5 ms·

I'm going to try and explain why it made a difference in my life as briefly as I can. I read it in the early 90s as a teenager at a community college in the su

I'm going to try and explain why it made a difference in my life as briefly as I can. I read it in the early 90s as a teenager at a community college in the suburbs, along with the Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, at a point in my life when I was struggling with having a lot of doubt about Catholicism, and the _one_ thing that was keeping me from just giving up on religion entirely was that I just couldn't understand how the experience of _being_ could be anything but a spiritual soul, and those two books gave me the intellectual tools to basically completely rebuild my entire conception of what and who I was -- which is to say that I could finally see consciousness as the an emergent property of ordinary matter, and the relationship between consciousness and computation. It's an experience you can only have if you read the right books at the right time in your life. You can only be exposed to any particular idea for the first time once in your life, and if they ideas in those books are not new to you, I'm sure you'll find GEB pretentious and ponderous or whatever, but for me it was like fireworks going off on every page. I read it and reread it and took notes on it and used it as a launching point for more reading for years afterwards. edit with some extra thoughts: Keep in mind this book was written in 1979, when vanishingly few people had access to computers, let alone the internet. There was no wikipedia you could go to to scratch an itch about some topic. GEB is encyclopedic in scope and meandering because it _had to be_, he couldn't expect an audience who were familiar with _computers_ let alone artificial intelligence and set theory. It's really extraordinary that it's accessible as it is, given the breadth that it covered. Today, given the advances in all the things he was talking about, I would think it's mostly interesting to read for historical reasons.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
For me, it was the opposite. Reading Shadows of the Mind after GEB led me to finally see consciousness is NOT an emergent property of ordinary matter.
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  I find Penrose's argument uncompelling: he doesn't see how ordinary physics could result in the sensation of beingness and experience, and we don't really understand quantum mechanics, therefore quantum mechanics is responsible for consciousness. (obviously, his book works on it for 500 pages so my summary is a parody, but that was the gist as far as I can remember)
  - bbor 3y ago
    Or one could speculate that consciousness arises from as-yet-undiscovered noncomputable laws of quantum gravity operating within brain structures called microtubules, as Sir Roger Penrose did in his 1994 book *Shadows of the Mind* Heh yeah doesn’t seem great. I think it’s you nailed it. This is from one of the reviews posted above
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  You may want to read https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/finite.html https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/finite.html. Perhaps also https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/ https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/. The Lucas-Penrose argument is not generally accepted among philosophers. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it fails - truth isn't a popularity contest - but it does indicate there are some subtleties at play here; it's not so obvious Emperor of the Mind/Shadows of the Mind succeeds in its argument.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    Speaking of Scott Aaronson he has more recently (2013) wrote a much longer exposition about consciousness and (quantum) computation, and has a chapter specifically for Penrose: https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf
  - fieryskiff17 3y ago
    [dead]
anon291 3y ago
I haven't read the book but I believe many people confuse consciousness with qualia. I believe Hofstadter does as well and he's become critical of his earlier work.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  Every book about the nature of consciousness has problems. It's not a solved problem. For me it wasn't the details but just laying out the landscape and I could see how to get there from here, if that makes sense.
  - bbor 3y ago
    Beautifully put! I recommend “Kants System of Perspectives” by Palmquist, it’s free online, short/skimmable, and explains in detail how Kant (200y ago!) was trying to do exactly this; acknowledge the unknowable parts of the problem, and instead focus on reasoning out the “landscape” or structure of it
    - FabHK 3y ago
      What an unexpected connection: Stephen Palmquist used to run the Hong Kong Philosophy Café, until he left the city recently, possibly in the wake of the political changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Palmquist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Palmquist Here's the free online book you alluded to: http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/toc.html http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/toc.html
      - strogonoff 3y ago
        Does anything like Philosophy Café exist in that city nowadays?
        FabHK 3y ago
        Hi, yes, the HK Philosophy Café is still around! [1] There's also HK Skeptics in the Pub. [2] There was a Café Scientifique, but it closed down. Then there's some Book groups that tend to discuss non-fiction. [3] Hope to see you! [1] There's a WA group, but I don't have the invite link. Meta: https://www.facebook.com/groups/6834551586589131/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/6834551586589131/ and https://www.instagram.com/hkpc2023 https://www.instagram.com/hkpc2023 [2] Meetup: https://www.meetup.com/skeptics-in-the-pub-hk/ https://www.meetup.com/skeptics-in-the-pub-hk/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/hkskeptics https://twitter.com/hkskeptics [3] Meetup: https://www.meetup.com/byobook-meetup-group/ https://www.meetup.com/byobook-meetup-group/
jijijijij 3y ago
I can't recommend The Selfish Gene enough. I wish it was mandatory reading in school or something. Contrary to GEB it is very accessible and a phenomenal introduction to the theory of evolution. It gets a point across, school books don't. However, Richard Dawkins has become a very detestable person, cringeworthy culture warrior, rage beneficiary. So, make what you want with that info. Maybe consider a library or pirate the audio book.
- jabl 3y ago
  > However, Richard Dawkins has become a very detestable person, cringeworthy culture warrior, rage beneficiary. Yeah.. My personal introduction to Dawkins was actually some TV documentary he made that covered about the same topics as the God Delusion, then I read the book itself. Only after that I read the Selfish Gene, which IMHO philosophically was a much more interesting book. I did sort-of follow the "new atheism" movement for a time, the "four horsemen" and all that [1]. But it seemed to pretty quickly spiral into the cringy culture war thing you mention, so I stopped. [1] I don't agree with many of the things Christopher Hitchens said, but damn he was a good orator and public debater.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    It's sad really. I mean it. I adored him, his thorough, a bit arrogant style of argumentation. If he had stayed with biology and science education, he could have had a legacy of greatness. Now, he will die as just another edgelord, who thought they've become experts on everything; a content creator for the suck. Dawkins is an old, old man, his days are counted. I hope with time The Selfish Gene will get a life of its own, with the person Dawkins becoming nothing more than a short side note, on a great educator falling victim to his ego. This book will endure, his Tweets won't.
- tim333 3y ago
  I found the book a little depressing eg. the quote on the cover of some editions “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” He got a bit more upbeat in later books. I'm not sure Dawkins is detestable but he's a bit humorless at times. The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff https://archive.ph/kNJXN https://archive.ph/kNJXN
felipeerias 3y ago
Funny, I did pretty much the same journey when I was young. As I grew older, I became disenchanted and eventually journeyed all the way back. There are questions about conscience, the origin of the universe, the ultimate nature of reality, etc. that we haven't answered yet and perhaps never will. We have theories and we have models. We don't know which theories are correct yet and, if we eventually find a model that seems to work, we might not even be sure if it reflects reality or simply predicts it (like Newton's equations). Furthermore, not all questions can be answered in this way. Every ethics system is grounded on metaphysics in one way or another: on concepts which are completely human-made, culturally-dependent, non-observable. Even the most Darwinian doctrines do this: genes don't actually "want" to be preserved and passed on, any more than rocks "want" to fall. Religions are simply more explicit about this than other belief systems. Finally, it certainly doesn't help Dawkins and his followers that, despite claiming to be on the side of reason and truth, systematically let their judgements be influenced by their prejudices and preconceived notions. A more informed and grounded view of history would understand that a notion of the transcendent and the divine was the foundation for much of the progress of humanity.
- lejoko 3y ago
  So true. In the end, any truth is anchored in a beliefs system and you have to chose yours (or ignore that you've chosen one). Better chose one that helps you live a good and happy life...

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

For me, it was the opposite. Reading Shadows of the Mind after GEB led me to finally see consciousness is NOT an emergent property of ordinary matter.

tasty_freeze 3y ago
I find Penrose's argument uncompelling: he doesn't see how ordinary physics could result in the sensation of beingness and experience, and we don't really understand quantum mechanics, therefore quantum mechanics is responsible for consciousness. (obviously, his book works on it for 500 pages so my summary is a parody, but that was the gist as far as I can remember)
- bbor 3y ago
  Or one could speculate that consciousness arises from as-yet-undiscovered noncomputable laws of quantum gravity operating within brain structures called microtubules, as Sir Roger Penrose did in his 1994 book *Shadows of the Mind* Heh yeah doesn’t seem great. I think it’s you nailed it. This is from one of the reviews posted above
knightoffaith 3y ago
You may want to read https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/finite.html https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/finite.html. Perhaps also https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/ https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/. The Lucas-Penrose argument is not generally accepted among philosophers. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it fails - truth isn't a popularity contest - but it does indicate there are some subtleties at play here; it's not so obvious Emperor of the Mind/Shadows of the Mind succeeds in its argument.
- hnfong 3y ago
  Speaking of Scott Aaronson he has more recently (2013) wrote a much longer exposition about consciousness and (quantum) computation, and has a chapter specifically for Penrose: https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf
- fieryskiff17 3y ago
  [dead]

anon291 3y ago

I haven't read the book but I believe many people confuse consciousness with qualia. I believe Hofstadter does as well and he's become critical of his earlier work.

empath-nirvana 3y ago
Every book about the nature of consciousness has problems. It's not a solved problem. For me it wasn't the details but just laying out the landscape and I could see how to get there from here, if that makes sense.
- bbor 3y ago
  Beautifully put! I recommend “Kants System of Perspectives” by Palmquist, it’s free online, short/skimmable, and explains in detail how Kant (200y ago!) was trying to do exactly this; acknowledge the unknowable parts of the problem, and instead focus on reasoning out the “landscape” or structure of it
  - FabHK 3y ago
    What an unexpected connection: Stephen Palmquist used to run the Hong Kong Philosophy Café, until he left the city recently, possibly in the wake of the political changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Palmquist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Palmquist Here's the free online book you alluded to: http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/toc.html http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/toc.html
    - strogonoff 3y ago
      Does anything like Philosophy Café exist in that city nowadays?
      - FabHK 3y ago
        Hi, yes, the HK Philosophy Café is still around! [1] There's also HK Skeptics in the Pub. [2] There was a Café Scientifique, but it closed down. Then there's some Book groups that tend to discuss non-fiction. [3] Hope to see you! [1] There's a WA group, but I don't have the invite link. Meta: https://www.facebook.com/groups/6834551586589131/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/6834551586589131/ and https://www.instagram.com/hkpc2023 https://www.instagram.com/hkpc2023 [2] Meetup: https://www.meetup.com/skeptics-in-the-pub-hk/ https://www.meetup.com/skeptics-in-the-pub-hk/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/hkskeptics https://twitter.com/hkskeptics [3] Meetup: https://www.meetup.com/byobook-meetup-group/ https://www.meetup.com/byobook-meetup-group/

jijijijij 3y ago

I can't recommend The Selfish Gene enough. I wish it was mandatory reading in school or something. Contrary to GEB it is very accessible and a phenomenal introduction to the theory of evolution. It gets a point across, school books don't. However, Richard Dawkins has become a very detestable person, cringeworthy culture warrior, rage beneficiary. So, make what you want with that info. Maybe consider a library or pirate the audio book.

jabl 3y ago
> However, Richard Dawkins has become a very detestable person, cringeworthy culture warrior, rage beneficiary. Yeah.. My personal introduction to Dawkins was actually some TV documentary he made that covered about the same topics as the God Delusion, then I read the book itself. Only after that I read the Selfish Gene, which IMHO philosophically was a much more interesting book. I did sort-of follow the "new atheism" movement for a time, the "four horsemen" and all that [1]. But it seemed to pretty quickly spiral into the cringy culture war thing you mention, so I stopped. [1] I don't agree with many of the things Christopher Hitchens said, but damn he was a good orator and public debater.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  It's sad really. I mean it. I adored him, his thorough, a bit arrogant style of argumentation. If he had stayed with biology and science education, he could have had a legacy of greatness. Now, he will die as just another edgelord, who thought they've become experts on everything; a content creator for the suck. Dawkins is an old, old man, his days are counted. I hope with time The Selfish Gene will get a life of its own, with the person Dawkins becoming nothing more than a short side note, on a great educator falling victim to his ego. This book will endure, his Tweets won't.
tim333 3y ago
I found the book a little depressing eg. the quote on the cover of some editions “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” He got a bit more upbeat in later books. I'm not sure Dawkins is detestable but he's a bit humorless at times. The Telegraph has quite a good article on his culture war stuff https://archive.ph/kNJXN https://archive.ph/kNJXN

felipeerias 3y ago

Funny, I did pretty much the same journey when I was young. As I grew older, I became disenchanted and eventually journeyed all the way back. There are questions about conscience, the origin of the universe, the ultimate nature of reality, etc. that we haven't answered yet and perhaps never will. We have theories and we have models. We don't know which theories are correct yet and, if we eventually find a model that seems to work, we might not even be sure if it reflects reality or simply predicts it (like Newton's equations). Furthermore, not all questions can be answered in this way. Every ethics system is grounded on metaphysics in one way or another: on concepts which are completely human-made, culturally-dependent, non-observable. Even the most Darwinian doctrines do this: genes don't actually "want" to be preserved and passed on, any more than rocks "want" to fall. Religions are simply more explicit about this than other belief systems. Finally, it certainly doesn't help Dawkins and his followers that, despite claiming to be on the side of reason and truth, systematically let their judgements be influenced by their prejudices and preconceived notions. A more informed and grounded view of history would understand that a notion of the transcendent and the divine was the foundation for much of the progress of humanity.

lejoko 3y ago
So true. In the end, any truth is anchored in a beliefs system and you have to chose yours (or ignore that you've chosen one). Better chose one that helps you live a good and happy life...