I Am a Strange Loop
Ratings17
Average rating3.9
15
Ratings17
Average rating3.9
Hofstadter's long-awaited return to the themes of Gödel, Escher, Bach--an original and controversial view of the nature of consciousness and identity. What do we mean when we say "I"? Can a self, a soul, a consciousness, an "I" arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? This book argues that the key to understanding selves and consciousness is a special kind of abstract feedback loop inhabiting our brains. Deep down, a human brain is a chaotic soup of particles, on a higher level it is a jungle of neurons, and on a yet higher level it is a network of abstractions that we call "symbols." The most central and complex symbol in your brain or mine is the one we both call "I." But how can such a mysterious abstraction be real--or is our "I" merely a convenient fiction?--From publisher description.
Reviews with the most likes.
Douglas Hofstadter has discussed consciousness in his previous work, but this time he is serious. I Am A Strange Loop starts off slow, the first 275 pages set up large collection and metaphors and analogies that are then beautifully woven together in the book's main dialogue to lead you to his conclusion. What we call “I” is a mirage, a kind of feedback loop that arises when a system which can devise arbitrarily complex representative symbols forms a representation of its self.
This book was birthed out of an essay he wrote and I suspect even then it was too long. Furthermore it's like the proverbial bringing of a knife to a gunfight. His repertoire of distinctions is enough to draw a stick figure but hardly adequate for something that looks like a book. There is no argument being made or logical thread being created. There is no point. This book feels like it's written by a teenage boy. A waste of everyone's time. If you want to learn about self referentiality or identity then I direct you 180 degrees from this book.
Gödel, Escher, Bach heeft mijn jeugd getekend. Zijn boeken sinds dan vond ik om de één of andere reden niet echt meteen pakkend.
Deze, daarentegen, is een blijver. Wat hij erin zegt, is een uitbreiding van waar hij het in GEB over wou hebben: wat is het “ik”, waar begint en eindig “mijn” identiteit, blijft er iets over als “ik” doodga, hoe kan een ogenschijnlijk immaterieel iets ontstaan uit zuiver materiële bouwstenen, ...
Dit is net zoals GEB in die zin dat het in één ruk uit te lezen is, en dat het tot nadenken stemt. Maar daar kotm nog eens bij dat het ongelooflijk pakkend geschreven is, ontroerend en dieppersoonlijk.
Aanrader.
