I Am a Strange Loop [Douglas R. Hofstadter] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. One of our greatest philosophers and scientists of the mind. Editorial Reviews. Review. Amazon Best Books of the Month, March : I Am a Strange Loop eBook: Douglas R. Hofstadter: Kindle Store. Scott O’Reilly loops the loop with Douglas Hofstadter.
|Country:||Central African Republic|
|Published (Last):||1 May 2011|
|PDF File Size:||3.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.13 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Yet thanks to the infinite extensibility of concepts we perpetually manage to make useful comparisons between seemingly disparate ideas. We will essentially be able to see the world through their eyes.
The book is too complex to be abbreviated. Ignore how long it took me to read the book.
I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter
Maybe, in the face of existence, we were mercifully left to choose the happier philosophical position. If you can w it, then it’s false. He does so by describing the mind’s process of something like “infinite reflexivity”. Tolle would probably say…you may be right that the Ego is a strange loop…but so what?
I Am a Strange Loop
But I’m going to forgive Hofstadter again because the book has in the end provided me with an enhanced perspective on something that interests me very much. Hardcoverpages. I say this because he explains that for Video Voyage II when he pointed a camera at the TV screen which displayed its feed, creating an infinite feedback loop he spent twelve hours with his friend just playing with that. My boss said that whatever people say about you when you’re not around is your reputation.
Remember me on this computer. Logically, there is no real answer to this contention, but pragmatist G. If you don’t believe in a metaphysical soul like I don’t, then the argument collapses to merely an observation that brains can think about themselves, which is not terribly exciting.
Follow the Author
The author draws analogies between Godel’s incompleteness theorem of mathematical logic and the question of the meaning of identity and consciousness. Then, like the self reflective numbers and riddles that Hofsatder likes to observe and understand, he tells us about his own life, his wife and family, and the loop widens. And the book does an excellent job of presenting his views on just how the “I” forms in a brain, what kind of hardware may be necessary for an “I”, what kinds of “I” am out there, and on how many brains a single “I” may live.
We both struggled with the “abstraction wall” in higher mathematics, but I won’t concede to Hofstadter here, because ultimately it was my slapdash proofwriting style that was my downfall, not the ideas themselves. While Tolle occasionally does fall into new-age batshit, overall his analysis was fairly compelling to me.
He loves to play with words and he loves corny puns. But he really wishes they did, not only because they’re his ideas. But I found his numerous and lengthy discursions to be, for starters, only tangentially and vaguely associated with Godel incompleteness.
Svest je glavni simbol skup simbola u svakom mozgu. The “I” concept is just something that seems to be uniquely developed in “higher” animals, so it’s a convenient standard to take up as a measure of worth, because we as humans strangw sure to come out on top.
A mathematician friend recommended the book to me, and I tried mightily to read souglas, keeping at it more because of my admiration for my friend that for the experience of reading the book. Ta petlja je samoreferentna, usmerena sama straneg sebe. Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. I suspect that Mr. The first half of this book goes into some depth concerning Bertrand Russell’s and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematicaand then the work of Kurt Godel.
You can read summaries of this book elsewhere; I won’t write one.
But it’s a delightful tromp on minds thru a fascinating mind. 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.
Concepts are also extensible in that we can map analogies between seemingly dissimilar concepts. There is no free-will because all your brain is doing is weighing pros and cons of various choices and whichever internal symbol gets the most checkmarks wins.
I Am a Strange Loop: Douglas R. Hofstadter: : Books
Hofstadter must really hate mosquitos. Does an “I” exert genuine power over the particles in our brain, or is it helplessly pushed lopp by the all-powerful laws of physics? Dangling shit in front of the camera to see what would happen.
He’s thought about this for a long, long time and has come up with some rather surprising opinions on the matter. He graduated with Distinction in Mathematics from Stanford in Or if you read Aristotle, perhaps a millennia out of date. This rings false to me because who is to say that my wife has truly internalized my actually thought process or even emotive reaction to such an external stimulus. When he’s talking about how ideas might be represented by patterns in the brain, I’m on board, But then he keeps mixing in some pretty unconvincing bits about why humans are in a completely different class in symbolic understanding according to his definition of “symbol” as, basically, an idea in the brain.
He tries to keep his discussion purely on mathematical and scientific terms. Thomas Aquinas among others. More intriguing is hofstaeter idea that the capacity for this kind of abstraction is associated with brain complexity, where certain doulgas with small brains just don’t have the neural power to conceive of such an idea.
This is not to criticize him alone here, no other physicalists or for that matter panpsychists manage to do it either, but in this case the author jumps from the neurological layer to the concept of self-referencing abstraction presupposing consciousness without pointing to anything in between that might connect the two. And beyond this, the postscript to chapter 16 should be unnecessary if he knew that his argumentation were solid.
OK, I finished Hofstatder’s book months ago and I have been pondering his ideas. And that’s pretty damn cool: Even the title reflects this.
Easier to understand than Godel, Escher, Bach, especially if you read that one first. The book’s method and organization lead the reader to understand and perhaps accept this huge concept in a way that I again found very frustrating — often indirect, full of special vocabulary and game-playing, highly personal, idiosyncratic, shifting and evasive, and I would douglaas self-indulgent. 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.
This notion may seem far out at first, but I believe Hofstadter is onto something. Sure, I can’t prove it, but I’m glad for that, because maybe we were never meant to.