Ian, I expected to find Emptiness difficult (I cried.) but worth it. The Net of Jewels seemed to come naturally. I'm not sure I have the patience to wait for Chapter 8, but maybe...
Marsha On Jun 1, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Ha yes, his math is quite a struggle ... I mentioned that here ... a long > slog. > http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1567 > > When talking about "consciousness", brains (and the body and other > objects) are realised static patterns pragmatically speaking. > > The thing that encourages me to believe he really knows that it is > "patterns all the way down", is the very fact that he spends so much > time searching for "significance" in patterns even in the most > conceptual math. (Think also of Schroedinger and the like ... math in > fundamental matter ?) > > I like the fact that you see him being "a nice man" as significant > too. Quality matters. > Ian > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:44 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ian, >> >> That may be. I would like to read more. He seems like not only >> an interesting thinker, but a very nice man. But at this point he >> does seem to consider the brain as something 'real'. >> >> I have to confess, though, I do not share his way of loving math. I >> have a tendency to want to rip those pages dealing with numbers, >> out of the book with my teeth, shake them back and forth, and toss >> them out of my nest, with a Humpf! - I have some lectures coming >> up concerning the wonders of mathematical thinking. Maybe the >> lectures will seduce me into reconsidering Hofstadter's point-of-view. >> I always loved math, but... >> >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:26 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, that's why I like Hofstadter ... you said >>> >>> "He does plenty of talking about patterns, and I did get a little >>> hopeful, but no he's a materialist. One wants to ask him why wouldn't >>> he think the same patterns that create the self, creates objects." >>> >>> I believe he does think that too. It's just not the subject of the >>> book you are currently reading. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:42 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Platt, >>>> >>>> Yes, it does seem that way. He does plenty of talking about patterns, and >>>> I did get a little hopeful, but no he's a materialist. One wants to ask >>>> him why >>>> wouldn't he think the same patterns that create the self, creates objects. >>>> Seems >>>> like an obvious consideration. >>>> >>>> Wonder what it will take? But you are correct, it is too bad. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 31, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Platt Holden wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 >> > 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 ___ 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
