I Am a Strange Loop (Hardcover) by Douglas R. Hofstadter - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

rating	frequency	%
5		24%
4		36%
3		27%
2		7%
1		3%

09/22/08

David Katzman rated it:

Read in October, 2008

I have an interesting perspective on this title because the book I read just before it was The New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, a book grounded in Zen Buddhist philosophy. Tolle declares that the Ego (or thinking mind) is the cause of all the poisons of our civilization and the only hope for us as a species is to embrace awareness and presence and escape the thinking mind that feeds our needs for material possessions, success, achievement, domination, and so on. This book is in fact an entire logicia...more

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

add a comment

12/22/07

Chuck McCabe rated it:

Read in January, 2007

recommends it for: Patient game lovers

Twenty-eight years ago, Douglas Hofstadter published a book titled "Goedel, Escher, Bach" that earned him instant academic renown and a cultlike following. A mathematician friend recommended the book to me, and I tried mightily to read it, keeping at it more because of my admiration for my friend that for the experience of reading the book. It was either too indirect, too intricately argued, or too Germanic for me to follow, and after months of off and on attempts I finally put it as...more Twenty-eight years ago, Douglas Hofstadter published a book titled "Goedel, Escher, Bach" that earned him instant academic renown and a cultlike following. A mathematician friend recommended the book to me, and I tried mightily to read it, keeping at it more because of my admiration for my friend that for the experience of reading the book. It was either too indirect, too intricately argued, or too Germanic for me to follow, and after months of off and on attempts I finally put it aside.

So why did I start out to read another Hofstadter book? I have long been interested in the nature and origin or human consciousness and sense of self, and as an irreligious materialist, the traditional explanations offered by our dominant social institutions were unsatisfactory. I bought and read "I am a strange loop" because the jacket liner began with the following: "Can a self, a soul, a consciousness, an 'I' arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? If it can, then how can we understand this baffling emergence?" I was hooked.

My favorite materialist explanation of consciousness comes from Sartre, who says that consciousness arises out of material existence and serves as a presence to the world. The essence of human consciousness is the ability to negate, to say no, to conceive alternatives (l'etre et le neant). But Sartre does not explain in any detail how this consciousness can emerge from material existence. Rather, he develops a psychology that illustrates and supports his fundamental view of human reality.

The core of Hofstadter's consciousness (or self, soul, I) is the enormous capacity of the human brain for complex operations, among which are feedback loops that grow in number and sophistication until they enable the human consciousness of self, the emergence of an 'I', and our ability to conceive of or mirror others in our minds. This seems to me to be a satisfying, although not necessarily complete, analysis of the problem of human consciousness in a material universe. Hofstadter's intellectual touchstones lie in mathematics, and particularly number theory; mine are in language, grammar, linguistics.

The book's method and organization lead the reader to understand and perhaps accept this huge concept in a way that I again found very frustrating -- often indirect, full of special vocabulary and game-playing, highly personal, idiosyncratic, shifting and evasive, and (I would say) self-indulgent. More difficult, I thought, than it needed to be. The book demands great patience from the reader. I found myself cursing the author for the way he circled and circled around the subject, bringing in every thought he has ever had about consciousness, and relying to a disturbing extent on his personal experience.

But I'm going to forgive Hofstadter again because the book has in the end provided me with an enhanced perspective on something that interests me very much. I can also give him credit for having made a case that is certainly unpopular outside of academic circles in these days of established religion and political evangelicalism, and having made it in a way that rises above ad hominem criticism. (Indeed, given the way the book is written, it may be destined to forever fly under the Christian Right's polemical radar.) A critic could of course say that Hofstadter is mistaken in his conclusions, but there can be no doubt about the authenticity and good will of the effort he has made and the undeniability of the "factual" evidence he marshalls to support his claims.
(less)

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

2 comments

07/10/08

Brady rated it:

Read in July, 2008

Douglas Hofstader is a wonder, tackling the almost incomprehensible Big Question of "What is the I?" with relative clarity and wit. He is a master of metaphor and analogy, eschewing a microscopic understanding of how the brain works to giving a sensible, rational (though revolutionary) macroscopic explanation of what we commonly refer to as "the soul". Hofstader is certainly no Cartesian dualist, but his ideas are neither what you would expect from a material monist.

...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

02/23/09

Clay rated it:

Read in March, 2009

I read Douglas Hofstadter”s “Godel, Escher, Bach” long ago – sometime in the early ‘80s, and I remember thinking “I really need to read this again. I liked this book, but there was a lot I think I missed.”

When I saw a copy of “I Am a Strange Loop” in a used-book store, and Hofstadter said in the intro it was his update of “Godel, Escher, Bach,” I figured this was my chance to rediscover the concepts in “Godel, Escher, Bach.”

Well, I did, but I can...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

05/13/08

Craig rated it:

The purpose of this book is to explain the mystery of consciousness. He admits off the top that the concept of the mind and conscious thought is quite difficult to nail down, and probably impossible to draw a distinct line upon. Is a mosquito conscious? After all, it, like us, seems to have a will to live, and responds to environmental stimuli in ways that benefit itself. If not a mosquito, is a bee conscious? A fish? A snake? A dog?

He does so by describing the mind's process of some...more The purpose of this book is to explain the mystery of consciousness. He admits off the top that the concept of the mind and conscious thought is quite difficult to nail down, and probably impossible to draw a distinct line upon. Is a mosquito conscious? After all, it, like us, seems to have a will to live, and responds to environmental stimuli in ways that benefit itself. If not a mosquito, is a bee conscious? A fish? A snake? A dog?

He does so by describing the mind's process of something like "infinite reflexivity". Whereas a mosquito probably only responds in very predictable and determined ways to stimulus, higher order life "reflects" on stimuli in increasing complicated and diverse ways. His epiphany came back in the 70's when he took a video camera and began shooting it directly at the TV monitor which itself was displaying the video feed, thus showing an infinite number of reflections which gradually fade to a single point. The point, I suppose, is that because of the depth and arbitrary complexity of human thought, it is difficult to define in discrete terms, although this fact does not make it any less grounded in purely scientific and reasonable terms. Perhaps the thing I learned most from this book is that consciousness can perhaps only be understood by analogy, not by a direct understanding of the physiology or via mechanical terms.

The fact that he spent nearly 200 page trying to develop this metaphor, and providing multiple anecdotes illustrating the concept of the infinite and circular suggests to me that he really has no idea what consciousness is. He tries to keep his discussion purely on mathematical and scientific terms. It's clear he falls into the camp of those who believe the mind and soul are no more than complicated atomic and molecular interactions, and is doing his part to further the quest for the Holy Grail of atheists: explaining humanity in purely godless terms.

The problem is that if consciousness and brain function (if that is really the essence of humanity) were truly understood, scientists should be able to program it into a computer. So far, the only noticeable advances in the field of AI have only been virtual magic tricks -- in part researchers can get computers to seem to "think" like humans (as in Deep Blue's chess victories over Garry Kasparov) for specific tasks, but such simulations only work for the specific applications for which they were programmed. This isn't really AI -- they're just essentially complicated math solutions. There has been no AI which has successfully modeled the brain and human intelligence, which can respond to abstract and arbitrary input and truly "learn".

Aside from the author's utter failure to explain the essence of consciousness (I mean, really, how could you in < 400 pages?), he shows himself to be quite the arrogant scholarly type, with contempt towards those living outside his bubble. Himself a strict vegetarian for many years, he suggests meat eaters are less human than he is, because they seem not to be bothered by eating that which once represented a conscious and semi-sentient being. He even uses such eating habits to establish his own numerical scale of human consciousness -- essentially the less meat you eat, the more human you are. Um, okkk...(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

03/13/08

Fred rated it:

Read in January, 2009

I've been reading "I Am A Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter. The development of his theme is slow, so I read the epilogue to find out if he was coming to anything other than where he seemed to be going. The epilogue seems to be about the same as the first few chapters.

I skipped around the book a little and found this intriguing discussion on page 322 called 'Two Daves.' He presents a mental experiment of two universes, identical in every detail except that...more I've been reading "I Am A Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter. The development of his theme is slow, so I read the epilogue to find out if he was coming to anything other than where he seemed to be going. The epilogue seems to be about the same as the first few chapters.

I skipped around the book a little and found this intriguing discussion on page 322 called 'Two Daves.' He presents a mental experiment of two universes, identical in every detail except that universe Q has the stuff of consciousness, and universe Z (zed, zombie) is missing the stuff of consciousness. In both universes Dave talks about his possession of consciousness but in universe Z he is lying without knowing it, (sound familiar?). His next section is titled 'The Nagging Worry that One May Be a Zombie." This is a promising title but he detours into fluff on this issue and dismisses it.

I would suggest that with careful work, he could learn to observe both universes in his own life and experience. I know I do. I have occasional moments of consciousness that make me aware of the long intervals of unconsciousness that I suffer.

I suspect that Mr. Hofstasdter has not done the experiment, followed the procedures, practiced the practices, that allows one to approach an awareness of the Self. Yet as a scientist he must have the habit of experimental verification of results. Results have no meaning without the formula, procedure, recipe, for generating them. In the index to his book the word 'meditation' is not listed, neither is 'yoga.' On page 297 his characterization of Zen 'They resent words,...' sounds more like someone who read the lab report but didn't bother to do the experiment. I would have been surprised to find Gurdjieff listed in his index.
See: www.gurdjieff-legacy.org.

I look forward to reading the remainder of the book and perhaps finding a few nuggets of value. But I'm afraid it is too soon to go beyond Ayn Rand's statements of the fundamental axioms of philosophy: Existence exits, and I am conscious.
See: www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename...

OK, I finished Hofstatder's book months ago and I have been pondering his ideas. My final conclusion is that his book is more autobiographical than a scholarly or scientific work. I did a cursory review of the field in terms of modern western scientific writing and found several writers who published significantly better works than his on this problem of the "I."

One key example is :
The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness by Antonio Damasio. I haven't finished this book yet, or really I haven't started it, but the result of skimming it is that this book, written 14 years before "I Am A Strange Loop" is at a much higher level than H's maudlin rendering of his senile? meanderings about Strange Loops. H should know better than to publish ideas that are half a century out of date. Or if you read Aristotle, perhaps a millennia out of date. But then again, he is a parochial computer scientist.

(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

10/12/07

Jane rated it:

Read in September, 2008

This book, on consciousness and what makes a human an "I," is methodical and exuberant, technical and personal. Reading it was a long, thoughtful journey. It's not an easy book. The workings of the human brain are described metaphorically (and not physiologically), and often those metaphors are mathematical. Sometimes, too, Hofstadter employs playful analogies to show how consciousness works, and how it doesn't work. (He is not a dualist; consciousness arises from physical laws and ...more This book, on consciousness and what makes a human an "I," is methodical and exuberant, technical and personal. Reading it was a long, thoughtful journey. It's not an easy book. The workings of the human brain are described metaphorically (and not physiologically), and often those metaphors are mathematical. Sometimes, too, Hofstadter employs playful analogies to show how consciousness works, and how it doesn't work. (He is not a dualist; consciousness arises from physical laws and not from a kind of essence.)

You can read summaries of this book elsewhere; I won't write one. What I loved about it was how challenging and yet accessible it is (if you put in the time), and how willing Hofstadter is to make it personal in ways that are really relevant. (That our ability to be friends, to have empathy and affection for others, are aspects of our higher-level consciousness, according to H., is very affirming to me.) He's a scientist, and a brilliant one, but a human, too, and he's frank about his fascination and struggles with the same knowledge.

From the epilogue:

"The key problem is, it seems to me, that when we try to understand what we are, we humans are doomed, as spiritual creatures in a universe of mere stuff, to eternal puzzlement about our nature. I vividly remember how, as a teen-ager reading about brains, I was forced for the first time in my life to face up to the idea that a human brain, especially my own, must be a physical structure obeying physical law... In a nutshell, our quandary is this. Either we believe that our consciousness is something other than an outcome of physical law, or we believe it is an outcome of physical law--but making either choice leads us to disturbing, perhaps even unacceptable, consequences" (357).

This book unfolds in layers of concepts and insight. H. builds his argument gracefully. His attention to a reader like me, studying consciousness for first time, is thoughtful and steady. Not easy stuff, he makes learning (one model of) it possible.

p.s. Buddhists, beware. He admires the "noble goal" (295), yet dismisses the possibility that the self can be dismantled.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

07/21/07

Brodie rated it:

bookshelves: theoryandphilosophy

Read in July, 2007

I enjoyed much of Hostetter's account of the ways in which a strictly biological account of cognition fails to grasp the complexities of consciousness and identities. I did find, however, his account of how identity is dispersed and externalized the be somewhat unconvincing, thought not because I disagree with the concept but with his interpretation of the concept. He tries to argue through several chapters that the decentered--"strange loopiness"--of consciousness comes about becaus...more I enjoyed much of Hostetter's account of the ways in which a strictly biological account of cognition fails to grasp the complexities of consciousness and identities. I did find, however, his account of how identity is dispersed and externalized the be somewhat unconvincing, thought not because I disagree with the concept but with his interpretation of the concept. He tries to argue through several chapters that the decentered--"strange loopiness"--of consciousness comes about because cognition is really a series of complex and shifting patterns in the brain, super-imposed on top of micro-level physical processes. Because consciousness forms the substance of identity and consciousness is basically a process of accumulating and recalling patterns, these patterns have no essential connection to the "wet-ware" of the brain. Thus the patterns that represent my love for 19th century novels can easily to replicated in another's brain--my wife's for instance--which results in a part of identity having a kind of weak, second order existence in my wife's brain. If I were to die and she were to recall my thoughts and feelings about 19th century novels she would, in a sense, be re-processing my consciousness, as if uploading it like a program (though Hostetter's metaphors are at times less mechanical or technological than this, he seems very comfortable moving between physical and metaphysical tropes for cognition). This rings false to me because who is to say that my wife has truly internalized my actually thought process or even emotive reaction to such an external stimulus. She may think that she has, but how would she really know. Hostetter counters such an objection by bringing up Cartesian dualism, that thinking that we are minds locked inside of bodies conjures up that, to use Zizek's words, spectre that haunts western metaphysics. So, I have no real logical response to this counter-claim, other than his original description of such weak, second-order existences seems intuitively wrong to me. Nonetheless, an interesting read, though sometimes a bit too "cutesy" for my taste.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

12/14/08

Kevan rated it:

bookshelves: pop-science

Read in January, 2005

In one of Feynman's books he discusses the difference between deep ideas and profound ideas, Character of Physical Law perhaps.

Hofstadter is a profound thinker. Some of his explorations such as designing fonts seem just silly at first until you understand that he's exploring micro-puzzles that include deep challenges. His Fluid Analogy stuff contain good examples.

If I understand The Strange Loop properly, he's exploring the idea that consciousness if simply an illusion lo...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

02/22/08

Claus rated it:

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in February, 2008

I read Hofstadter's "Gödel, Escher, Bach" many years ago and was completely taken aback by the author's brilliant style and insight.

I read Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" many years ago and was fascinated by the author's vast area of expertise.

I read Hofstadter's "Le Ton Beau de Marot" a few years ago and was amazed by the author's enormous knowledge.

I just finished Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop" and was thoroughl...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

09/15/07

Leo Lipsztein rated it:

Read in September, 2007

recommends it for: sentient beings, mosquitos

In this book, Doug Hofstadter attempts to answer the most fundamental question of metaphysics: "Can thought arise out of matter? Can self, a soul, a consciousness, an 'I' arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here?" Digesting Hofstadter's answer requires a handful of brief encounters with principles of number theory and cognitive neuroscience; even so, "Srange Loop" is eminently accessible and doesn't require its readers to have a degree in Philosop...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

07/01/09

Ben rated it:

bookshelves: science

Read in July, 2009

Douglas Hofstadter is, well, a bit loopy--but this book is a nice statement of his notion of selfhood and personal identity. He nicely locates consciousness in the self-referential symbol processing of the brain, and offers some very plausible analogies to explain just what being conscious might involve. But I'm ultimately unconvinced that he can dispel the evident gap between the "I" and the brain. For example, Hofstadter writes: 'The dance of symbols in the brain has to be perceived ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/30/09

Al rated it:

(review of isbn 0465030793)

Read in January, 2009

I enjoyed reading this foray by Hofstadter into coming to terms with that slippery concept we call 'I'; the style is cheeky, cheerful, very witty (perhaps too witty for some tastes). The subject of this book is elusive and slippery as ever; but it is of interest to anyone trying to grapple with this mercurial subject. Linked with 'I' is the concept of 'self', and by association, 'mind', 'soul', and 'conscience'. Hofstadter masterfully guides us through all the labyrinthian pathways, sometime...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

02/05/09

Bookmarks Magazine added it

Though elegantly written, it is not surprising that Douglas Hofstadter's I Am a Strange Loop suffers a bit by comparison to his acclaimed G��del, Escher, Bach: they both cover the same ground, with the more recent book elaborating on the ideas of the first one. However, I Am a Strange Loop is a much more personal effort, an "intellectual autobiography" (Time) of the last 30 years of Hofstadter's life. Critics agreed that Hofstadter is riveting when sharing his grief over the unexpected

...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/18/09

Jake rated it:

bookshelves: science

Read in April, 2009

A good introduction to Hofstadter's ideas about consciousness, in a considerably shorter package than Godel, Escher, Bach.

Hofstadter is at his best in the first half of the book, when he's outlining his idea of the "strange loop" and discussing how it connects to his other ideas about the mind. His discussion of Godel and incompleteness is also excellent-- I'd read another book on the same subject, but Hofstadter did a much better job of getting the ideas across. After ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

03/21/09

Alex added it

Read in March, 2009

About identity as seen through the lens of neuroscience & physics. Hofstadter also wrote Godel Escher Bach, study of complex systems, art as an infinitely complex system of stimuli and patterning. Looking forward to read this. Writing workshops have made me feel beaten down in the fiction-reading department.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

12/16/08

Thomas rated it:

Read in December, 2008

Made me think, always a good thing. I "got" it, his argument that a soul is a concept used to name the patterns and analogies and consciousness that arise out of the strange loop of a highly complex and self-referential brain, and that Dualism can't be the right answer. It's rather intimidating, however (and that's a vastly inadequate term for the true feelings I have) to think that this "I" that I've always taken for granted will truly and completely no longer "exist"...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

03/25/09

Matthew Sturges rated it:

Read in March, 2009

Gave up about 250 pages in. Hofstadter lost me with his meanderings about entwined souls. I kept waiting for him to provide some concrete evidence for what he was talking about, but he just keeps making the same few analogies over and over. I enjoyed the refresher course on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and found the idea of Godel's reflexive use of Principia Mathematica as an analogue for self-perception interesting, but in the end I'm afraid I'll never be sold on the notion of self as nothin...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

01/26/09

Rex rated it:

Hofstadter continues where GEB left off. While he does given an overview of Godel's Theroem (not as detailed as he does in GEB) I Am a Strange Loop is far less analytical and much more philosophical. Hofstadter ideas about what an "I" really is is very thought provoking. I have bought in to a lot of Hofstadter's ideas and while sometimes this book comes off as sort of, i guess i'll call it "hippie-ish" (we're all, like, in each others souls, man!) he does provide solid logic ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

06/04/09

Sam Raker rated it:

bookshelves: peridêmois

Read in June, 2009

Great. Not quite the beautiful, gleefully knotty awesomeness of Gödel, Escher, Bach An Eternal Golden Braid, but a really good introduction/general interest version of Hofstadter's ideas and modus. At times, it's a little too general interest, as Hofstadter occasionally overexerts himself trying to come up with convincing analogies, allegories, and metaphors for his not-as-crazy-as-he-seems-to-think ideas.

Like this review? yes

add a comment