Hofstadter's Strange Loop
re: I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter (published 2007)

All in all, I felt Hofstadter's theory is definitely worth looking at. An original idea presented in a somewhat entertaining fashion.

Simply stated, Hofstadter believes our human experience of consciousness is the result of a feedback loop initiated by the physical mechanisms of a non-mystical entity (that entity being any individual enjoying the "me" experience). As in an expanding audio or video loop, he asserts that the continuous looping back into itself causes a mind to emerge with the unique property of self-awareness. This requires an upward leap of faith of "raw stimuli" to "symbols" at some point, but more on that later.

On page 96 Hofstadter addresses something that spoke to me: that for each of us, with no exceptions, the origins of our own basic desires are too elusive to pinpoint. Dr. Steven Reiss wrote a book called "Who Am I?" that digs deep into this odd fact. Reiss managed to uncover sixteen basic desires that categorize all shades of human behavior, and I made a nod to his work in Absolute Infinity.

Anyway, the nurture (as opposed to nature) explanation for behavior eventually gets lost in a muddled mist, because asking yourself why you like something always ends with an inexplicable, "Because I like it." Try it yourself. Even if you want to ascribe your preferences to things like parental influence, you then begin all over again with your parents, and the conclusion remains the same. No true explanation, just a desire or preference you can't fully trace. Why is that?

In chapter 10 Hofstadter offers up the best layman's explanation I've heard for Kurt Gödel's famous Proof.

Page 145 contained a fun observation: an example of self-reference without infinite regress. As simple as an arm obscuring part of a cylindrical box; we can see the lower level box contains some of the same elements as the original (highest level) cylindrical box, thereby assuming it is the same one. Since we cannot see the concentric depiction of the cylindrical box itself, the regress ends. This simple example possibly may give a clue regarding more complex examples of self-reference.

Page 155: "Analogy has force in proportion to its precision and visibility." A decent proposal. Add to that the statement on page 158: "... all meaning comes from analogies." What do you have? A call for clarity? I'm a big fan of analogies, and am known for constructing original (and effective) ones on the spot to suit the moment. However, analogies, while clever and fresh at times, can convey all meaning in only a broad sense. Also, the most precise and visible analogy is lost on the ears (and sometimes eyes) of someone who lacks the ability to make the connection. I've seen this happen, and although I find it odd, it prevents analogy from providing all meaning.

Page 179: I liked Hofstadter's point that our reality is defined by macroscopic concepts (information) as opposed to the concrete (yet still abstract for us at our level) building blocks we know matter is comprised of. An obvious observation, yet it plays an important part in the enigma of what is real, and what is illusion in our universe. Higher level systems certainly tend to hold more perceptive tangibility for us than individual atoms, molecules and all the other elements that construct our collective reality at the quantum and microscopic levels.

Page 187: Here is the reference to raw stimuli and symbols mentioned earlier in this essay. It's another instance of us being asked to take a leap of faith somewhere along the line, because our desire to find a cause for every effect will not be satisfied by merely observing the "logic" of such an argument as Hofstadter is putting forth in the text. Yes, it seems to make sense that an ever-increasing feedback loop will result in something, but is it truly consciousness itself? Perhaps the feedback loop is an effect of, not the cause of, consciousness? Just another thought.

Page 188: More of Hofstadter's myriad analogies are brought forth to illustrate his skepticism toward the assumption that the practicality of us recognizing we have an "I" is a tacit guarantee of its reality. I am a major proponent of the "reality is an illusion" train of thought, but I have my own set of skeptical objections regarding endless attempts of contemporary thinkers to force the reductionist ethic upon every aspect of existence. A side note: it has become apparent after reading this book that Hofstadter highly esteems the practice of exhaustive analogy. While analogy can be useful to convey concepts to the uninitiated, the excessive use of it for every explanation tends to wear thin. 'Nuff said.

Page 190: Stanley the robot vehicle from Stanford, H1 from Carnegie-Mellon and Deep Blue from IBM are talked about in terms of their level of I-ness. While I won't debate Hofstadter's conclusions regarding the huge separation between these entities and human beings, I will ask a question. Does thought absolutely require a self- referential loop? Are there levels of thought that do not contain large conceptual repertoires, yet still qualify as thinking, however primitive? Are there legitimate (by unknown objective standards) types of thinking that already exist as truly alien from our own?

194: Hofstadter asks a simple, yet important question: "Why should the chemistry of carbon have some magical property entirely unlike ... that of any other substance?" To say we are nothing more than the sum of our parts is to truly avoid the boat, much less miss it. As Hofstadter (and the referenced Daniel Dennett) correctly point out, action is where consciousness is manifested, not in the matter itself. I've been saying this for years, with no public forum. Absolute Infinity contains a direct reference to this concept. The main character (Diego) starts off with a wrong assumption (i.e. we are merely the sum of our parts), yet still ends up producing a sentient being. Because it is pattern and action that are somehow inexplicably intertwined with consciousness, Diego is able to imbue a three dimensional illusion with mind and self-awareness. A computer is more than capable of producing pattern and action in theoretically unlimited quantities, dependent on hardware and processing model.

205: There is no doubt people tend to dismiss any theory for existence that doesn't grant them subjective control over their lives, thoughts and destinies. However, Hofstadter's reference to an emergent entity is nothing more than an accusation that our own illusions of high-level selfhood are merely coincidental byproducts of meaningless, mindlessly organized micro behaviors! Thus Hofstadter himself commits a similar "punt" that he accused dualist neurosurgeons of making only two paragraphs before on the same page (205). Pointing out that something has to be a certain way because there couldn't possibly be an intangible "soul" isn't the tightest of logic. If 'x = c,' and you assume the value of 'x' can't possibly be 'a,' that doesn't automatically make 'x = b,' especially if you have no way of conclusively proving that 'x' really isn't equal to 'a.' Think about it; what's the fundamental difference between insisting that there is an intangible soul and insisting there isn't? Both are dogmatic assumptions bolstered by one's own subjective interpretation of the so-called evidence.

257: Hofstadter says, "The cells inside a brain are not the bearers of its consciousness; the bearers of consciousness are patterns." In terms of action over substance, I find this an agreeable assertion. However, again, it becomes a sort of reductionist switcheroo. Hofstadter dismisses the concept of matter itself magically producing consciousness, but then he expects us to buy the idea that intangible patterns somehow produce it. From exactly where do these patterns hail from? The tired desire to automatically ascribe them to eon- forged random interactions between mindless particulates is the same argument in a different package. How exactly do intangible patterns arise from tangible (and mindless) sources? Micro-activities (simmball-type entities, etc.) are only one possible explanation.

Chapter 20 - Oh boy, here we go. Hofstadter uses a simulated conversation between two "Strange Loops" (people or minds, whatever) to illustrate objections to his theory, as well as his own answers to those objections. What follows are a few things that occurred to me as I read the chapter.
  • Physical detail (the complexity of reality) is the perfect illusion of (or distraction from) purpose. We are set up to consider reality only by what we physically experience, even though intellectually we can examine (and postulate about) matter and the universe at its tiniest and most vast properties.
  • Like evolution, "emergence" is a theory that seems logical and plausible, given enough time.
  • Some of the point-counterpoint arguments are farcical, such as the non-believer being accused of rejecting the "me" claims of the Strange Loop entities. Anthropomorphizing a strange loop does not prove its existence nor provide an effective argument in its favor.
  • I'm not implying that the sheer complexity of human brains absolutely does not allow us to experience "me," but it isn't a scientifically verifiable inference that sheer complexity alone is responsible for some sort of magical "emergence" of consciousness.
  • A bottom-up systemic approach may seem logical to apply across the board, but it can't be expected to produce similar results in every configuration.
  • A more complex brain, which might allow for more sensate experience and possible categorization, does not automatically imply consciousness. The apparatus for crunching numbers went from an abacus to a modern day supercomputer in 'x' amount of years. At the supercomputer's astounding level of complexity (as compared to an abacus), there is no hint of consciousness, just an incredibly quicker form of the same calculation (simple addition extrapolated to more complex mathematics).
  • (Page 287) "Those little sensual experiences are to the grand pattern of your mental life as the letters in a novel are to the novel's plot and characters --- irrelevant, arbitrary tokens, rather than carriers of meaning." Really, now? That's quite a leap of faith in reductionist thinking. The assumption then is that Hofstadter's memories of his deceased wife are nothing more than irrelevant, meaningless tokens he has decided to gather into some sort of meaningful group of his own (for his own subjective mental life). I don't agree with that, but Hofstadter's logic applied to his own life must derive that very conclusion.
  • (Page 287 continued) No no no! Strange Loop #642 did not concede the point regarding letters and words; again, this is Hofstadter's way of projecting a system's value at one level being equal to a system's value at another level! #642 was never attributing the high-level values of words to mere letters, and Hofstadter should know better than to accuse this, due to his own recognition of our high-level ignorance regarding our own brains' mental behavior.
  • The argument comes full circle. If single notes carry no meaning, but several notes = pattern [music] = meaning, then with the same systemic reasoning, single letters carry no meaning, but several letters = pattern [word] = meaning.
  • It is astute to observe that no mere substance can give rise to self-awareness.
  • How does recognizing that movement, pattern and direction are necessary for consciousness become an admission that random lifeless chemistry can give rise to life itself?
  • All seven billion people on the planet claiming each is different would not make us all indistinguishable! Also, one shared thought or action does not make us identical.
  • One very important point not being addressed is: how is the slow creation of "I" manifested over and over again in so many individual brains over so many thousands of years? In other words, Hofstadter's theory of emergent development is nice, but why have brains evolved to perform this complex and amazing trick of perception? If so, is it the final step of perceptual evolution? Is there another dimension of consciousness we are heading toward that we currently can't fathom?
  • Something out of nothing is never possible? What existed before the Big Bang? Also, since matter is an illusion created by waves and vibrations of energy consisting mostly of "empty" space, the very fact of our high-level conceptual perception of a low-level contradiction indicates something can indeed come from nothing!
  • The seeming impossibility of conclusively explaining the "I" within the bounds of current knowledge does not automatically support the idea that the "I" must therefore be a myth. It is an attractive quirk of an idea, in a non-arrogant way of looking at life, but other than a novel concept, it's not self evident at all.
  • The idea that consciousness can be summed up as cross- referencing symbols dancing with each other is a fanciful way of proclaiming I can't really figure out what consciousness is, so I'll produce a clever take on the mechanistic viewpoint and simultaneously sidestep accusations of dualism.
  • The particle viewpoint is perceived as the strict scientific viewpoint only because the non-particle viewpoint is currently unable to "prove" its assertions.
  • What is the reference point for this so called "I" myth? If we were all mechanistic automatons with no self awareness, but still carried out daily activities and gathered immense banks of memories of our interactions, our shared universe would still be as real as the underlying particles and energy. The high- level perceptions and symbols would still establish a true reality; the patterns would still give meaning, even in a universe of no self awareness. They would retain meaning because unobserved activity is still activity, regardless of Schrödinger's Cat.
  • Therefore, reducing our I-ness to mere myth is missing the point. Myth or no, consciousness being the result solely of complex symbolic interactions is itself merely another (thinly disguised) dose of magical happenstance. Where is the magic in Hofstadter's assumption, you ask? He is saying that particle interactions can get so complex that consciousness must eventually emerge spontaneously! Something akin to: if you connect enough computers to the Internet, the Internet itself will one day become conscious due to sheer complexity.
  • It's the same old argument as the behavior of all the agents in a single cell. Just how much time is sufficient to throw at the phenomenon of multiple agents carrying out specifically detailed instructions, to make the phenomenon arise from random chance? That's the magical ingredient for evolutionary biology: massive amounts of time. The age-old scenario of a group of monkeys unintentionally typing out the entire works of Shakespeare is a realistic comparison of the odds for random chance.
  • If mental states are subject to the same evolutionary progress as biological entities, then why couldn't a supermind (say, a god) eventually evolve, given massive amounts of time? The man on the street is expected to swallow mathematically improbable theories as empirical fact, yet is disdained as ignorant for believing in a mathematically no less improbable scenario. For if our intelligence and self awareness did indeed evolve from mental nothingness, then the eventual (unimpeded by extinction) result would be a supermind or minds, capable of technologies that would appear to us currently as magic (direct reference to the Arthur C. Clarke quote). This is more possible than a chance evolution because it is directed.
  • It's obvious to me that transcendence of physical law was never implied by the "ghost in the machine" idea of dualism. Instead, our own current ignorance of how the intangible interacts with the tangible is the sole reason we can't fathom the connection. (Another nod to Mr. Clarke).
  • Our concepts (categories) are based on our experience, whether personal or collective (historical). We can extrapolate on known concepts, but we can't produce new ones without something in the physical world to inspire it. Perhaps our inability to qualify the mind-body connection is caused by our current ignorance regarding an essential parameter of existence we have yet to discover.
  • If our consciousness is indeed caused by a self-referential feedback loop, then why does it have a discernable ceiling, and more importantly, what is causing the feedback loop to level out at some point? The human race can become collectively more knowledgeable, but it does not appear to become collectively more intelligent.
  • That's all on that chapter!
Page 315: Intentions, inclinations, habits... these are all forms of action, not substance. Action (in our universe) requires the parameter of time to be expressed properly. In other words, in our universe, without linear time there would be no movement (no action), and everything would freeze in one place, one position. So... actions, not physical manifestations, define the who. Even our physical appearances depend on the action of our cells and DNA!

316: "... as people grow in sophistication." Interesting how it is assumed that the reason most people adhere to a dualistic philosophy is merely because they're not sophisticated enough. Nice conjecture, but typically arrogant, as most of the non- believing intelligentsia approach these kinds of subjects.

317: It's as though the distributed low resolution copy idea is supposed to ease the sting of brain damage by offering us a consolation prize, instead of the dismissed and maligned, ignorant life-beyond-death scenario that most human beings instinctively believe. We are being expected to accept the theory that humankind alone is incorrect about its instincts, while the entire remaining animal kingdom is applauded for its amazing ability to do so much with so little (comparatively) on ingrained instinct alone.

324: Chapter 22 finally lifts up the true paradox being examined: how will we ever be able to truly tell if we are conscious, or if we are working within a delusion of consciousness?

324-325: Hofstadter sidesteps the contradiction in his reasoning. For if consciousness emerges from non-consciousness, as complexity emerges from non-complexity, as higher life forms emerge (via evolution) from lower life forms, and supposedly natural selection is the directive power of this process, then consider the following question. Why did consciousness evolve in a universe where it was not necessary for survival? To dismiss the question makes the tacit assumption that sufficiently complex brains (or patterns) will automatically produce consciousness at some point! What is the basis of this assumption, other than personal (subjective) viewpoint? There exists nothing in the way of proof except conjecture. To assert that it is the only contingency that makes logical sense is to adopt a personal philosophy that certainly works for the individual possessing it, though yet could possibly be one hundred and eighty degrees from the truth.

325: Why the constant use of the derisive adjective "magical?" Dualism isn't about magic; it's about paying attention to what is, rather than what should be. It has always been disappointing to me when an obviously bright, intuitive and cogent mind is unfortunately blinded by the same subjective prejudice as the unlearned, willfully ignorant and superstitious mind. For in fact, to dismiss intelligently argued theories as "magical" (or name your pejorative), simply because they fly in the face of what you trained yourself to believe was acceptable, is entirely unacceptable if we are ever to continue making progress past our current logjam. Coherent dualist arguments are not full of magical, nebulous, questionable ideas; the thorn in the reductionist's side is the very idea that anything could exist beyond the five senses. A seemingly practical approach perhaps, but not necessarily all that revelatory about the aspects of the universe we still don't comprehend.

327-329: Hofstadter takes an unfortunate journey down mockingbird lane by asking a collection of sarcastic questions regarding some issues that come up when one takes the road of dualism. At first I dismissed the passage as self-indulgent and something to ignore, then I realized Hofstadter really doesn't think there are any legitimate answers. So, for his edification, and the edification of others who think as he does, I will humbly address each question here with a "dollop" of appropriate common sense.

Q - Which physical entities possess Consciousness, and which do not? A - Hofstadter should know by his stage in life that this question belongs in the realm of the philosopher, as supposedly sapient masses of humans walking the earth already recognize. We can't even collectively agree on how to deal with humans, apes, dogs, fish and ants. How does asking a philosophical (unanswerable?) question defend a persecution of dualism?

Q - Does a whole human body possess Consciousness? A - You tell me, Doug. If you cut off a foot or a hand, does that foot or hand go on to make its own decisions, actions, etc? No, to the best of my limited medical knowledge, in every case it withers away and rots, unless preserved in some sort of solution or other media of stasis.

Q - Or is it just the human's brain that is conscious? A - Are we going by your example alone, or collectively? Again, why don't you tell me? If your brain was removed, would your body go on living the same life it led before the removal? Not likely, by all known historical accounts.

Q - Or could it be that only a certain part of the brain is Conscious? A - Just more whittling down of the same idea. Through many years of experimental brain surgery and exploration, no particular area of the brain appears to house consciousness. The brain appears to process information, but beyond that, all bets are off.

Q - What are the exact boundaries of a Conscious physical entity? A - I think perhaps accidentally ramming your shin or toe on the living room coffee table might assist you in arriving at the answer.

Q - What organizational or chemical property of a physical structure is it that graces it with the right to be invaded by a dollop of Consciousness? A - This question hints at being interesting, actually. Since I claim that a brain acts as a receiver/processor for signals sent from somewhere else, but don't presently have the particulars with which to bring this claim properly to the world, I will simply say that I don't currently know how each individual brain is identified and accessed.

Q - What mechanism in nature makes the elusive elixir of Consciousness glom onto some physical entities and spurn others? A - Now this is an appropriate question, despite being asked in a condescending fashion. The proper answer to this question would indeed open up doors to our collective reality and understanding that are currently impervious. I will offer a guess: in the same way we can tune in (and transmit) finely specific frequencies with radio equipment, there is probably some property (perhaps DNA or some sort of pattern, Doug?) of each sapient brain that serves as an "ID." This implies that Consciousness does not even reside in the individual's body, rendering all your location questions superfluous.

Q - What wondrous pattern-recognition algorithm does Consciousness possess so as to infallibly recognize just the proper kinds of physical objects that deserve it, so it can then bestow itself onto them? A - I'm not sure an answer exists that could fight its way through your disdainful skepticism, Doug. Ironically, you may have mocked your way toward the correct path of an answer. Wondrous... yep, there's nothing in nature that defies our superior scientific ability to explain it. How about spiders spinning intricate webs without training, newborns of countless non-human species being able to "hit the ground running" so to speak, dancing bee directions that are 100% accurate, the identifiable, yet inexplicable "invisible" forces that hold atoms and molecules together, etc. ad infinitum.

Q - How does Consciousness know to do this? A - That's like asking how radio waves know to appear in your stereo's receiver. The question doesn't make any sense.

Q - Does it somehow go around the physical world in search of candidate objects to glom onto? A - Gee, I'm not sure, Doug. How does a radio wave glom onto a radio's circuit board?

Q - Or does it shine a metaphorical flashlight metaphorically down at the world and examine it piece by piece, occasionally saying to itself, "Aha! So there's an entity that deserves one standard-sized dollop of me!" A - Is it just me, or are the rest of the readers now wondering what all the sarcastic fuss is about? Anyway, I get the feeling Hofstadter thinks the whole imbued-with-a-conscious-soul idea is arrogant. I wonder why possibly being "given" consciousness arouses such ire in some people. I would think receiving something was a more humble pursuit, whereas doing it all yourself was a more proud and arrogant way to approach life. Perhaps I'm mistaken. At any rate, I already answered this "question" in the previous paragraph.

Q - How does Consciousness get attached to some specific physical structure and not accidentally onto nearby pieces of matter? A - Er... uh... why don't radio waves manifest sound in your shoe or coffee cup? This question is another case of blindness engendering misdirection.

Q - What kind of "glue" is used to make this attachment? A - The same glue that you use in your argument, Doug. Easily dissolved in a solution of imagination.

Q - Can the "glue" possibly wear out and the Consciousness accidentally fall off or transfer onto something else? A - This is quickly regressing to silliness, so I'll just say no.

Q - How is your Consciousness different from my Consciousness? A - Although Hofstadter is referring to an intangible entity, I think the answer is still quite obvious to most people. I'm sorry you're having trouble grasping it, Doug.

Q - Did our respective dollops come with different serial numbers or "flavors", thus establishing the watertight breach between us? A - Again, Hofstadter is ironically on the possibly correct track. Serial numbers? Who knows what's going on "behind the scenes" in such a mathematically diverse and precise universe? For some reason, it can take humankind centuries to discover aspects of nature that are then taken for granted as known fact. In the 103 years since Einstein's papers were published, why haven't we conclusively figured out the "secrets" of light? We know it acts like two different entities simultaneously, as well as changing its behavior depending on observation. It can also be accelerated past its "static" speed in an unnatural environment (cesium gas chamber). All are still unsolved "murky pit mysteries." Does that negate light's existence?

Q - If your dollop of Consciousness had been attached to my brain and vice versa, would you be writing this and I reading it? A - Perhaps... but that would imply that the structure of the brain has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's individuality, so I'm going to say probably not.

Q - How does Consciousness coexist with physical law? A - As I repeat in a later paragraph, Hofstadter really needs to substitute "physical law" for "known physical law," otherwise he will always run the risk of being made the fool (scientifically) down the line somewhere. This isn't a non-committal catchall for the purpose of avoiding a lack of proof for an unproven idea/theory, it's merely recognizing what the wisdom of history dictates.

Q - That is, how does a dollop of Consciousness push material stuff around without coming into sharp conflict with the fact that physical law alone would suffice to determine the behavior of those things? A - The "fact" that? Pardon my chuckle. If physical law alone would suffice, why is the issue of "dollops" even being discussed? And why is Hofstadter's universe so all-or-nothing? What if the physical law Hofstadter is referring to works in conjunction with currently undiscovered properties of the universe? Let's see... multiple dimensions beyond four look good on paper, but try to imagine that those dimensions actually contain something, and suddenly you're an ignorant, backward, scientifically unsound dualist. And one more thing: when was it conclusively proven beyond all doubt that consciousness arises from only physical (tangible) substances? I seemed to have missed the news of that amazing proclamation.

Now, as if this farcical inquisition wasn't enough, Hofstadter beats the unprovoked (yet still alive) horse with another round on the next page. So here we go...

Q - How is it determined exactly how many dollops (or fractional dollops) of Consciousness get attached to a given physical entity? A - I'm not a fan of the gradations of the dispensation of consciousness essence theory, so I'll skip this one.

Q - Where are these dollops stored in the meantime? A - Probably wherever they originated from, I don't know.

Q - In other words, where is the Central Consciousness Bank? A - I think I understand by a miniscule amount how Louis Pasteur must have felt when he tried to explain how invisible entities called germs were responsible for disease. If I knew the address of the "Central Consciousness Bank," I'd be accessing it for other purposes than the usual ones, instead of writing this essay. Yet again though, Hofstadter unintentionally asks a highly pertinent question.

Q - Once a certain portion of Consciousness has been dished out to a recipient entity (insert typically exhausting Hofstadter example list here), is it a permanent allotment, or is the size of the allotment variable, depending on what physical events take place involving the recipient? A - Again, the gradations thing does nothing for my theory, or me, so I'll skip it.

Q - If the recipient is in some way altered, does its allotment (or part of it) revert to the Central Consciousness Bank, or does it just float around forevermore, no longer attached to a physical anchor? A - I guess the answer might be yes if you believed in ghosts.

Q - And if it floats around unattached, does it retain traces of the recipient to which it was once attached? A - Once again, we seem to be hinting at ghosts. I'm not a big fan of that idea, sorry. I'm not sure if Hofstadter is trying to marry dualism with supernatural phenomena, but if he is, the position is growing wearisome.

Q - What about people with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia --- are they still "just as Conscious" as they always were, until the moment of their death? A - There has been a great deal of research on this subject, and depending on the type of brain damage that causes the particular form of dementia, some patients do retain varying moments of lucidity until their deaths. To drag this unfortunate medical condition into this array of ridicule is inappropriate and insensitive. But then, it does seem as though Hofstadter has never considered the idea that brains (and bodies for that matter) are not the origins of thought. In the case of dementia, I would again suggest the radio analogy: damage the equipment in the necessary way, and of course the signal can become intermittent or even absent completely.

Q - What makes something be "the same entity" over long periods of time, anyway? A - Finally, a brilliant question! How indeed do we retain our unique identity despite the continuous replacement of body cells many times over one average lifetime? One could attribute the retention to the repetition of pattern, despite the matter replacement. That's one viable explanation. Another is the counterintuitive idea that the user of the equipment is somehow (unknowingly) doing it from a remote location. Thus as long as the "serial numbers" (DNA? etc.) match and the physical equipment is functioning properly (healthy and alive), the connection continues. All you need to do to stop the reception of radio waves is snip just one soldered connection just about anywhere on the circuit board.

Q - Who or what decreed that the changing pattern that over several decades was variously known as "Ronnie Reagan," "Ronald Reagan," "Governor Reagan," "President Reagan," and "Ex-President Reagan" was "one single entity"? A - This is a relevant question in that it addresses the concept of identifying what (or who) is truly conscious. The short answer is apparently all of those in the world who knew Reagan personally, as well as those of us who knew him through the media, can take responsibility for making that decree. For Reagan (as well as for any other human), although the individual can be confident of only his or her own consciousness, it's a fair bet that multiple and consistent affirmation of this consciousness by other humans is a strong persuader that we are not deluding ourselves. This conclusion is entirely based on the "knowing a tree by its fruits" intuition that humans instinctively use to determine the existence of consciousness. This intuition may be flawed, or even incorrect, but at this point, there is no other measure of consciousness we know of that can make a more accurate evaluation.

Q - And if it truly, objectively, indisputably was one single entity no matter how ephemeral and wispy it became, then mightn't that entity still exist? A - The qualifiers of that question again lead us into the haunted house. But as to the question of whether or not a consciousness still exists in some form after physical death, well... that's another one for philosophers and prophets, as no one seems to be able to "come back" and tell us what awaits us posthumously.

Q - And what about Consciousness for fetuses (or for their growing brains, even when they consist of just two neurons)? A - I think I missed the point of the question. Are you asking if two neurons can possess consciousness at all? An interesting question from someone who talks earlier in the same book about the absence of discernable consciousness in human children up until a certain age bracket. A phenomenon that is, by the way, real, based on the typical intuitive "tests" humans use to determine the presence of consciousness in any living creature. The age bracket in question typically carries the presence of billions of neurons, so perhaps the two-neuron example was just to see if the readers were paying attention?

Q - What about for cows (or their brains)? A - Moo.

Q - What about for goldfish (or their brains)? A - Glug.

Q - What about for viruses? A - Atchoo.

And finally, to end this silly passage, let's take a look at Hofstadter's well-researched conclusion:

329: "Belief in dualism leads to a hopelessly vast and murky pit of mysteries." A wee bit too much poetic license there, Doug. All a belief in dualism requires is a willingness to consider reality beyond the limits of the five senses.

357: Hofstadter needs to trade out "physical law" for "known physical law" --- that would open a door he currently keeps closed.

360: Why does Hofstadter incessantly insist that a "non-material" soul can only exist outside the laws of physics? Does he also refuse to recognize the dual behaviors of light? Or the strange behavior of particles at the quantum level? The descriptor of strange comes from quantum reality not appearing to follow the physical law standards he keeps harping about. What you say? Oh, he includes the recognition of quantum strange behavior in his standard of physical law? Then he's including something that still hasn't been explained conclusively, thereby indulging in "magical" thinking.

361: "... non-scientific belief in magic ..." ?? I'm dead certain there were Newtonian (the paradigm for a couple hundred years) fanboys back in 1905 saying that Einstein's ideas were nothing more than magical (or name your pejorative) thinking. For every reference to magic, I think it equally appropriate to cast the descriptions "hard headed" and "stubborn" for Hofstadter's tacit assumptions.

363: Hofstadter has it backwards. It is his childlike sense that things are exactly as they appear that causes him to eschew anything outside the realm of "legitimate" theory. In contrast, I recognize that we are wildly different than that what we seem to be; I don't want to shut the doors of possibility for the purpose of appearing learned to my academic peers.