scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/2zitqg.md

## Douglas Hofstadter and "Surfaces and Essences"

* Author: u/jemand *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2zitqg/douglas_hofstadter_and_surfaces_and_essences/
* Score: 6

* Created: 2015-03-18T22:48:39

### Post:

Inspired by the ongoing readthrough of GEB, I want to know if anyone else here has read Hofstadters latest book, "Surfaces and Essences, Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking."

I am finding it *extremely* tough going.

### Comments:

> **u/None** [+5]  (2 hours later)
> 
> Tough going because it's difficult to understand, or because it's dull?
> 
> I haven't gotten a copy of *Surfaces and Essences* yet, but I eventually put aside his previous book, *I Am A Strange Loop*, even though I've enjoyed several of Hofstadter's books. I felt that IAASL was too much like a rehash of parts of GEB without the wit.
> 
> I envision this conversation between Hofstadter and readers:
> 
> * Hofstadter, 1979: Hey, here are some really cool connections between math, music, AI, and stuff! Also there's a conclusion I've come to about consciousness.
> * Readers: Wow! Those are some really cool connections!
> * Hofstadter: Glad you like it! Have some more books about the amazing things that minds do! By the way, I think you're not paying enough attention to the part about consciousness.
> * Readers: Isomorphisms are neat!
> * Hofstadter, 2007: CONSCIOUSNESS. IT'S IMPORTANT. LET ME EXPLAIN IT AT LENGTH IN ANOTHER BOOK.
> * Readers: ...okay.
> 
> So what's *Surfaces and Essences* like?

>> **u/None** [+2]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> Yeah, iirc *I Am A Strange Loop* was written explicitly for the people who missed the point of *Gödel, Escher, Bach*.

>> **u/jemand** [+2]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> well, those sections where he plays with phrases, idioms or descriptions? They are here in great big massed pages full moving slowly from one idiom-concept / phrase to another. I am trying to figure out if it is clever and I am completely missing it-- i.e. if there is hidden plot or fun here, or if it is truly just examples of analogies/concepts and that's it.
>> 
>> I have not gotten particularly far into it, just about a hundred out of the 500 odd pages, but it's also a bit hard to tell at a glance what's going on in the future chapters, so I don't know if this is going to change or not.
>> 
>> I loved his earlier stuff, GEB, Metamagical Themas, and the Mind's I. Honestly, I even liked I Am A Strange Loop, though I felt it was less clever than the earlier ones. 
>> 
>> Surfaces and Essences though is *giant* and I don't exactly know what he's trying to do with it. Its either far too clever for me, or it's just rehashing the same material, with each page being somewhat clever word play / discussion but it not exactly seeming to build on itself or go anywhere in particular.

>> **u/None** [+2]  (9 hours later)
>> 
>> Wait, if Hofstadter has such an insight into the nature of consciousness, why hasn't he talked to a neuroscientist and gotten it published in the brain literature?

>>> **u/None** [+5]  (10 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I don't know, ask a more unquestioning fan.
>>> 
>>> This may surprise you, but while I think *GEB* is a remarkable book, and I'm interested in promoting discussion of it, I don't believe every word of it is true. Saying "wait, really?" is an important part of the discussion.
>>> 
>>> There's a great contrast you can set up by reading part 2 of *GEB* alongside Marvin Minsky's *The Emotion Machine*. While written about similar topics in a similar style, they come to contrary conclusions. And I wouldn't wholeheartedly subscribe to either of them.
>>> 
>>> EDIT: I do find your question misplaced though. This is philosophy, not neuroscience. The "brain literature" would require claims that could be tested experimentally.

>>> **u/Eh_Priori** [+1]  (4 days later)
>>> 
>>> Hofstadter has been a professor of cognitive science for decades and has had plenty of academic articles published.

---