Scan barcode
daviest's review
4.0
The first twenty chapters of this book are really good; they delve deep into how a notion of "I" could be formed out of relations between other concepts that a brain could figure out. Unfortunately, the last four or so chapters consist of a weak rebuttal to dualism, which I feel could have been left out with little cost, and rob the book of a five star rating.
Leaving the last part aside, there are a few really interesting ideas the Hofstadter gets across that make this book worth the read:
- Brains come with some hard-wired functionality (e.g. reflexes), and some brains (e.g. mosquito brains) consist of only that functionality
- Larger brains have categories (e.g. dogs might know that different people, while being different entities, all fall into the 'people' category)
- What separates humans from other animals is that humans have arbitrarily extensible category systems
- Babies aren't born with a sense of "I", rather it develops over time out of other 'lesser' (such as person, thinking, body, individual etc) notions as they recognise themselves to be a thinking entity in the world
- Consciousness isn't necessarily a human phenomenon, or even one about brains, if you buy into the "I" as a derived entity theory from the last bullet.
While some people really don't like Hofstadter's writing style, I find that breaking the book up into small sections that span about a single page go a long way into making it easier to read while not disturbing the whole flow too much. That said, the tone of voice can be frustrating at times, as another review said, almost as if he wants you as the reader to like him.
Circling back to the content, I like that the book has both a reductionist derivation of consciousness from first principles (if in a hand-wavy way), but that the motivation and inspiration for doing so seems to be from a more holist angle. I think there's a good chance that there's a way of looking at actual brains that aligns rather well with Hofstadter' view.
Leaving the last part aside, there are a few really interesting ideas the Hofstadter gets across that make this book worth the read:
Spoiler
- Brains come with some hard-wired functionality (e.g. reflexes), and some brains (e.g. mosquito brains) consist of only that functionality
- Larger brains have categories (e.g. dogs might know that different people, while being different entities, all fall into the 'people' category)
- What separates humans from other animals is that humans have arbitrarily extensible category systems
- Babies aren't born with a sense of "I", rather it develops over time out of other 'lesser' (such as person, thinking, body, individual etc) notions as they recognise themselves to be a thinking entity in the world
- Consciousness isn't necessarily a human phenomenon, or even one about brains, if you buy into the "I" as a derived entity theory from the last bullet.
While some people really don't like Hofstadter's writing style, I find that breaking the book up into small sections that span about a single page go a long way into making it easier to read while not disturbing the whole flow too much. That said, the tone of voice can be frustrating at times, as another review said, almost as if he wants you as the reader to like him.
Circling back to the content, I like that the book has both a reductionist derivation of consciousness from first principles (if in a hand-wavy way), but that the motivation and inspiration for doing so seems to be from a more holist angle. I think there's a good chance that there's a way of looking at actual brains that aligns rather well with Hofstadter' view.
ndwisard's review
3.0
Didn't even try to wrap my brain around some of the chapters, but other chapters practically punched me in the mind. Cool dude, cool dude.
nataliahz's review
3.0
I honestly have mixed feeling about this one. It talked about very interesting topics (science, psychology, love and grief) but it was pretty difficult to follow. Even though I understand some of the most technical parts, I still got lost sometimes.
thattommyhall's review
5.0
When I read this I had started Gödel Escher Bach several times and never finished it, while I think GEB is worth reading this is a more accessible presentation of the central theme in it (though without the marvellous distractions of the carrolian dialogues before each chapter and all the great mathematical excursions along the way).
I did not think I believed it till I found myself describing it to someone else and now love the idea that we carry around low fidelity models of the people we know and love and that being the only immortality any of us has.
I did not think I believed it till I found myself describing it to someone else and now love the idea that we carry around low fidelity models of the people we know and love and that being the only immortality any of us has.
terminal's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
I expected a very deep dive into what exactly a strange loop is and how it pertains to consciousness, that's not really what this book is. While it does somewhat deliver on the promise, it's also in a very autobiographic style. By the end of the book you will have a fairly clear image of what Hofstadter's upbringing was like, what his values are and how he thinks about a wide range of stuff that's not strictly relevant to the main theme of the book, but part of the style in which he explains things.
In my opinion, the style works and I find the ideas presented convincing and very interesting. My main qualms with the book is that I don't feel counter-arguments are represented in a fair way (I don't know enough about the dualistic views presented to say exactly what, but they were never presented as having a serious critique of the main strange loop idea in my opinion). It can also be quite repetitive at times.
In my opinion, the style works and I find the ideas presented convincing and very interesting. My main qualms with the book is that I don't feel counter-arguments are represented in a fair way (I don't know enough about the dualistic views presented to say exactly what, but they were never presented as having a serious critique of the main strange loop idea in my opinion). It can also be quite repetitive at times.