Essay About Physical Law And Doug Hofstadters Focuses Contribution

I Am Strange Loop
Essay Preview: I Am Strange Loop
Report this essay
Doug Hofstadters 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 ones perspective
indeed our most intimate subjectivity can exist in other substrates, outside of the brain. No,
Hofstadter hasnt 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. Hofstadters 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 Hofstadters 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 doesnt revel in the stark
(some would say depressing) conclusion that theres “nothing more to us” than physics. He is in
some sense asking us to appreciate the romanticism in the materialists 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 dont 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