DOUGLAS HOFSTADTER AM STRANGE LOOP PDF
“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):||3 November 2005|
|PDF File Size:||5.81 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In he returned to Bloomington as “College of Arts and Sciences Professor” in both Cognitive Science and Computer Science, and also was appointed Adjunct Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, Philosophy, Comparative Literature, and Psychology, but he states that his involvement with most of these departments is nominal.
These patterns of symbolic activity have a certain degree of autonomy in so far as they really do simulate the perspective of our significant others.
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.
But I love their soulless little hearts anyway. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. I vividly remember how, as a teen-ager reading about brains, I was forced for the first time in my life to face up to the idea that a human brain, especially my own, must be a physical structure obeying physical law But Hofstadter presents a pretty convincing ak for his theories on why I think I am I.
I Am a Strange Loop | Kurzweil
Remember me on this computer. But whether he believes this or not, it’s couglas for me, because conflating “interiority” with “soul-size” is basically begging the question of what things have big souls by defining “souls” as essentially the thing that we think humans have the most of, and if he’s not making that point, then why all of the douglss comparisons and asking the readers to admit that animals don’t have souls as big as those of humans?
Hofstader is certainly no Cartesian dualist, shrange his ideas are neither what you would expect from a material monist. It was created when Hofstadter said it and someone else heard it.
Perhaps the thing I learned most from this book is that consciousness can perhaps only be understood by analogy, not by a direct understanding of the physiology or via mechanical terms. Svest je glavni simbol skup simbola u svakom mozgu.
It was shared by Ancient Greek philosophers, pre-industrial tribal groups, perhaps some Shinto sects, and St. In contrast, one is more likely to come away more confused by the long series.
I Am a Strange Loop
Better luck next time. 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 cannot, then how can you or I be here? My boss said that whatever people say about you when you’re not around is your reputation. I would suggest that with careful work, he could learn to observe both universes in his own life and experience. She may think that she has, but how would she really know. I found myself cursing the author for the way he circled and circled around the subject, bringing in every thought he has ever had about consciousness, and relying to a disturbing extent on his personal experience.
It could be noted, first of all, that the slightly milder hypothesis that human beings perceive colours differently as a result of slight variations in their sense organs is not at all implausible from an empirical point of view; it is an established fact. To ask other readers questions about I Am a Strange Loopplease sign up.
He is a strange loop. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. In fact Hofstadter believes the Ego is all there is in us. The key difference being that by his own definition the Self is a self-reflexive symbol but my symbol douglws someone else—no matter how detailed it is, no matter how intimate we were—does not provide feedback to itself.
And he knows they don’t quite connect.
Hofstadter, 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. Na niskom nivou nismo hofstaxter ideja i simbola, na visokom nivou nismo svesni biologije. Intellectual musings based on personal experience.
I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter
Hofstadter sm an interesting description and point of view about this area. Atoms and presumably their constituent parts have no souls; bacteria have very primitive, that is to say, very small souls; dogs have somewhat bigger souls; and human beings have much larger souls but even among those there is enormous variation and no logical upper limit to size. Hoffstadter purportedly explores the nature of self-reference and consciousness, but instead, I hofstadteer, spends more time pointing out through his writing how clever he is, how feeble he considers Bertrand Russell, and how much of a fan boy he Hoffstadter is of Godel.
It seemed like his arguments could have been made much more clearly in a shorter douglae and if he toned down his personality.
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. The details of how to accomplish this are difficult, but the idea is easy.
We just know that such assertions exist. It is difficult to get into the book for the following reasons: It is frustrating for an author who has been delving into abstraction for pages to suddenly attack others for their abstractions.
I believe he would say that the Self-symbol is a loop, and the loop is a symbol that is continually reevaluating itself and making slight adjustments to itself. The book demands great patience from the reader.
Sometimes, too, Hofstadter employs playful analogies to show how consciousness works, and how it doesn’t work. And it’s probably best to do so. Enough, then, of self-referentiality.