5 ms·

Don't quite know why this is here, but if you haven't read any Douglas Hofstadter, this is probably where to start. This is a book that will A: change your life

Don't quite know why this is here, but if you haven't read any Douglas Hofstadter, this is probably where to start. This is a book that will A: change your life, B: require a pencil and paper to read with, C: Introduce you to Bach's genius, and D: will probably give you a greater appreciation of social interactions and language if for no other reason than it boils all of consciousness down to, essentially, language. I'm so over simplifying it, and there's a lot more here than this. But I still found it extremely interesting to read this and contemplate just how intricately tied to our inner-narratives we are. Without that never-ending dialog in our heads, we're not really sentient, and without a language, we can't have that dialog... Again, way more here, but this was the big thing I took away. I am a strange loop, after all.

mihok 12y ago
Spot on, I have the exact same sentiments about the book. It was such an incredible read, albeit a bit dry at times, it is defiantly worth reading if you haven't already.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Without that never-ending dialog in our heads, we're not really sentient Stealing from Feynman here (edit, or more accurately his childhood friend Bennie), but most conscious thought is not verbal: "Thinking is nothing but talking to yourself," said Feynman. "Oh yeah?" said Bennie. "Do you know the crazy shape of a crankshaft in a car? How did you describe it when you were talking to yourself?" http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1079.htm http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1079.htm I don't think that complex language is required for conscious thought, we can reason without language. Complex language is however required for storytelling and storytelling is required to transmit technologies without physically demonstrating them, hence it is required for technological development to spread beyond the limits of "monkey see, monkey do".
- judk 12y ago
  Comprehending a crankshaft is not conscious thought. Most conscious thought is language.
  - rrss1122 12y ago
    I think it is. The actual process of comprehending a crankshaft uses conscious thought as a conduit to transfer the idea into memory. However, I think lotsofmangos in the Feynman quote was referring to the process of visualizing a crankshaft, which is most definitely conscious thought. Visualization is often not language in the mind.
    - MrRoger 12y ago
      Visualization is language, but of a different kind. Take those who are born deaf and think in signs.
  - pault 12y ago
    Spatial reasoning is absolutely a form of reasoning (it's right there in the name!). I don't have any references handy, but I've read a few accounts of musical and math prodigies who have a form of synesthesia that allows them to "see" notes and numbers, respectively, which allows one to reason about abstract concepts as easily as you or I could spot the difference between a circle and a square. Very interesting stuff.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
pdpi 12y ago
> it boils all of consciousness down to, essentially, language. Really? I'd have said that it boiled consciousness down to the idea of self-reference (what he calls "strange loops"). EDIT: Perhaps you mean Le Ton Beau de Marot? That one definitely deals with the relationship between language and consciousness.
- VonGuard 12y ago
  Yeah, that's the one. I said I simplified it greatly. And we wouldn't even be able to understand that we were strange loops without a language with which to define the terms.
rrss1122 12y ago
I think you're going a little too far with A: change your life. It's definitely an entertaining read, but that's as far as it goes for me.
- beat 12y ago
  It can definitely change the way you think about consciousness (and about software). Anyone who doesn't have their mind significantly altered by it is either a genius, extraordinarily well educated going in, or just doesn't get it.
  - stuaxo 12y ago
    That's a bit patronizing ... disclaimer - the book is sitting on my shelf, but I haven't got round to reading it.
    - beat 12y ago
      It's not patronizing, it's honest. Read the book, and you'll agree with me. (And it's hardly the only book that gets this credit - something like Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", or Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! trilogy, or any number of other books will fundamentally change how you think.)
    - barkingcat 12y ago
      You should totally read it! It's a good read. It made me realise a math book could be written in that way and actually be "rigorous". For me, at 17 when I read it, math was just a bunch of symbols and exercises. It introduced me to logic and reasoning, made me think about the world differently. It's like the real red pill in the matrix that's not just something you swallow. You think about it, and you start wondering what else you think you knew about math and the world can be challenged. It made me a braver man. In that sense, it did change my life.
    - barkingcat 12y ago
      Also, mentions of genius is not unwarranted when you think about the 3 names mentioned: Godel, Escher, Bach. The book ties things back to how these three people thought about the world, and how their art and thinking can be tied into math. I think if your mind isn't changed after reading about these figures, then you haven't really gotten it. Hofstadter isn't necessarily the main attraction here. He created a framework (ie the structure of the book) where these subjects can be reasoned about.

mihok 12y ago

Spot on, I have the exact same sentiments about the book. It was such an incredible read, albeit a bit dry at times, it is defiantly worth reading if you haven't already.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Without that never-ending dialog in our heads, we're not really sentient Stealing from Feynman here (edit, or more accurately his childhood friend Bennie), but most conscious thought is not verbal: "Thinking is nothing but talking to yourself," said Feynman. "Oh yeah?" said Bennie. "Do you know the crazy shape of a crankshaft in a car? How did you describe it when you were talking to yourself?" http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1079.htm http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1079.htm I don't think that complex language is required for conscious thought, we can reason without language. Complex language is however required for storytelling and storytelling is required to transmit technologies without physically demonstrating them, hence it is required for technological development to spread beyond the limits of "monkey see, monkey do".

judk 12y ago
Comprehending a crankshaft is not conscious thought. Most conscious thought is language.
- rrss1122 12y ago
  I think it is. The actual process of comprehending a crankshaft uses conscious thought as a conduit to transfer the idea into memory. However, I think lotsofmangos in the Feynman quote was referring to the process of visualizing a crankshaft, which is most definitely conscious thought. Visualization is often not language in the mind.
  - MrRoger 12y ago
    Visualization is language, but of a different kind. Take those who are born deaf and think in signs.
- pault 12y ago
  Spatial reasoning is absolutely a form of reasoning (it's right there in the name!). I don't have any references handy, but I've read a few accounts of musical and math prodigies who have a form of synesthesia that allows them to "see" notes and numbers, respectively, which allows one to reason about abstract concepts as easily as you or I could spot the difference between a circle and a square. Very interesting stuff.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pdpi 12y ago

> it boils all of consciousness down to, essentially, language. Really? I'd have said that it boiled consciousness down to the idea of self-reference (what he calls "strange loops"). EDIT: Perhaps you mean Le Ton Beau de Marot? That one definitely deals with the relationship between language and consciousness.

VonGuard 12y ago
Yeah, that's the one. I said I simplified it greatly. And we wouldn't even be able to understand that we were strange loops without a language with which to define the terms.

rrss1122 12y ago

I think you're going a little too far with A: change your life. It's definitely an entertaining read, but that's as far as it goes for me.

beat 12y ago
It can definitely change the way you think about consciousness (and about software). Anyone who doesn't have their mind significantly altered by it is either a genius, extraordinarily well educated going in, or just doesn't get it.
- stuaxo 12y ago
  That's a bit patronizing ... disclaimer - the book is sitting on my shelf, but I haven't got round to reading it.
  - beat 12y ago
    It's not patronizing, it's honest. Read the book, and you'll agree with me. (And it's hardly the only book that gets this credit - something like Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", or Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! trilogy, or any number of other books will fundamentally change how you think.)
  - barkingcat 12y ago
    You should totally read it! It's a good read. It made me realise a math book could be written in that way and actually be "rigorous". For me, at 17 when I read it, math was just a bunch of symbols and exercises. It introduced me to logic and reasoning, made me think about the world differently. It's like the real red pill in the matrix that's not just something you swallow. You think about it, and you start wondering what else you think you knew about math and the world can be challenged. It made me a braver man. In that sense, it did change my life.
  - barkingcat 12y ago
    Also, mentions of genius is not unwarranted when you think about the 3 names mentioned: Godel, Escher, Bach. The book ties things back to how these three people thought about the world, and how their art and thinking can be tied into math. I think if your mind isn't changed after reading about these figures, then you haven't really gotten it. Hofstadter isn't necessarily the main attraction here. He created a framework (ie the structure of the book) where these subjects can be reasoned about.