(tried posting this earlier, but the server was not working or something… ah well)
The analogies:
The marble in the envelope: If you were to squeeze a stack of envelopes between your hands, you would feel something in the middle of the stack closely resembling a marble. But if you were to inspect the stack, and look between the envelopes, you wouldn’t find anything other than just the envelopes. The little bits of glue on each envelope, when stacked, feel like a marble. This is not unlike the “I.” We cannot look inside the brain (like we could look in between the envelopes) to find out where this “I” is located, and we don’t even know if it’s a real object. However, we have to speak of it as if it exists, because it is our way of coping in the universe.
The domino that won’t fall: If a domino in a system of dominoes doesn’t fall, the reason is that the one in front of it didn’t fall. This is correct, but the explanation lacks an appreciation of what the system is meant to do in the first place. Suppose the following: In a system of dominoes that is constructed with the purpose of determining whether or not the number of dominoes is prime, there might be certain dominoes that will either fall or not fall depending on the primeness of the number of dominoes involved. (This is much easier to summarize if I could draw a picture, but this will have to do.) If the domino in question does not fall, and it is in the proper checkpoint, then the reason it didn’t fall is that the number of dominoes is prime. The first answer to the question “why didn’t the domino fall” is still correct, but the second answer is able to give a more complete picture of what is going on. In the case of the “I” causality is better explained by taking into consideration the function of the system as a whole– what the brain does, and how we use this “I.”
The distortion of the television screen: The self-referential nature of images of images create robust phenomena, which are often unpredictable. Hofstadter took photos (presumably) of a television screen and observed certain phenomena: images within images within images, until the image goes off the screen, or patterns appearing when the camera is tilted just so. When we speak of the “I” we are by definition speaking self-referentially, like the photo image of the television image. Some of the behavior of the system, like the repeating number thirteen in one particular image pattern, was unpredictable until the system was manipulated in such a way to produce this phenomenon. The pattern could be seen again if the same circumstances were repeated, though, and then prediction can be achieved. This manipulation demonstrates how the system works.
I’m not so sure I am articulating myself in a way that can give a good picture of what he was talking about, so I’ll finish there.
In other news, we went out to dinner after the talk… mmmm, Grasshopper! I’m surprised Mike and Jeff wanted to go, as they’re not too experimental when it comes to their food– especially when the food in question is vegan and Asian. However, they found a couple things to eat, even if they weren’t completely satisfied. I had to tell Jeff, however, of my taking pleasure in his lack of finding something on the menu that he wanted to eat. In normal circumstances, it is I who ends up ordering the salad. Mwahahahahaha! I ordered the usual (“no name”) and got the same for Jesse, who wasn’t able to come because of work. Bah! Many driving adventures were had when we had to figure out how to bang a u-ey on Comm Ave. Quite interesting, indeed! But we got there in one piece, and filled our bellies full.
yum. Food for the brain, food for the belly… definitely a good day.
Leave a comment!
