Members with This Book
Most Helpful Reviews
see all reviews
Liked It1 of 1 members found this review helpful “You have certainly enjoyed the sensation of looking into a mirror that it self reflected a mirror, making a tunnel of reflections that went as deep as you could see. The same sort of thing happens when you take a television camera and turn it onto a monitor that is showing what the television...” see full review » see other reviews » |
Didn’t Like It “So far, not so good. Interesting title and concept, but seems a little random. |
Newest Reviews
see all reviews-
“I am really enjoying this book despite its mathematical analogies. Mr. Hofstadter IS a mathematician... I am reading it quite slowly...for various reasons. anyway....think physics of the soul....
Jennifer B wrote this review Tuesday, November 10 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
READ IT”“So far, not so good. Interesting title and concept, but seems a little random.
Kent wrote this review Friday, September 11 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
It's getting worse, I might not even bother reading anymore.”
“lots of brain excercise... :)”
r_khati wrote this review Friday, July 17 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“This book was well-written, but I disagreed with its main thesis.”
ANV wrote this review Sunday, April 19 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“Hofstadter makes two arguments: Consciousness arises in any sufficiently complex brain that can categorize its symbols; that the self (I-ness) is not the provenance of a single brain it is of these symbols.
Paul O wrote this review Friday, December 19 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
While the first argument is relatively straight forward, the latter is a bit hard to grasp.
It says that your body or even your brain is not you. With each of the relationships you make, your symbols (ultimately your "self") is imparted to (planted into?) those other brains.
Hofstadter allows that these "copies" are course grained and necessarily incomplete but still are first class manifestations of a self - the self you left behind as it were.
”
“Made it through 1/2. Felt like he was just getting started, but my book club book needed to get done. Perhaps I'll get back to it.
Terri K wrote this review Wednesday, December 10 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
(Wish Shelfari had a main category for partially read books.)”
“A rather difficult book to follow as the author ruminates through his concepts of 'I' and consciousness. Another reader states this is not for the faint of heart - an understatement for sure, as he waxes and wanes, twists, turns, digests and regurgitates thought processes until I was so confused I wondered about my own comprehension and existence. ”
She wrote this review Monday, October 20 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No1 of 1 members found this review helpful“Douglas Hofstadter dares to ask the question, what is "I"? Where does the concept of "I" come from. He uses analogies such a "feedback loops" in which we tend to think like computers but pushed to their ultimate limit.
perry b wrote this review Saturday, June 21 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
This is not a book for the "faint of heart". It makes you think every step of the way.
It manages to pull out the "I" concept at both an intellectual level and at a deep emotional level.
It is truly a work in progress in the best sence of the phrase!
A sequel is sure to follow!”
“Hofstadter attempts to explain the concept of "I", defining "I" as an entity, not as just parts of the brain, but by certain concepts, some of those concepts being self, self-awareness, personality, ideas, knowing, thinking, memory, learning by example, interpretation of events, e.g., by using analogies, abstracts, allegories and metaphors. I think he is trying to say that the human identity ("I") is not contructed by the lower level hardware of the brain, but by the above concepts. If you read for inspiration, to escape or because you read for the joy of reading, I would not recommend this book. Although I understood the basics of what the author is attenpting to say, (and enjoyed some of the "stories"), the examples, allegories, analogies, etc., became quite overwhelming for me. Additionally, Hofstadter delves into physics, mathematics, philosopy and psychology to support his reasons for the concept of "I", and those were all mostly beyond my understanding.”
Karen K (K2) wrote this review Thursday, April 10 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“Amazon review: Hofstadter—who won a Pulitzer for his 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach—blends a surprising array of disciplines and styles in his continuing rumination on the nature of consciousness. Eschewing the study of biological processes as inadequate to the task, he argues that the phenomenon of self-awareness is best explained by an abstract model based on symbols and self-referential "loops," which, as they accumulate experiences, create high-level consciousness. Theories aside, it's impossible not to experience this book as a tender, remarkably personal and poignant effort to understand the death of his wife from cancer in 1993—and to grasp how consciousness mediates our otherwise ineffable relationships. In the end, Hofstadter's view is deeply philosophical rather than scientific. It's hopeful and romantic as well, as his model allows one consciousness to create and maintain within itself true representations of the essence of another. The book is all Hofstadter—part theory, some of it difficult; part affecting memoir; part inventive thought experiment—presented for the most part with an incorrigible playfulness. And whatever readers' reaction to the underlying arguments for this unique view of consciousness, they will find the model provocative and heroically humane. (Mar.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.”
Zevs wrote this review Sunday, March 30 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
