I Am a Strange Loop

I discovered the writings of Douglas Hofstadter three or four years ago, when I started reading his most famous work: Gödel, Escher, Bach. I found it both refreshing and very messy. There were some wonderful analogies like the brain as an ant colony that really stuck with me, but overall, the structure and argument were so convoluted that, by the end, I had to admit I wasn’t sure what the book was really about or what its main thesis was. The self-referential style, with chapters reflecting the concepts they describe was definitely funny but it certainly didn’t help my understanding.

Over the years, I’ve read most of Hofstadter’s books with great pleasure, and recently I decided to take on I Am a Strange Loop. In the preface, Hofstadter explains that his goal was to revisit the ideas of Gödel, Escher, Bach in a more straightforward way, because many readers had apparently missed the main point about the nature of consciousness. That sounded promising: I was ready for the clarity I had been missing!

Unfortunately, Hofstadter seems unwilling to let go of his usual style. Once again, the book is full of analogies, digressions, and personal anecdotes. What could probably be a 15-page essay ends up stretching across nearly 600 pages. Along the way, we learn how and why he became a vegetarian, his experiments with video feedback loops, how he coped with the grief of losing his wife, and of course, detailed explorations of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. All of this is interesting and somehow loosely related to his point, but it makes the book feel sprawling and unfocused.

So once again, I enjoyed I am a strange loop, although I skimmed through some chapters, but I’m now more convinced than ever that Hofstadter’s theory of consciousness is essentially just a strong intuition. There’s no data, no evidence, only analogies. This becomes especially clear in the contrast between the rigor of Gödel’s proof and the vagueness of Hofstadter's claim, which boils down to something like: “Gödel-like recursion in the mind should give rise to consciousness.” It’s a beautiful idea, but it lacks precision. So while I keep finding Hofstadter’s intellectual creativity admirable, as his work occupies a special place between science, philosophy and art, I'm still looking for a clear definition of the concept of "strange loop".

The author's key strength is his ability to effectively explain complex topics in layman's terms using analogies. That helps a lot in this book, considering its complex topic - Consciousness. I found myself almost always agreeing with the author's idea about the existence/non-existence of the 'self'. Since I am not well-read on this topic, I will reserve from commenting too much on the topic of the 'self'. Instead, I will say that the author does a decent job of presenting the arguments objectively. And this is quite hard to achieve for a complex philosophical topic while keeping the text light and understandable.
The only minor complaint I have was that towards the end there are some sections - talking about musical tastes and their relation to the idea of self - that I found a bit out of place. I would not hold this against the author as the rest of the book was impressive.
I am thinking now that even though I mostly agree with the ideas in the book, I wonder if I think through the implications of these ideas deeply, I might be blown over by their power. I hope that this book will inspire me to think more deeply.

While the book started fine as an autobiography, I think it would have been better to continue in the same vein. Also tried reading the previous and famous "Gödel, Escher, Bach" book from the same author and did not find the value other people seem to find in it.

An exploration of consciousness by a prominent scholar in the field & an educational background similar to my own -- what's not to like? Well, for me, that was 'most of it' unfortunately.

The book was a slog to get through. I put it down about half way in and it took some time to come back and finish it of. I don't think that it was the subject matter; but the content, context and story telling that killed it.

VCRs, marbles, record players: I'm not that young that these things are before my time. For a book written in 2007 however these references still seem dated. That, for one was something that didn't mesh with me. Second: Hofstadter's heroes are not my heroes - and it seems you need to have a deep understanding of certain nuances & mannerisms of particular musicians that play Bach in the 'correct' way to gain a modicum of understanding of what consciousness is based on these tales. Third: dialogues between individual loops within a person, when you're having issues connecting with that individual are perhaps the least effective manner to get a point across I could think of.

There were so many examples that rubbed me the wrong way, many of which already by 2007 had strong rebuttals or counter evidence against the positions posited herein. As an example, a lengthy discussion about the colors red and blue concludes that categories within individual's minds may be different, but these differences can be remapped through dialogue. This is a serious surface skim and doesn't reflect even the most common findings concerning color perception of the times [see Friedman & Miyake, JEP: Gen, 133 (2004) for example].

A story concerning two universes with one robot that was conscious, and another where it was not, but mimicked what should be conscious behaviour: a child was scoffed at for showing empathy to a robot with no 'real' feelings. This is ridiculous. Since Hofstadter has a thing for antiquated phrases, "Don't cry over spilled milk" resonates here. One can show emotions about non-animate objects, let alone 100% convincing representations of animate ones.

Putting all of this aside even, nothing in the book was new to me. It was far more "memoirs and tidbits of an interesting career & the joys and sadness that a life brings" than a deep dive into consciousness.

I got about three-quarters of the way through and by then it seemed like Hofstadter had completely lost the plot.

He makes some bold claims about the nature of consciousness, but he doesn't use his terms and concepts rigorously enough to keep his arguments straight, and he doesn't do much work to back them up anyway.

It amounts to listening to some friend who got stoned and had an amazing idea. If that friend happens to be Douglas Hofstadter, it's probably worth your while to stick around for a while, have another hit, and relax in the comfy chair. It ought to be a good ride. But don't expect much more than that.

Still there's plenty of thought-provoking stuff in the earlier sections, even if much of it is a retread of material he's covered before (it's been long enough that I was ripe for reruns). While reading, you'll probably pursue some of your own lines of thought, tangent to the ideas he lays down, that are as interesting and fun as the ones he pursues.