Q&A: I Am a Strange Loop
I Am a Strange Loop
Question
Have a good week.
1. From Hofstadter’s books (the author of the unique book Gödel, Escher, Bach), and especially from I Am a Strange Loop, it seems that consciousness is nothing but an illusion; a hallucination that exists because it hallucinates itself. One might perhaps argue that Hofstadter’s answer to the psycho-physical problem is: “There is no problem, because there is no psyche at all. It only seems that way to us.” The hallucination arises because the brain produces a representation of its environment (in order to survive in it), and part of this representation necessarily includes the brain itself, the “I,” a mechanism that represents itself and thereby leads to its own existence. And in that sense there are also levels among human beings and animals. What do you think of his claims?
2. I saw a mapping of the brain in which no “I” appears anywhere. According to scientific research there is no “I,” so then what is it, according to your view, that continues on—that there is continuity after death?
Answer
For some reason I missed this question. Sorry for the delay.
- This is nonsense. Consciousness is an illusion of whom? Of some other consciousness that is deluded into thinking it has consciousness? What does it mean that it hallucinates itself if it itself does not exist? Who is the one hallucinating?
- Why would the “I” appear there? It is not a part on the brain map; it is the owner of the map. The “I” is the entity to which the parts of the brain belong. In the past I wrote more than once about the mistake of those who look for the “I” on the psychoanalytic map (there was an article by the psychologist Aharon Rabinowitz in Badad, who proposed the location of the “I” according to various Jewish schools of thought. I wrote that this is a conceptual confusion, because the “I” is not supposed to be found on that map, as explained above. It is similar to someone looking for the table in its picture: you see legs there, a tabletop, various decorations, and so on, but where is the table itself?
Discussion on Answer
Right. It is by way of an a fortiori argument. Someone who is a Platonist/essentialist would identify the two examples.
1. Consciousness itself is the hallucination. And I don’t see why not to accept what he says.
2. The sense of “I” is constructed by the left brain. The left brain invents stories, and one of those stories is the idea of the “I.” Areas in the brain become active following various thoughts, but that is not the “I.”
Consciousness is whose hallucination? I asked you who the hallucinator is. A hallucination exists within some hallucinator (he experiences that hallucination). If he himself is a hallucination, then I’ll ask again: whose hallucination?
A hallucination hallucinated by a hallucination. The fact that it seems that way to us is what actually leads to the existence of the psyche. And ultimately: a hallucination that is the result of a high level of biochemical processes. Your question reminds me of a question someone asked: I apparently know that I know, but what really interests me is seeing the “I” that knows me—when I know that I know that I know. Where does it end?
I hope you understand what you wrote, because I don’t. But we’ve exhausted it.
Can you point out what is unclear in what was written here, instead of responding like that? What is unclear about saying that consciousness is a hallucination from a high level of biochemical processes? You may reject it, but you should also explain why not.
With God’s help, eve of the new month of Elul[ah]
To A. — greetings,
If there is no “I” for you—who is hallucinating?
Best regards, Endless Elephant
The letter aleph really is a loop in ancient Hebrew script, but in the Assyrian script the loop was opened 🙂
I explained it completely.
A.,
What don’t you understand? What kind of atheist stubbornness is this?
If there is no real consciousness (“I”), then there is no hallucination. There are only biochemical processes. Molecules running around here and there. They produce nothing except perhaps other molecules or changes in the direction of their movement. A hallucination is already something spiritual. It is the qualitative counterpart to some configuration of neuronal firings (a quantitative model). But where does it occur? A hallucination is something that occurs within a consciousness (that is, as opposed to truth—not hallucination—which is some picture within consciousness that matches the state of affairs—another picture—in an external world, the world outside consciousness, a hallucination is a picture that does not match the corresponding picture in the external world; it is falsehood).
That is, as a disguised foundational assumption, a hallucination requires a hallucinator (a consciousness).
I don’t understand why you’ve become so cumbersome here. In the end, neither you nor Michi nor Shatz probably understood. Bottom line: a person has a reflexivity of consciousness, and it’s all a hallucination of biochemical processes taking place in the brain. That’s it. What’s so hard to understand here?
If the definition of existence begins from consciousness, then of course there is no way to deny its existence. I am conscious, therefore I exist.
But if one departs from consciousness as what defines existence, then consciousness as an illusion is possible. However, such an illusion cannot be grasped; the perceiver cannot grasp his own nonexistence. Therefore the claims that attack the illusion thesis are based on assuming the negation is incorrect, and there is really no argument here, only the presentation of a different theory with different foundational assumptions.
In summary, there is no argument here from either side, only the presentation of different foundational assumptions.
Minister Amsalem quoted Lapid in the Knesset as saying to Netanyahu: if I have a security problem, I’ll turn to Bogie Ya’alon. If I have a problem with local authorities, I’ll turn to Meir Cohen. And if I have a problem with Iranian issues, I’ll turn to you.
Amsalem spread his hands, rolled his eyes, showed half a smile, and wondered: and what will you do? If you actually understand nothing, then what do we need you for?
A.,
I hope you understand what you are writing, because I certainly don’t. What is a “reflexivity of consciousness”? A jumble of words? And what does “a hallucination of biochemical processes” mean? They don’t hallucinate anything. They simply exist, that’s all. They are not a human being.
The Last Decisor,
There is no definition here. It is simply an observation, that’s all. I observe (see) this thing called consciousness (a basic concept and entity, though not perceived by the five senses, but observed by the eye of the intellect), and I observe what is called hallucination, and I see that this relation holds between them. And the rest of what you wrote I cannot connect into anything intelligible. And there are no different foundational assumptions here—simply observation, that’s all. Either you see it or you don’t. And if there are different foundational assumptions, that means one of them is wrong (or both. But not that both are equally right. Unless there is no truth). And the one that doesn’t see what I wrote is the one that’s wrong, that’s all.
I also think I’ve exhausted it. Just think about the things, that’s all.
Why have you become an imitator of Michi? “They simply exist, that’s all, they’re not a human being.” What? Reflexivity: he knows, and he knows that he knows.
Observe till tomorrow. The fact that you observe something does not make it exist. Unless you define existence as things that you observe.
But if so, electrons do not exist, because they cannot be observed.
The opposite. The fact that you observe something means it does not exist. Things that exist cannot be observed, only inferred.
With God’s help, 28 Av 5780
To A. — greetings,
On second thought, I’m convinced. With a simple calculation it became clear to me that “Shimshon Tzvi Levi” has the same numerical value as “biochemical illusion.”
In any case, it is a very sweet and pleasant illusion, and therefore I thank and praise the Creator of the world for granting me the privilege of surrendering my complete nothingness into this delightful illusion, and even giving me the illusion that I do something in the world.
About this it is said: “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it,” and this is the secret of contraction not to be taken literally, for in truth there is nothing besides Him, and the “contraction” is only from the perspective of the recipients.
Best regards, a worm and not a man
A.,
What can I do—Rabbi Michi is right (I didn’t notice that he wrote word for word what I wrote. Or vice versa). And I still have no idea how this connects to what you said. A person knows? Then there is a person and he knows. That is, there is consciousness (“I”). And if it is a hallucination, then there is no consciousness, so who is it that knows? Neurons and molecules know nothing. They have no consciousness.
The Decisor,
This is already a new level of foolishness. I do not doubt what my eyes see (including the eye of the intellect). Otherwise I’ll go insane. And what is the point of speaking at all about the existence of something if we do not believe the data of the senses regarding its existence? Things that exist cannot be observed? What are you talking about? And is what can be inferred not observed by the eye of the intellect? I truly find it hard to believe how much nonsense can be said.
If you didn’t doubt what your eyes see, why don’t you touch exposed electrical wires? After all, your eyes see nothing there.
The answer is that you do not rely on your sight, but on what you infer follows from it based on past experience.
As for the “otherwise I’ll go insane”—that already happened.
To the Decisor,
There is a difference between believing what your eyes do see and not believing what your eyes do not see. And even in the case of electrical wires I rely on what my eyes see. I see the manifestations (phases, revelations) of electricity with my eyes, and from there I observe with the eye of the intellect electricity itself (if I learned physics well).
Okay. It really does seem we’ve exhausted it.
See here for a detailed and interesting review on the subject
https://rationalbelief.org.il/%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%90%d7%94-%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%96%d7%a8%d7%94-%d7%91%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%a1%d7%a4%d7%a8/
Is the table identical, for example, to the soul? Because most people accept that a table is somehow more than the sum of its parts that we see. We simply define something with four legs and a top as a table. Maybe it exists as a concept in a parallel world but has no actual realization in our reality (unless perhaps there is an angel telling it to stand? In that case one could define it as that same object).
By contrast, with the soul, the “I” is something that grasps, and is not defined only by each of its components alone, but is something essentially different, no? And therefore it makes sense to assume that an additional object exists.