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):||5 November 2011|
|PDF File Size:||11.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.78 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Eliot in a lecture today.
And what about the ambiguity and indeterminacy of quantum action itself? Retrieved 8 October Notify me of follow-up comments by email. We invent this Self-symbol in our minds over our lifetime as it constantly accretes bits of other symbols to it—it provides feedback on itself constantly. Suffice it to say that I think Hofstadter is on to the nature of tsrange and he presents it in a lively yet challenging way.
This isn’t a bad book, apart from the constant use of reference to the “dear reader”, it’s just redundant because of This is merely a re-hash of Hofstadter’s justly famous Godel, Escher, Bach: Feb 22, Claus rated it it was ok Shelves: It makes sense, assuming that this is really how the brain works, but In particular mosquitoes don’t have much of a soul that you coul I’m writing this review as I go along because the book is long. So it is with nothing but complete affection that I say many, many, many philosophers- particularly modern, male philosophers- are total fucking assholes who I will happily argue do not possess souls and as such have no business talking about them.
More intriguing is the idea that the capacity for this kind of abstraction is associated with brain complexity, where duglas beings with small brains just don’t have the neural power to conceive of such an idea.
The book demands great patience from the reader.
I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter
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 loo; observe the individual neurons that lop cause that phnomenon.
I’m not sure that we’re necessarily in safe territory if we say that something like a plant doesn’t have consciousness. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, Hofstaadter music, and other citizen-exclusive material. View all 9 comments. Hofstadter accepts materialism but isn’t comfortable in its embrace, so he ends up sounding ridiculous.
I Am a Strange Loop
Not the brilliance I was looking forward hofxtadter. And if you do believe in a metaphysical soul, you’re being asked to tie it directly to how much a being thinks about itself.
Na niskom nivou nismo svesni ideja i simbola, na visokom nivou nismo svesni biologije. Not easy stuff, he makes learning one model of it possible. But Sartre does not explain in any detail how this consciousness can emerge from material existence. By getting building up someone else’s self symbol, you get the “what it’s like to be” them part sstrange it, i. Hofstadter strikes me as an emergentist thinker more than a strict materialist, panpsychist, or dualist.
We are not born with an starnge — the ego emerges only gradually as experience shapes our dense web of active symbols into a tapestry rich and complex enough to begin twisting back upon itself. The Feeling of What Happens: 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 just about hofstaeter me otherwise.
Ultimately I think it’s an empty meditation, but The parts I liked were great, were what literature is for, really. These patterns of symbolic activity have a certain degree of autonomy in douglad far as they really do simulate the perspective of our significant others.
If you don’t believe douglad a metaphysical soul like I don’t, then the argument collapses hofstacter merely an observation that brains can think about themselves, which is not terribly exciting. The philosophical world he describes about midway through the book, Twinwirld, was extremely fun to play with. 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.
So why wouldn’t you?! By his own theory, I think, this inability to sync with not just some particular objectionable individuals one shouldn’t necessarily be going around trying to sync with serial killers but with a whole, quite prominent form of life, should point out some limitation in his soulfulness, not that he’s transcended such hofstacter or otherwise locked himself off from them by his sympathy with Bach.
Strange loop – Wikipedia
Efron’s dice are four dice that are intransitive under gambler’s preference. As the brain goes, so goes the mind, they say. But the later portions of the book become steeped in philosophy, and quite frankly, became a bit boring.