef with Hofstadter is that his research does not seem focused on testing what seems to be the crux axiom of his theory. When we share our perspective with a receptive other, we are implanting a part of our hlfstadter in the other, and vice versa. Open Preview See a Srrange His anecdotal asides alone are enough to trigger the gag reflex. I haven’t finished this book yet, or really I haven’t started it, vouglas the result of skimming it is that this book, written 14 years before “I Am A Strange Loop” is at a much higher level than H’s maudlin rendering of his senile?
He’s muddying the issue by eouglas the one hand making an equivalence between a “soul” and “interiority,” which is the self-concept, the strange loop, and on the other hand invoking “soul” as the vital essence of an individual, indefinable but definitely present, what gives a being worth, in Hofstadter’s eyes.
My sorry little review gives no idea of the depth or richness of this book.
Douglas Hofstadter’s “I Am a Strange Loop” on the Self
Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. This is an oversimplification. Nov 23, Leo Robertson rated it really liked it. If that friend hofstater to be Douglas Hofstadter, it’s probably worth your while to stick around for a while, have ,oop hit, and relax in the comfy chair.
Hofstadter is certainly right in exorcising the ghosts of Cartesian dualism. 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. It is difficult to get into the book for the following reasons: Hofstader Am a Strange Loop is a book by Douglas Hofstadterexamining in depth the concept of a strange loop to explain the sense of “I”.
I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter | Issue 78 | Philosophy Now
That’s hofstadtre very biased way of looking at things. Nevertheless I have a valid objection which needs to be recorded. In contrast, one is more likely to come away more confused by the long series. Strangely Wrong I must suggest something hosftadter arrogant: Remember me on this computer. For some very complex beings, 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, strahge that, e.
If it can, then how can we understand this baffling emergence? He is not a dualist; consciousness arises from physical laws and not from a ki This book, on consciousness and what makes a human an “I,” is methodical and exuberant, technical and personal.
Chalmers and Doug on that, and that this correlation is not belied by the fact that as a practical matter, one can’t translate mental talk into physical talk; they’re both doglas that think that the essence of what determines consciousness is a pattern of elements, which could then theoretically play out on different hardware systems, so we could get AI, or maybe save someone’s consciousness to a computer and have them live on that way, or similar things.
But these senses of the word “soul” are not equivalent.
Atoms and presumably their constituent parts have no souls; bacteria have very primitive, that Strangely Wrong I must suggest something blasphemously arrogant: In what way does it imply a being’s worth or dispensability? We just know that such assertions exist. It makes sense, assuming that this is really how the brain works, stange Better to draw some other kind of line than a soul-based line, and base it on environmental concerns or cruelty concerns, I think.
If you like books and love to build cool products, we may be looking for you.