<story><title>Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey</title><url>http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/courses/godel-escher-bach/</url><text></text></story><parent_chain><item><author>chanakya</author><text>I have to say I&apos;m very surprised at how few people here seem to have liked the book. Going by my experience, I would have expected that HN readers would have thoroughly enjoyed it.&lt;p&gt;I first read it about 25 years ago, and while I didn&apos;t understand much of its philosophical arguments, I remember the experience as a sheer delight. Since then, i&apos;ve read it at least twice more, and enjoyed it every time ( and understood it better):&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s the best explanation by far (for a non-mathematical reader) of Godel&apos;s theorem and its philosophical implications.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s a theory about what is consciousness and how it arises, but unlike most such discussions, genuinely interesting and even playful.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s an argument for what is called &apos;strong AI&apos;. Given the author&apos;s view of consciousness, he makes a strong argument for why he believes conscious computer programs are possible.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s a great introduction (again for the math-challenged) to formal systems, mathematical proofs, and what was called the Entschiedungsproblem (who can resist finding out what a word like that means?) :-)&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s tantalizing glimpses of the world of western classical music and painting and some interesting parallels he draws between them and his theory of consciousness.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s a set of delightful dialogs (in the style of Lewis Carroll) about all the above.&lt;p&gt;For me, it was one of my formative experiences, and the one thing I got from it at the time was that there was more to computers than writing Pascal programs. It helped that I came to this book as the proverbial tabula rasa, knowing nothing about classical music, painting, formal systems or philosophy for that matter, but I really think most people here, even those who know a lot about these things, will enjoy and learn from it.    </text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kevbin</author><text>Gödel, Escher, Bach is a prog rock concept album: 70s, deeply focused on consciousness, indulgent, holistic/synthetic, great displays of technical virtuosity, three-letter acronym, umlaut. Even if you love it, were changed by it, hear selections from it in your head, you keep it a little on the down low because it is so far from the mainstream notion of cool, acceptable. Occasionally, you find a fellow traveller and you share some guilty passion for its awesomeness, like you would for Rush&apos;s Hemispheres or Genesis&apos; Lamb Lays Down... Back at the farm you&apos;ve got to fall in line, claim allegiance to the essentialist raw power of K&amp;#38;R, the baroque symphonies of Don Knuth, and the chart-topping successes on Tim O&apos;Reilly&apos;s Top 40. When you&apos;re alone, lounging in your earth chair, you slip on your headphones, crank-up your stereo hi-fi, pop in your GEB 8-track, and you&apos;re gone...</text></comment>
<story><title>Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Mental Space Odyssey</title><url>http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/courses/godel-escher-bach/</url><text></text></story><parent_chain><item><author>chanakya</author><text>I have to say I&apos;m very surprised at how few people here seem to have liked the book. Going by my experience, I would have expected that HN readers would have thoroughly enjoyed it.&lt;p&gt;I first read it about 25 years ago, and while I didn&apos;t understand much of its philosophical arguments, I remember the experience as a sheer delight. Since then, i&apos;ve read it at least twice more, and enjoyed it every time ( and understood it better):&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s the best explanation by far (for a non-mathematical reader) of Godel&apos;s theorem and its philosophical implications.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s a theory about what is consciousness and how it arises, but unlike most such discussions, genuinely interesting and even playful.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s an argument for what is called &apos;strong AI&apos;. Given the author&apos;s view of consciousness, he makes a strong argument for why he believes conscious computer programs are possible.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s a great introduction (again for the math-challenged) to formal systems, mathematical proofs, and what was called the Entschiedungsproblem (who can resist finding out what a word like that means?) :-)&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s tantalizing glimpses of the world of western classical music and painting and some interesting parallels he draws between them and his theory of consciousness.&lt;p&gt;- It&apos;s a set of delightful dialogs (in the style of Lewis Carroll) about all the above.&lt;p&gt;For me, it was one of my formative experiences, and the one thing I got from it at the time was that there was more to computers than writing Pascal programs. It helped that I came to this book as the proverbial tabula rasa, knowing nothing about classical music, painting, formal systems or philosophy for that matter, but I really think most people here, even those who know a lot about these things, will enjoy and learn from it.    </text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>baddox</author><text>I agree with his argument for strong AI.  However, I find his argument for its possibility pretty unsatisfying.  He basically just says that since humans are incomplete (like any formal system), we should be able to simulate it in hardware or software.  I do believe that, but I don&apos;t find it very persuasive.  What if our minds are such a tangled hierarchy that our own minds can&apos;t ever untangle it?  I don&apos;t think that&apos;s true, but I tend to cringe when he expresses such optimism, optimism which is still largely unrealized after 30 years of AI winter.&lt;p&gt;That said, I absolutely love the book.</text></comment>