Additional problems for reductionism are the uncertainty principle, chaos (e.g., no way to predict how a pile of sand will fall) and the logically necessary incompleteness of math (and all thought). " Much of it is very reductionistic in tone (i.e., " explains " everything in terms of physics/math and denies " reality " of psychology) but as Hofstadter notes, the quantum field equations of a water molecule are too complex to solve (and so is a vacuum)and nobody has a clue about how to explain the way properties emerge(e.g., water properties from H2 and 02) as you go up the scale from the vacuum to the brain, so reductionism, like holism, requires a great deal of faith and in fact is incoherent as one cannot even frame it's arguments without presupposing the coherence of higher order thought. For my views on the attempts of D and H to understand behavior see my review of D's " I am a Strange Loop. Like its predecessor, it is concerned largely with the foundations of artificial intelligence, but it is composed mostly of stories, essays and extracts from a wide range of people, with a few essays by DH and DD and comments to all of the contributions by one or the other of them. This is a follow up to Hofstadter´s famous (or infamous as I would now say, considering its unrelenting nonsense) Godel, Escher, Bach (1980). A mixed bag dominated by H & D's reductionist nonsense.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |