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 38000 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!
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.
On which side of the “Intelligent Design” debate do you stand Mr. Glocer?
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?
Hofstadter actually achieved fame in most circles for his first major book G̦del Escher Bach in 1979 and achieved the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1980.
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.
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 http://www.readtheanswer.com/index.php?RTA=web2
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?
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.
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
D. R. Hofstadter is my favorite author because of his unrivaled ability to write at many different levels and G̦del Escher Bach is his masterpiece (I think it came out 1979 though). Now the good thing is that he is asking the right questions about the relationship between beauty and truth complexity and consciousness and so on which is where IMHO the lasting value of his works lies (together with creating a literary form that could be called “non-fiction lyrics” due to its symmetric/recursive/multi-layered structure). However I’m not so sure his notion of “epiphenomenon” is truly an explanation of consciousness in the sense that consciousness won’t just appear just by having some building blocks interact with each other long enough and in complex ways (which sometimes reminds me that the middle ages alchemists tried to create life from unliving matter). Mathematically it is obvious that complexity can be created from simple building blocks but the question is how the building blocks need to look like and how they need to be put together to replicate the epiphenomenon that is consciousness. To me the secret sauce is understanding the brain better and progress on that front is slow (or perhaps I’m not patient enough). So funnily enough I’m not entirely buying into the conclusion of my own favorite author despite the pleasure that his books have been given me.