Welcome to Tom Glocer's Blog Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Tom Glocer's Blog

Strange Loops

I have been reading an excellent book  I am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter which represents a rare departure for me from the land of good fiction.  Hofstadter, who is a Professor of Cognitive Science and Computer Science at Indiana University, achieved fame in the weird circles I frequent for his first major book, Gödel, Escher, Bach in 1999.   
 
 The subject of Strange Loop, like much of his scholarship, is the difference between brain and mind, the origin of consciousness, at what point along the continuum of amoeba, mosquito, human embryo, dog, chimp and the adult human being does a "soul" arise?, and perhaps the greatest of all biological, religious and philosophical issues, where does the "I" go when we die? 
 
There has been much written, but little proved empirically on these interesting, existential questions.  Unfortunately, much of the public debate in the US over the past seven years has focused on substituting a quasi-religious, political view (stem cell research violates human dignity;  "partial-birth" abortions offend God , etc. ).  How refreshing then to have a scientist who sticks to his subject matter and comes up with a perfectly sound set of explanations of how consciousness could have arisen in sufficiently complex brains or other computing structures.  At root what is required is a symbolic or representational system of sufficient complexity that it can create and build symbols on the backs of prior symbolic building blocks, including the most complex symbol of all - the strange recursive loop we call "I"
 
This may all sound very esoteric and far fetched,  but Dr. Hofstadter writes with a breezy, self-deprecating wit, and his  musings on where a person's "I" or "soul" goes when the physical body dies is worth the read alone.  As I have been spending far too much time at 38,000 feet (usually within a speeding airplane), I have had the time to read a bit more broadly than the usual .ppt, .doc and .xls..  
 
I generally read fiction for pleasure because I find it a wonderful antidote  to the endless stream of corporate-speak memoranda I need to read.  I have also always found that fiction and indeed poetry can penetrate more closely to the core of the great issues human beings must grapple with (like why are we put on this earth, why do good poeple die young etc.) than even the most analytically probing non-fiction essay  - somewhat akin to Heisenberg's uncertaintly principle  that you can not measure both the location and momentum of a given particle..
 
 In any event, it is time to return to the real world .  Beam me up Scottie! 
Published Saturday, June 21, 2008 7:04 PM by Tom Glocer

Comments

 

Sophie said:

I read this blog with much interest, as I, too, am curious about the relationship between the brain and consciousness. I have a query i wish to make about what's been said above: firstly: why is the 'I' used synonymously with the soul? I'm not too sure what the soul should consist in, or, for that matter, where it is to be found; however, I can, if i'm thinking introspectively, gleen a certain understanding of what 'I' am. Afterall, I have my memories, perceptions, and the like.(if I remember correctly, David Hume said something contrary to what I've written and it goes something like this: we may perceive but there is nothing that resembles the 'I' or self in those perceptions).
Hofstadter is interesting, for sure; but I'm wondering if his view of the consciousness and brain relationship isn't a dualist one. Okay; what's the relationship between a certain neurological state and having a certain thought? At the moment I'm reading some interesting books on this topic, including Daniel Dennett's Consciousness, Quassim Cassam's Self & World, and Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons.
June 26, 2008 5:55 PM
 

Positiveskew said:

On which side of the "Intelligent Design" debate do you stand, Mr. Glocer?
June 28, 2008 1:11 PM
 

PrattOSU said:

I just found this blog thanks to the TimesOnline article on the Top 50 Best Business Blogs. Well worth my time. And thanks for the suggested read.

I agree with Postive. Which side of the intelligent design debate do you stand?
July 8, 2008 9:14 AM
 

gingerscot said:

Hofstadter actually achieved fame in most circles for his first major book, Gödel, Escher, Bach in 1979 and achieved the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1980.  
July 9, 2008 6:17 AM
 

Tom Glocer said:

Gingerscot is, of course, correct in that Hofstadter's seminal work is Godel, Escher Bach which I read every 10 years or so, and each time I do, I marvel at what I missed before.

As for so-called "intelligent design", a clever evolution of creationism that seeks to put God back into the science of the creation of the universe and life on earth in contrast to theories like natural selection, I believe it is unnecessary.

I prefer my science straight, no chaser.  Although not particularly religious myself, I have no problem believing in a world where both good hard science such as evolution can co-exist with profound spirituality.  I just dont feel any reason to insist that a divine force set the complex world in motion.

I recognize this is often more a political or religious debate than a true scientific one, so it is not suprising that rational argument does not lead to a definitive conclusion.
July 9, 2008 1:28 PM
 

RonTowns25 said:

Good post. If you guys are interested about the relationship between entrepreneurism, the non-conscious, and sub-conscious mind - a relationship with offers a tremendous amount of inside about how to become a mega successful entrepreneur - you should read John Assaraf and Murray Smith's new book, "The Answer"... its phenomenal... here it is www.readtheanswer.com/index.php?RTA=web2
July 15, 2008 8:00 PM
 

Kevin said:

I have decided to dive into I am a  Strange Loop after finding this blog.  It seems very different from my usual diet so I suppose that's the best way.  I haven't finished it yet, but the conversation has brought up a topic I am very interested in, so I feel compelled to engage.  I hope in overeagerness I don't spill my milk at the table.

I had a  professor who said that some of the most difficult work he had every done was proving that 2 + 2 (in fact and beyond question) did equal 4.  Do you think it possible, through some similar exhaustive effort, to reach a definitive conclusion about our origin through rational argument?

   
July 18, 2008 5:12 PM
 

Sophie said:

Kevin-I'm not too clear why your professor should find 2+2=4 a problem, analytically speaking, as I can't imagine a possible situation where this is not the case. I would be very interested to know the basis for his reasoning.

Tom- if you're interested, there is a wonderful radio programme called Philosophy Talk (91.7FM Information Radio/ http://www.philosophytalk.org), which, as you may guess, deals with philosophical topics; but it deals with them in clear and unpretentious language. In the archive section there is an interview (aired on 20/1/08) with Douglas Hofstadter entitled Persons, Selves, Souls and Loops. Enjoy.
July 22, 2008 6:35 PM
 

analema said:

I'm passionate about understanding the mechanisms of the mind, as there is a  new window for development on those topics, for example there is this amazing video form the neuro scientific Jill Bolte Taylor who suffered a brain stroke and was able to analyze her own brain from the inside and tell the story in TED: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
August 12, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous comments are disabled

This Blog

Post Calendar

<June 2008>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345

Post Categories

Syndication