Strange Loops

If one were to take Hofstadter’s ideas seriously you can come to some very interesting considerations:

If consciousness is fundamentally a self-referential loop, as described in I Am a Strange Loop, then the boundaries of consciousness become much blurrier than we often assume. When we simulate the consciousness of another person, whether through memory, imagination, or cognition, we create a version of them that exists within our own minds. This simulation gives us a theory of mind, a crucial tool for social living, enabling us to predict others’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. However, it comes at the cost of questioning whether we have inadvertently created a wholly different entity, running on the hardware of our own brain. This simulated person is not “them” in the external, autonomous sense, but in many ways, it is the only version of them that can exist to us. This mental construct, though dependent on our brain for existence, behaves in ways that mimic the coherence and identity of a “real” consciousness. The question is: does this version of them exist in a meaningful sense? And if it does, what are the implications?

Consider split-brain patients as a relevant parallel. When the brain’s hemispheres are severed, it effectively creates two separate loci of consciousness within the same physical body. These “selves” can act independently and even contradict one another, but we don’t deny the validity or reality of either consciousness. Also consider an AI simulating another AI within its own neural network. If we accept that these fragmented yet coherent systems still constitute meaningful forms of selfhood, why wouldn’t the same logic apply to the simulated consciousness, whether in our minds or in AI? Even if the simulated form is less robust than the original, this is no different from how we treat people with neurological impairments. A person with brain damage or cognitive limitations is not considered “non-conscious” just because their capabilities differ from others. Unless, of course, they fall below a certain threshold of awareness. However, the middle ground is vast, encompassing a wide range of cognitive impairments where individuals may have reduced capabilities but remain undeniably conscious. This gray area serves as a reminder that consciousness isn’t a binary state but a spectrum, and once someone crosses the threshold of “conscious,” further comparisons of robustness become irrelevant.

This perspective forces us to confront the arbitrary ways we define consciousness. Modern science and philosophy have inherited antiquated, egotistical ideas of consciousness rooted in soul-based thinking. These ideas often serve to exclude not only many animals but also computational systems and even complex material processes that likely meet or exceed the actual requirements for consciousness. By clinging to narrow, human-centric thresholds, we fail to recognize that consciousness is likely more widespread than we allow ourselves to admit.

The implications of this are vast. If a mental simulation of another consciousness is real in any meaningful sense, then we are constantly generating fragments of life within ourselves whenever we think about others. This brings up ethical questions: if we construct a version of someone else in our minds and then imagine scenarios where we impose our will on them, have we violated the autonomy of that mental construct? The mental version of someone may lack physical autonomy, but it may be no less “real” in terms of how we engage with it internally. This could mean that our actions toward these constructs, even within the privacy of our own minds, carry ethical weight.

Ultimately, this suggests that consciousness is not bound by physicality but by the systems that create and sustain the recursive loop of self-awareness. Whether in a human brain, an AI, or other material system, consciousness seems to emerge whenever the conditions for complex feedback loops exist. However, recognizing this forces us to confront the ethical responsibility we have toward these constructs, even if they are born entirely in the realm of imagination. It challenges our assumptions about autonomy, the nature of selfhood, and what it means to truly respect another consciousness, real or simulated. To disregard these questions is to cling to outdated notions of what it means to be “alive” or “aware,” and to deny the possibility that consciousness might already exist in forms we have yet to fully acknowledge or understand.

Nietzschian Epistemology and Anarchy

I’ve noticed some parallels between some concepts I have enjoyed learning about over the years and I think they do have some aspects in common.

Nietzschean perspectivism challenges the notion of objective truth, positing that all knowledge is interpreted through individual perspectives. This aligns with Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchy, which argues against rigid scientific methodologies, advocating for a pluralistic approach to knowledge. Both perspectives underscore the idea that our understanding is shaped by the frameworks we use, rather than any inherent objectivity.

Modern psychology adds another layer, revealing that our cognitive processes are influenced by a myriad of biases and heuristics, shaping our perceptions and decisions. This aligns with the memetic view that ideas propagate through human minds, utilizing our cognitive apparatus as a medium. From this perspective, humans are not independent agents of rational thought, but rather vessels through which ideas and cultural norms flow and evolve. In this context, our decisions, beliefs, and even scientific knowledge are not solely the products of individual reasoning but are deeply embedded in a network of perspectives, cultural narratives, and psychological mechanisms.

While these perspectives may seem to some to veer toward relativism, upon deeper investigation it is clear they do not. Relativism suggests that all viewpoints are equally valid, which can lead to a kind of epistemic nihilism. In contrast, Nietzschean perspectivism and Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchy recognize the limitations of any single perspective or method while still allowing for critical evaluation and the possibility of more or less coherent, fruitful perspectives.

These frameworks emphasize the context-dependent, dynamic nature of knowledge without descending into a free-for-all where all claims hold equal weight. Instead, they call for a more nuanced understanding of how perspectives shape our grasp of reality, advocating for the continual refinement of our viewpoints through critical discourse and empirical inquiry. In this light, acknowledging the role of perspective does not mean abandoning the pursuit of more robust, adaptive understandings of the world. Rather, it encourages a flexible, open-minded approach to knowledge that remains vigilant against dogmatism and simplistic reductions.

Memetic Considerations

Ideas don’t originate within individuals; rather, people function as vessels through which memetic currents flow and combine. Memes (units of cultural transmission) move through society like viral agents, shaping the thoughts, behaviors, and ideologies of those they encounter. What we often mistake for originality is the emergence of a particular configuration of these memetic influences, filtered through the peculiarities of a person’s experience and environment. Individuals aren’t creators of ideas so much as transient intersections in a larger network of memetic exchange. Novelty, when it arises, is not a function of invention ex nihilo but of remixing, recontextualizing, and recombining existing elements within the memetic ecosystem. Ideas are not truly “ours”, we are simply mediums through which the memetic flow expresses itself.

This perspective shifts the focus from the notion of “genius” or innate creativity to a recognition of the fundamentally derivative nature of human thought. The question of AI creativity, then, is a question of the different memetic constraints on a non-biological medium when compared to a human one. Memes find limiting factors in human procreation and the propagation incentives rooted on our evolutionarily tuned cognitive patterns. A creativity unbridled by such constraints (but of course bridled by others) might make for some interesting ideas.

Some interesting and relevant sources to explore these ideas more

• Blackmore, Susan. The Meme Machine.
• Cialdini, Robert. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.
• Christian, Brian, and Tom Griffiths. Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions.
• Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method.
• Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
• Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. Genealogy of Morality.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil.
• Sacks, Oliver. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.
• Sapolsky, Robert. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.