[MD] loopty-loop

[MarshaV]

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 <valkyr at att.net> 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 <valkyr at att.net> 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 <valkyr at att.net> 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


 
___