pi_noir

I'm sure many of you have read or at least heard of "'Godel Escher Bach". I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it. I confess that I was first attracted to it becuase of the wierd illustrations. I thought "What could Magritte, organ music, ants and ribosomes have in common?" The book is practically schizoid in its bizarre connections between disparate ideas. Comments?

Bilbo

-------------------------------------------------
Ggodel, Escher, Bach
I'm sure many of you have read or at least heard of "'Godel Escher Bach". I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it. I confess that I was first attracted to it becuase of the wierd illustrations. I thought "What could Magritte, organ music, ants and ribosomes have in common?" The book is practically schizoid in its bizarre connections between disparate ideas. Comments?
-------------------------------------------------

This is actually the first philosophy book I ever read (I didn't even know it was a philosophy book at the time. I think I was 11). In any case, its a classic, as you're probably already aware. I was mainly impressed with the drawings of Escher at that time, they looked like they represented genuine absurdities.

I can't really recall what I thought of the material on Goedel at that time though. Its one of those books that would-be intellectuals need to read just so they can make some intelligent off-hand remarks about the "incompleteness of reasoning", "boundlessness of mind", "holes in arithmetic", "utter impossibility of human knowledge" or whatever else Goedel the Great is (speciously) invoked for these days

Happy reading, and don't stare at the pictures for too long, they'll give you vertigo next time you run downstairs for a beer

Regards,

Bilbo.

acronos

I'm reading it now. I enjoy thinking about "strange loops" which seem to defy reality because they seemlessly feedback into themselves. What do I think of the book? Well, he seems to have a bit of a big head - kindof like the rest of us but maybe a little more severe. The material is great because it is mind challenging. Is he right that there are "strange loops", and they are significant? I think yes. Is it the source for consciousness? I think it is maybe a small piece of what makes consciousness. I think maybe once we have solved the consciousness riddle, we will find a few strange loops in there. However, I don't think strange loops get you consciousness.

Is that what you were asking?

Farren

Pi Noir, this is a fascinating work if only because as a science writer of 20 or 30 years (he used to write for Sc. American), the author refuses to subscribe to any of the norms of science writing.

If like myself you're fascinated by the work of Escher I can see the appeal, but what I didn't know before reading the book was that the music of bach is musically equivalent to those images, or that both are artistic parallels to Godels imcompleteness theorem for formal systems of logic, and have bearing on our difficutly in describing consciousness.

Its a great read.

If you find it enjoyable, I also recommend Roger Penrose' "The Emperor's New Mind" & "Shadows of the Mind" (which both explore many of the same themes, albiet in a less poetic and deliberately odd format) as well as Hans Moravec's "Mind Children".

Enjoy

pi_noir

I thought that he explained the "strange loopiness" of consciousness well with the analogy of the ants/nuerons. It's a strange loop in the sense that it involves a hierarchy of levels that interpenetrate each other. Only we're not aware of our "ants" so we get the feeling of free will and consciousness. But then the "self" symbol is also said to be the seat of self-consciousness, I'm not quite sure. I guess he's saying that consciuosness emerges on the higher level (Aunt Hillary) due to the minute, deterministc hardware. But they both affect each other and feed into each other, so I guess that makes them a strange loop.

speters

I loved that book. I had a brain-ache for about two weeks while reading it, but thought it was well-worth the struggle. Unfortunately, his subsequent books haven't been nearly as good. I think a lot of his ideas have been taken up by Dennett. In fact, I think the two of them co-wrote something. Has anyone read Dennet's latest: 'Freedom Evolves'--or something like that?

exnihilo

...or destroy your mind. I have picked up this book many times over the years, my latest foray into the realm of mathmaticophilosophicinsanity started last year. Or was it this year??? Strange loops, the race between the tortoise and the hare, what is more challenging to the philosophically adroit? This IS a great book, it boogles my mind that someone could even concieve of the idea in the first place...
for those interested in further or background reading ( it does seem somehow related to limitology) I would suggest:

This is Not a Pipe by Michel Foucault
The End of Science, John Horgan (?spell)
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn

Have fun!!!!!
--exnihilo

DoubleDutchy

:notworthy