Scan barcode
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.
thehappybooker's review
3.0
This is a densely packed book, so everything I say here may be a gross oversimplification of the author's intentions. I'm going to read the author's first book on this topic, "The Mind's I" as a comparison. "The Mind's I" has a devoted following.
Essence of the author's thesis: What differentiates humans from mosquitoes is that we reflect on our experiences and have more complex responses based on our ability to retain feedback loops. Makes sense to me, but I don't want to spend 400 pages reading about that same idea over and over without tackling the implications.
I didn't see the author try to explain the 'Chinese room' phenomenon (John Searle's illustration of the limits of artificial intelligence) in which a conversation seems to have rational and analytical content, but is actually only a response to a programmed instruction. With a series of binary decision points, a programmer can simulate seemingly complex interactions. Is our consciousness a set of simple instructions that gets ever-more subtle and less predictable as it encounters more stimuli?
CS Lewis, no great philosopher but a good popularizer of Christian theology, said that our emotions are mixtures of only a few basic responses, like the color wheel producing millions of options from only four primary colors. If our consciousness does arise from simple reactions like fight/flight, is our consciousness really any different from the consciousness of a mosquito or a dog, but with only more processing power?
Best part of book: we achieve a sort of immortality by being perceived, more or less accurately, by other minds. This was a source of great solace to the author when his wife died - she was still present in his mind, and still existed there. I often talk to people who are long dead and chat with them about the news of the day, hearing their reactions as I know they would react. The difference is that after they die, they can't change their minds or modify their opinions and worldviews (although I like to believe that death really mellows people out about things that used to really get their harangue-muscles twitching). What's most disappointing and saddening about these imaginary interactions is that the dead no longer have the ability to surprise me with a reaction that I didn't expect.
Hofstadter's idea is that my "self" is a collection of memories and perceptions distributed over many minds, and only a group understanding of all those perceptions is an accurate representation of the self that I possess as my consciousness. That's what I've thought of immortality for a long time, so naturally that idea would resonate with me, and thus I think it's the best part of the book. Ah-ha! A feedback loop that confirms a previously held belief is the part that I deem "best!" I'm so predictable. And so are you.
Implication: if there are parts of my personality that no one knows about - my secret identity as a superhero, for instance - does that mean that that part of my self does not actually exist? Does someone have to know my secret identity to make it more real than if it exists only in my own mind and my own experience?
More interesting questions, or rambling thoughts that spark from the central ideas of this book:
The development of consciousness arises from interaction that stimulate feedback loops. Without enough feedback loops, the mind remains relatively dormant. Is a corollary that without interactions that challenge and contradict one's worldview, one remains stunted and undeveloped? What are the implications for the watchers of Fox News? Just kidding, sort of.
People with mental illness or incapacity are less capable of observing the world and absorbing information from their surroundings, so they are also less capable of incorporating information into an evolving worldview. Does this mean that they are less human, according to Hofstadter? If they are less human, do they have less intrinsic worth? That's a breath-taking conclusion that could come very close to justifying immoral practices such as eugenics. He implies that meat-eaters are less conscious than vegetarians since they don't care about destroying sentience; it's a short step away to start classifying some humans as more worthy of the title "human" than others.
What's the difference between the player and the game? Are we all playing the same game, or when one person says "baseball" is another person perceiving the words in the mindset of "football?" What is the overlap between what we mean to say and an accurate representation of those words in the listener? This question gets into linguistic philosophy and wanders away from the scope of this book, but it's an area to explore with other discussions of the nature of consciousness.
Is it possible to understand a completely alien thought? If we met ET, could we find any common language at all, besides math or physics? Or would the culture shock be too great to overcome?
When we encounter experience, evidence, or ideas out of sync with our previous feedback loops, why are some people able to absorb new ideas and accept a revised worldview, and others reject ideas angrily and cling to a worldview that is inadequate to absorb new ideas?
Is an "I" only a necessary fiction so we can function as actors with our surroundings? Or is the idea of an "I" detrimental to an understanding of the interconnectedness of all things, as Buddhist philosophy posits? In the words of a great t-shirt, "Buddhism: it's all fun and games until someone loses an I."
Recommended for readers who want a heady trip down a hall of mirrors.
Postscript:
A fictional look at how dead people are "alive" as echoes: 'A Brief History of the Dead.'
Essence of the author's thesis: What differentiates humans from mosquitoes is that we reflect on our experiences and have more complex responses based on our ability to retain feedback loops. Makes sense to me, but I don't want to spend 400 pages reading about that same idea over and over without tackling the implications.
I didn't see the author try to explain the 'Chinese room' phenomenon (John Searle's illustration of the limits of artificial intelligence) in which a conversation seems to have rational and analytical content, but is actually only a response to a programmed instruction. With a series of binary decision points, a programmer can simulate seemingly complex interactions. Is our consciousness a set of simple instructions that gets ever-more subtle and less predictable as it encounters more stimuli?
CS Lewis, no great philosopher but a good popularizer of Christian theology, said that our emotions are mixtures of only a few basic responses, like the color wheel producing millions of options from only four primary colors. If our consciousness does arise from simple reactions like fight/flight, is our consciousness really any different from the consciousness of a mosquito or a dog, but with only more processing power?
Best part of book: we achieve a sort of immortality by being perceived, more or less accurately, by other minds. This was a source of great solace to the author when his wife died - she was still present in his mind, and still existed there. I often talk to people who are long dead and chat with them about the news of the day, hearing their reactions as I know they would react. The difference is that after they die, they can't change their minds or modify their opinions and worldviews (although I like to believe that death really mellows people out about things that used to really get their harangue-muscles twitching). What's most disappointing and saddening about these imaginary interactions is that the dead no longer have the ability to surprise me with a reaction that I didn't expect.
Hofstadter's idea is that my "self" is a collection of memories and perceptions distributed over many minds, and only a group understanding of all those perceptions is an accurate representation of the self that I possess as my consciousness. That's what I've thought of immortality for a long time, so naturally that idea would resonate with me, and thus I think it's the best part of the book. Ah-ha! A feedback loop that confirms a previously held belief is the part that I deem "best!" I'm so predictable. And so are you.
Implication: if there are parts of my personality that no one knows about - my secret identity as a superhero, for instance - does that mean that that part of my self does not actually exist? Does someone have to know my secret identity to make it more real than if it exists only in my own mind and my own experience?
More interesting questions, or rambling thoughts that spark from the central ideas of this book:
The development of consciousness arises from interaction that stimulate feedback loops. Without enough feedback loops, the mind remains relatively dormant. Is a corollary that without interactions that challenge and contradict one's worldview, one remains stunted and undeveloped? What are the implications for the watchers of Fox News? Just kidding, sort of.
People with mental illness or incapacity are less capable of observing the world and absorbing information from their surroundings, so they are also less capable of incorporating information into an evolving worldview. Does this mean that they are less human, according to Hofstadter? If they are less human, do they have less intrinsic worth? That's a breath-taking conclusion that could come very close to justifying immoral practices such as eugenics. He implies that meat-eaters are less conscious than vegetarians since they don't care about destroying sentience; it's a short step away to start classifying some humans as more worthy of the title "human" than others.
What's the difference between the player and the game? Are we all playing the same game, or when one person says "baseball" is another person perceiving the words in the mindset of "football?" What is the overlap between what we mean to say and an accurate representation of those words in the listener? This question gets into linguistic philosophy and wanders away from the scope of this book, but it's an area to explore with other discussions of the nature of consciousness.
Is it possible to understand a completely alien thought? If we met ET, could we find any common language at all, besides math or physics? Or would the culture shock be too great to overcome?
When we encounter experience, evidence, or ideas out of sync with our previous feedback loops, why are some people able to absorb new ideas and accept a revised worldview, and others reject ideas angrily and cling to a worldview that is inadequate to absorb new ideas?
Is an "I" only a necessary fiction so we can function as actors with our surroundings? Or is the idea of an "I" detrimental to an understanding of the interconnectedness of all things, as Buddhist philosophy posits? In the words of a great t-shirt, "Buddhism: it's all fun and games until someone loses an I."
Recommended for readers who want a heady trip down a hall of mirrors.
Postscript:
A fictional look at how dead people are "alive" as echoes: 'A Brief History of the Dead.'
cheezbook's review
4.0
“I” found Dougs ideas who we are and what consciousness is to be extraordinary. It was truly not what I expecting - I guess I have never been this blown away by an idea.
poopdealer's review
2.0
i really wanted to enjoy this because it overlaps with my interests but it sucks. the most reddit ideology ever + annoying + bad arguments (which is saying a lot if you see which books ive read)
notoriousesr's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
slow-paced
4.0
In this deep interrogation of human consciousness, Douglas Hofstadter delves into the nature of “I”, what it means when we refer to the “self,” and the strange loopiness of it all.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a math person, and when my dad tried to get me to not hate math in 7th grade by buying me a copy of Gödel, Escher, Bach for Hanukkah, I politely thanked him and then proceeded to never read it, because reading was what I did for fun, and math homework was what I did for panic attacks. Hofstadter is a math person though, but the most fun kind imaginable, and I only felt my brain groaning under the weight of Principia Mathematica and prim numbers (still not completely sure what those are) for a brief moment in the 11th-ish chapter lull. Other than that, this was a delightful and insightful look at the nature of human consciousness. Yes, it’s long, but I think the analogies were instructive, often funny, and not at all a waste of time. The few chapters on his wife’s sudden death and his subsequent deeper understanding of how the self exists in others was touching without being maudlin. Overall, Douglas Hofstadter seems like a really endearing guy, and I’m giving this book 4 out of 5 marbles.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a math person, and when my dad tried to get me to not hate math in 7th grade by buying me a copy of Gödel, Escher, Bach for Hanukkah, I politely thanked him and then proceeded to never read it, because reading was what I did for fun, and math homework was what I did for panic attacks. Hofstadter is a math person though, but the most fun kind imaginable, and I only felt my brain groaning under the weight of Principia Mathematica and prim numbers (still not completely sure what those are) for a brief moment in the 11th-ish chapter lull. Other than that, this was a delightful and insightful look at the nature of human consciousness. Yes, it’s long, but I think the analogies were instructive, often funny, and not at all a waste of time. The few chapters on his wife’s sudden death and his subsequent deeper understanding of how the self exists in others was touching without being maudlin. Overall, Douglas Hofstadter seems like a really endearing guy, and I’m giving this book 4 out of 5 marbles.