April 25, 2007
i am a strange loop
Hofstadter’s principal thesis is that we ourselves, qua conscious beings, are “emergent self-referential structures”. I Am a Strange Loop thus revolves around two main ideas: the idea of an emergent phenomenon and the idea of self-reference, or of a “strange loop” to use Hofstadter’s technical term.A strange loop is a phenomenon that involves reference to itself. An artwork, a thought, or a sentence may twist back on to itself and self-refer. Thus, the sentence “this very sentence is written in English” is self-referential, because it refers not to any old sentence, but to itself. A more surprising example explored by Hofstadter (which does not employ the demonstrative expression “this very”) is the sentence “‘preceded by itself in quote marks yields a full sentence’ preceded by itself in quote marks yields a full sentence”. (Think about that for a moment.) Many other self-referential phenomena are discussed throughout the book, including self-videotaping videos, self-proving mathematical proofs, Escher’s self-referential paintings, etc.
more from the TLS here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 11:41 AM | Permalink
Comments
But if none of our notions are really real, as Hofstadter claims, then what about the notion itself of consciousness as self-referential system? Is the idea of the mind as an emergent self-referential structure real in the sense of objectively Real (period), or is it real in the sense of a hallucinated lion?
Given the foundational premises of the hypothesis, it could only be the latter, I think.
So inasmuch as this idea of mind as self-referential Strange Loop keeps us, ipso facto, riding around and around a self-referential loop, well, I'm not sure I see how (as the review's author claims) it "points" those trying to solve the problem of consciousness "in the right directon"?
Kent
Posted by: Kent Johnson | Apr 25, 2007 6:37:46 PM
What makes you think that there is such a thing as the objectively Real? The notion of the emergent self-referential structure is of course simply a model through which we may seek to understand ourselves. As such it may quite easily "point" in a certain direction, unless, as I suspect you do, you hope somehow to get beyond transcendental apperception. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't hold out any great hopes of that being in any way feasible.
Posted by: Kári | Apr 26, 2007 10:32:53 PM
Thats an interesting statement, to ask why one would think there is a objective Real. Personally, I still hold on to the notion that there is a objective Real, something more than a perspective , more than the tunnel vision we are accustomed to. In one of Hofstadter's earlier books, he makes an analogy of a 2d worm unable to comprehend the 3d world, similarily, it would be a convincing argument to say that human thought facilities are the most advanced that one could ever dream of, better yet, the best that is physically possible in this universe. I liked the way Hofstadedter uses the idea of abstractions, especially in regards to his "dual" consciousness with his wife. I think in a way, this demonstrates a human's perspective, notions of ideas.
Posted by: JoshJoy | Jan 12, 2008 6:50:27 AM
Post a comment