|
I am a Strange Loop. [Philosophy/Logic Content]
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
I picked this up last night because I'll be working on a project all of next semester on just what defines the idea of mind, or rather what "I" is. I'm only about 2 chapters in right now, but can't put it down.
Hofstadter essentially argues that our concept of who we are can effectively be distilled down to a series of self-referencing "loops" rooted entirely in physicality (i.e. reductionist materialism) and (so far) it seems as if he'll argue that what a soul consists of are really little more than degrees of reference.
There's an exceptional anecdote in the beginning of the book about "parts" of a soul in which he tells his mother that the importance of a picture of his father following his death is far more than "dark spots on a piece of paper", a claim she makes in despair a few short months after losing her husband.
In any event, I highly recommend this one to those of you who have any interest in metaphysical discussions that don't necessarily require religion yet don't immediately discard it as meaningless either. This is a very, very readable book (far more than his other works) - so much so that I would say quite literally anyone could "get it."
So far I really, really like the concept of existence he is developing, as the idea that cognition, consciousness, and mentality are little more than self-referencing loops based on previous experience seems to adhere to an Occam's Razor approach to the idea of "I."
So yeah, I really like this book so far - and thought some of you might as well. :) |
|
|
| Igaryok |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I'm only about 2 chapters in right now, but can't put it down.
|
You just did, to write this.
That sounds like an interesting book though. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Igaryok
You just did, to write this. |
Exactly the kind of response I'd expected to get. Hooray for predictability.  |
|
|
| Igaryok |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Exactly the kind of response I'd expected to get. Hooray for predictability. |
Well you did post this in the cor. The response would have been much different had you posted this in, let's say, the "Debate" forum. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Igaryok
Well you did post this in the cor. The response would have been much different had you posted this in, let's say, the "Debate" forum. |
Not really - it's all just various assholes making asshat comments (to be certain, I include myself in said group).
The difference is that in PDD/debate, it tends to take several paragraphs or a series of episodic essays for someone to convey what c0rians seem to be able to get across in a word or single sentence.
The level of efficiency in this forum is staggering. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| To me, his concept of strange loop has been "felt" in Proust's In Search of Lost Time. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
To me, his concept of strange loop has been "felt" in Proust's In Search of Lost Time. |
To an extent, it's pretty well-worn territory - but Proust's approach is far more coldly mathematical than Hofstadter.
Also, I understand Proust about half as well as I understand Kant - so yeah, there's that. :( |
|
|
| iammesol |
| Thanks Rob, when I get some more money in the bank I might just pick this up. :) |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by iammesol
Thanks Rob, when I get some more money in the bank I might just pick this up. :) |
If you're still interested and haven't picked it up yet once I'm finished writing my paper next semester (I know, it's a ways out) I could probably just send you my copy, so long as you don't mind reading something that's highlighted/marked up.
:) |
|
|
| iammesol |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
If you're still interested and haven't picked it up yet once I'm finished writing my paper next semester (I know, it's a ways out) I could probably just send you my copy, so long as you don't mind reading something that's highlighted/marked up.
:) |
Are you serious?! That would just point out the cool parts! :p |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by iammesol
Are you serious?! That would just point out the cool parts! :p |
Nah, it will actually probably just highlight my own idiocy and lack of comprehension skills. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
To an extent, it's pretty well-worn territory - but Proust's approach is far more coldly mathematical than Hofstadter.
Also, I understand Proust about half as well as I understand Kant - so yeah, there's that. :( |
Perhaps it's due to the translation, but in French Proust is so subtle and well-written. The book is full of emotions & sensibility. Proust is art, Hofstadter is philosophy. Both are respectable but I prefer art! :)
Anyway Hofstadter seems to be a very interesting philosopher. I love how he see further than a simple monism.
On the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeti...8Kierkegaard%29 |
|
|
|
|
