I Am Strange Loop

Doug Hofstadter's focuses contribution to consciousness studies and the field of

intelligence. He indicated on his article that each of us is a point of view, and one's perspective

indeed our most intimate subjectivity can exist in other substrates, outside of the brain. No,

Hofstadter hasn't gone mystical, religious, or superstitious; but he has pushed the boundaries of

science by thinking poetically. This leads him to some very fruitful ways of looking at

consciousness and spotlight on the "I" the sense we all have of our own personal identity in

relation to the rest of the world. Hofstadter's view is that this notion of "I", so fundamental to us

all, is substantially an illusion and emergent from the material substrate.

Philosophers who believe that consciousness comes from something over and above

physical law are dualists. Physical laws are found necessary, but Hofstadter's own strange loop

implies that laws in isolation are insufficient to explain consciousness. There is only a leap of

faith! However I will said that Hofstadter is been strict materialist on this chapter. He believes

consciousness, our sense of self, of "I", comes purely from material physical stuff going on in

the brain, not from any separate soul or essence of consciousness. He doesn't revel in the stark

(some would say depressing) conclusion that there's "nothing more to us" than physics. He is in

some sense asking us to appreciate the romanticism in the materialist's argument. Instead of

decrying how rejecting a separate, otherworldly soul seems to banish a sense of wonder and

panic from the world. The mind or brain problem centers on the puzzlement of trying to

understand the brain which appears to have a free will with physics, which shows how all

interactions in the universe, are determined by physical laws. Therefore if we don't believe in a

dualist soul, and instead conclude that the brain consciousness is purely physical, then how does

a sopping clump of wet physical stuff have free will enough to get up and drive a car, fly a plane

or carve mountains?

I believe that Hofstadter provided an additional way to come across at the real versus

ideal quandary from the standpoint of phenomenalism. All we know of the outside world is

internal sensory perceptions, which must be translated into mental conceptions in order for us to

become aware of them. Hence, what we "know" is only an analogy of reality. Which means that

the only thing we know directly is the information in our own mind. The material world we

believe to be out there is presented to our consciousness as a virtual reality. Our physical senses

interact with incoming information (such as light waves) and then interpret those abstract

patterns as if they are concrete objects. What we interpret as real, is actually a simulation. Thus,

we abstract pattern seeking conscious mind is our only contact with the real world. He also

acknowledges that when we shift our attention to the macroscopic everyday world, invoking free

will or the intention of an agent is frequently the most expeditious and justified way of arriving

at an explanation of the behavior in question.

Hofstadter provide us with a useful contribution which is specific discussion of video

feedback, photos, etc as a metaphor for consciousness. It is extremely difficult to explain

something this weird. His intent is to explore the notion that consciousness is not singular,

discrete or correlated with a spatial location or any single body. He suggests, that mind exists

wherever there is sufficient feedback of information, and that it spills over from one feedback

loop