Hi Marsha, Like most academics, Hofstadter buys into SOM hook, line and sinker. Too bad, really.
Platt On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:50 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "What would make a human brain a candidate for housing a loop of > self-representation? Why would a fly brain or a mosquito brain not be just > as valid a candidate? Why, for that matter, not a bacterium, an ovum, a > sperm, a virus, a tomato plant, a tomato, or a pencil? The answer should be > clear: a human brain is a representational system that knows no bounds in > terms of the extensibility or flexibility of its categories. A mosquito > brain, by contrast, is a tiny representational system that contains > practically no categories at all, never mind being flexible and extensible. > Very small representational systems, such as those of bacteria, ova, > sperms, plants, thermostats, and so forth, do not enjoy the luxury of > self-representation. And a tomato and a pencil are not representational > systems at all, so for them, the story ends right there (sorry, little > tomato! sorry, little pencil!). > "So a human brain is a strong candidate for having the potential of > rich perceptual feedback, and thus rich self-reresentation. But what kinds > of perceptual cycles do we get involved in? We begin life with the most > elementary sorts of feedback about ourselves, which stimulate us to > formulate categories for our most obvious body parts, and building on this > basic pedestal, we soon develop a sense for our bodies as flexible physical > objects. In the meantime, as we receive rewards for various actions and > punishments for others, we begin to develop a more abstract sense of "good" > and "bad", as well as notions of guilt and pride, and our sense of ourselves > as abstract entities that have the power to decide to make things happen > (such as continuing to run up a steep hill even though our legs are begging > us to just walk) begins to take root. > "It is crucial to our young lives that we hone our developing > self-symbol as precisely as possible. We want (and need) to find out where > we belong in all sorts of social hierarchies and classes, and sometimes, > even if we don't want to know thee things, we find out anyway. For > instance, we are all told, early on, that we are "cute"; in some of us, > however, this message is reinforced far more strongly than in others. In > this manner, each of us comes to realize that we are "good-looking" or > "gullible" or "cheeky" or "shy" or "spoiled" or "funny" or "lazy" or > "original", or whatever. Dozens of such labels and concepts accrete to our > growing self-symbols. > "As we go through thousands of experiences large and small, our > representation of these experiences likewise accrete to our self-symbols. > Of course a memory of a visit to the Grand Canyon, say, is attached not > only to our self-symbol but to many other symbols in our brains, but our > self-symbol is enriched and rendered more complex by this attachment." > (Hofstadter, Douglas,'I Am A Strange Loop', pp.182-183) > > --- > > A extremely interesting explanation of self-forming, yet ALL in this > explanation are patterns and analogs including the concept of a "human > brain" (sorry little marsha). > > > Does the concept 'dna' as a pattern have any more substance for the > biologist than for the police officer? > > > > ___ > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
