Simulating and Full of Metaphor. But Where's the Editor?

books:

	• I Am a Strange Loop Douglas R. Hofstadter Basic Books, 2007 - 436 pages average customer review:based on 77 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Simulating and Full of Metaphor. But Where's the Editor?

We are just an illusion, Douglas Hofstadter would like us to believe; and I tend to agree with him. Hofstadter's book is loaded with metaphor, the most poignant one based on a story he tells about a box of envelopes. The envelopes are all lined in a row -- hundreds of them -- and because each envelope has a thin layer of adhesive, when they're all held together, the stack of adhesive inside the stack of envelopes gives the illusion of a marble. Hofstadter, throughout the course of I am a Strange Loop, claims that our consciousness is a similar type of illusion. Stimuli are processed into symbols, which then are used to interpret new stimuli, which then create an even "higher" level of symbols. The highest level of symbol is called "I." This recursive process is called a Strange Loop, and is what provides the illusion of consciousness. He takes 363 pages to unfold this thesis.

Central to Hofstadter's theory of consciousness is his claim that different living entities have different 'levels' of consciousness: mosquitos are low on the list, humans are highest (babies and psychopaths checking in lower than Ghandi and Mother Teresa). Some people might find umbrage in this idea. If you do, then you're just the type Hofstadter is trying to convert.

There are sections of this book that are important and thought provoking. At times, however, Hofstadter is too verbose. Based on his prior success (he won a prize for his 1979 work, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid), his editor seems to have given him some leeway -- and Hofstadter has taken this too far. What could have been stated once, in a 500 word section, gets repeated, in slightly different ways, two or three times. There are some organizational issues, too. At times, whole chapters that are not central to the thesis could have been omitted. Hofstadter also enjoys making up short fictional tales that he thinks help make a point, but sometimes they merely bore his (dear) reader. To top it off, Hofstadter eschews the American punctuation convention of placing punctuation marks inside quotations. Yes, it's more "logical" like Hofstadter arguees, but it is problematic in other ways -- especially for an American readership. It is ironic that Hofstadter went to great lengths to edit every page for visaual aesthetics (as he claims in the footnotes), but forgot to edit for literary aesthetics. Where was the editor?

The ideas, however, more than make up for the deficiencies of style. Other reviewers have claimed how this book is the culmination of Hofstadter earlier work, Godel, Escher, Bach. In many ways they are right. Hofstadter goes to lengths describing how the Incompleteness Theorem of Godel support his framework for strange loops. Hofstadter takes pains to show how recursion, the main idea behind his Strange Loop, relates to everyday life and even English grammar. He uses this recursive framework as an analog to his own ideas about consciousness. We, the (dear) reader, take a long, winding walk through Hofstadter's mind as he points out, like a tour guide, each intellectual tidbit that has fascinated him about consciousness over the years. The best part about this walk are the metaphors used, and the skilled way Hofstadter uses these metaphors to convince us about his way of thinking about the brain.

In one metaphor, Hofstadter claimed that a translated novel does not lose the meaning of a plot through translation; however, as I understand his point, I disagree on a technicality. Words are symbols that have meaning only within the domain of a specific culture. If we take those symbols out of their cultural milieu, we lose their full meaning. Most of their meaning might remain, but what is lost is the way the original symbols interact with other original symbols. The translated symbols just don't carry the exact same meaning. (Dear) reader, you'll have to go read this book to see what analogy I'm refering to. Do it. If you're interested in the philosophy of consciousness, or are a student of the brain, you will not be disappointed.

for more information click here

A worthwhile, thought provoking but tedious read.

This is a book about our brains and mind that is quite thought provoking. However, the book is a frustrating read because it is a combination of philosophy, biography, and some science - the author rambles on about a variety of sublects that are tied to the main theme but he overworks many of them, eg. Godel, video feedback. Basically the author is making the point that our selves, our "I", our consciousness, is a physical phenomenon that takes place in our brain and is a property of the vast complexity of our brain, the way it is constructed, the way it accepts and processes inputs, with an incredible number of feedback loops that keep symbols, ideas, thoughts in continuous motion in our head. I relate to this view.
There are a number of areas where I question his views. He seems to conclude that any machine that is complex enough would also be conscious. I don't think we understand the physical components of consciousness - it would seem to me that we could have an incredibly complex machine that was still not conscious. Secondly, he seems to say that our self, or "I", is distributed across a number of brains - not only do other people have deep thoughts about us in there brains, but a peice of our self is actually in there - I can't buy it. All-in-all I found the book tedious, but it was enlightening and thought provoking enough that I am glad thatI read it. In my desire to better understand the human brain/mind, I believe that I need more science and less philosophy.

for more information click here

Another visit to the metaphors of GEB

Douglas Hofstadter is an exceptionally bright and witty man, with a gift for analogy. This no doubt makes him entertaining company and a pleasure to have as a teacher, but at the same time it sometimes gets in the way of the message he's trying to convey- the allegories and metaphors become the dominant message, and the core gets lost in translation.

This is of course exactly what happened with Hofstadter's 1979 tour-de-force "Godel, Escher and Bach"; it was roundly praised to the heavens by scores of reviewers, none of whom seemed to notice that it was in fact a very clever way of presenting a theory of conciousness and intelligence. This bothered Hofstadter as well, as he tells us in the introduction to "I Am a Strange Loop", and so he set out to tell the story again, this time in a more straightforward manner. I'm not so sure he succeeded.

The bulk of "I Am a Strange Loop" is devoted to explaining Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, with a minimum of math and a lot of allegory and allusion. Much of it seems repetitious, and all of it is, I think, wasted, as the end product of all this attmepted explanation seems to be simply one more metaphor- that what's going on in the brain/mind is something very much like what's going on in Godel's theory: That a theory, or a formula, or a sentance, or a "thing," can contain within it a complete representation of itself. Hofstadter calls this a "strange loop", and believes that, combined with input from outside that adds to this (and other) loops is the wellspring from which consciousness springs.

I first heard this notion expressed in the following manner (although I don't recall who wrote it): Every living thing has in it some representition of the outside world. A plant has in some sense a representation of the sun, that allows it to bend towards it. A bacterium moving along a gradient of nutrients contains within it a representation of this source of nutrition. A bee has representations of hive, flower, sun, and other concepts that guide it goal-seeking behavcior. And so on, up the evolutionary line. When that representation become complete and complex enough to include itself, This is not a particularly original notion, although when Hofstadter wrote GEB back in the 70s it wasn't a particularly widely held idea in psychology. At the same time, it was't a completely alien idea, either.

In the last few chapters Hofstadter toys with some more or less current ideas in the philosophy of mind, like Chalmer's "zombie", and presents us with a few more allegories and clever tales, none of which, I think, end up clarifying this position terribly well. One is left with the feeling that Hofstadter has a very strong intuitive sense of how conciousness evolves from these strange loops of self-representation, and what's he's struggling to do is to let us share his intuitions. I find that I share some of these intuitions with him, particualrly with his notions of where the self is represented, and representations of others alongside the self, and I think there's a germ of some powerful explanation hiding in there, but I can't seem to provide any more illumination than can Hofstadter.

And that in turn reminds me of something I was told at the beginning of my teaching career: If you can't explain something clearly and simply to another person, then you don't fully undertsand it. I think that's where Hofstadter is with respect to consciousness: He has a lot of intutions and parallels he can pull out, but in the end, he doesn't really have a theory of conciousness.

for more information click here

A two-time read

I find that I have to read Hofstadter at least twice. The first time is for the pleasure of the language and the elegance of the book itself. Certainly in "Marot" this was the case; more so than with GEB where the physical construction of the book was less important. That first read of "Loop" brought a smile at the familiar tropes of typesetting that Hofstadter uses to inform the reader that he is really serious about each word, even when that word seems to lilt and jump off the page.
The next read is slower and more contemplative, following Hofstadter as he investigates "thought" while understanding his own thoughts. This is the most fun of all, because Hofstadter's brain is a great place to visit and he is unstinting in allowing us a window into it.
I ordered this book when I first learned about it in 2006 and endured several delays and promises that it is on the way. I am sure that the delays were because Hofstadter did not find the book to be just quite right yet. It is now.

for more information click here

Hofstadter Lite

Bearing in mind the thoughtful critiques already posted--of the verbosity, lack of focus, self-indulgent super cuteness,etc--those of us stymied in the past by DH's dazzling expertise in matters for which we have absolutely no clue, must rejoice simply because we can understand great gloopy chunks of what he has to say. If, at the close, we feel let down by what seems an inadvertent, certainly a non-malicious, bait-and-switch, it's been a fascinating partial revelation of The Soft Underbelly of Hofstadter, erse solid man. ( DH never actually serves up a nicely garnished Soul-on-a-platter, but rather simply flutters and flourishes under our noses, like a conjuring waiter in a restaurant whose kitchen is totally virtual, the world's longest menu.)

for more information click here

reviews: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, page 14, 15, 16

hot

not?

What's your opinion?

Write a review and share your thoughts!

recommendations

More Bestsellers from the Beginning of 2007
HLS '75 Women - Recommended Books 2007
Fundamental Philosophical Questions
Books On My 2007 Reading List
Philosophy of Mind

search for books
loop, strange

Impressum / about us