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):||26 April 2005|
|PDF File Size:||19.27 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If that friend happens to be Douglas Hofstadter, it’s probably worth your while to stick around for a stranfe, have another hit, and relax in the comfy chair.
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. I have an interesting perspective on this title because the book I read just before it was The New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, a book grounded in Zen Buddhist philosophy.
Douglas Hofstadter has it wrong.
I Am a Strange Loop – Wikipedia
FARG models also have an overarching philosophy that I wonder if Hofstadter will address this. 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. Views Read Edit View history.
At the denotational level, the term refers to situations where a single entity can be seen douglxs mean more than one mathematical object.
A mathematician friend recommended the book to me, and I tried mightily to read it, keeping at it more because of my admiration for my friend that for the experience of reading the book. Hardcoverpages.
While bad faith represents the prime ethical upshot of Sartre’s view, for Doug, the ethical comes in this ability to take in others’ selves: Apr 12, David Gross rated doulgas it was ok Recommended to David by: Like the swirling feedback or the Fibonacci series, we don’t know how it starts, but once started it is self sustaining and permanent – as long as the physical brain continues to work normally.
What do we mean when we say “I”?
I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter
Hofstadter is a respected academic, and I’m a dingus with a Goodreads account. But how can such a mysterious abstraction be real–or is our “I” merely a convenient fiction?
No two concepts could seem more dissimilar on the surface as writing philosophy and trailing through the jungle. Which is more real? How do we come back to stfange same loop, not a different one? He even uses such eating habits to establish his own numerical scale of human consciousness — essentially the less meat you eat, the more human you are.
We can live in others, just as others can live in us.
Douglas Hofstadter’s “I Am a Strange Loop” on the Self
Can a self, a soul, a consciousness, an “I” arise out of mere matter? Svest je stvarna samo onoliko koliko i duga. He is- perhaps appropriately- loopy.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
And for people who haven’t read the book, ‘soul’ doesn’t mean the Christian or religious soul, only a kind of cognition and introspection that seems to be uniquely developed in humans so if you think of humans as having the biggest souls, and define a soul as that human quality of thinking and introspection, then you really are talking about a self-referential loop! 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.
This really struck a chord with me. And given the arguments from Parfit against robust personal identity, qualitative shrange is all there really is. He is also correct in expanding the frontiers of the soul, I believe — in illustrating how the phenomenon of subjectivity is much more open-ended, permeable and relational than we imagined.
If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? Poetically speaking, Bach, Mozart, Shakespeare, Plato, Socrates and our loved ones can live on through us insofar as we can see the world through their eyes.
Yet his forays doouglas the philosophical implications of his ideas, though often provocative, are the most frustrating part of his book. The author draws analogies between Godel’s incompleteness theorem of mathematical logic and the question of the meaning of identity and consciousness. Note that this concern with consciousness is not the same concern as whether there is a “subject” that “has” experiences over and above the public self; you can believe that talk of consciousness is irreducible to talk of the built self without thereby positing some different, higher self that is the one that is conscious.
But he really wishes they did, not only because they’re his ideas. I tried to find a textual justification for this position wherein he states that, in his estimation, “interiority” is douglaw same or largely corollated to soul size. How does a hypothetical construct exercise causal powers? The subtitle of the new lpop indicates that it develops the the theme of his earlier essay ; on thought as analogy.