Is this book any good?

I am a strange loop is better.

>>9968977
but is it good?

>>9968994
Personally, I really liked it. But my hunch is on here it's going to get slammed by STEMfags who want to signal to each other that they REALLY get mathematics because they refuse to entertain any philosophical implications of its data.

Hofstadter speaks about the philosophical issues of consciousness, using materials outside of that discourse. I love this kind of thinking, but many do not. It is fanciful philosophy, and he tends to write in a very down to earth style that can sometimes seem simplistic about very complex themes. Some see this as a downfall, but it's one if the reasons I like his work.

>>9969050
Alright thanks, I think I'll give it a try then. Should I be familiar with philosophy (aka start with the greeks/someone else) or can I just go ahead and read it?

>>9969050
I'm a mathematician that studied philosophy and works on foundation of mathematics. You're talking out of your ass. The book is good, but there's no way an educated young man can be entertained if he reads it after turning 20 or 21 years old. It's not the math nor the philosophy. It's just how basic it is.
Great book for a high schooler.

>>9969073
What makes you feel this way? Please elaborate.

>>9969074
The simple fact that unless you just started reading and educating yourself, you will find most of the topics he touches are things you already know and it's just a waste of time. It's good at presenting certain connections for the first time, but it doesn't go beyond that. This is why I talked about "educated young man". Nothing wrong with not being one no matter your age.
That said I do like his writing and his edition of Gödel's Proof is priceless as an introduction to that specific topic.
Sorry I was aggressive anon. I'm tired.

>>9969088
Ok thanks anon. I would consider myself not nearly as educated as a lot of guys on /lit/ or as much as I aspire to be, so I think I will try it and see if what he says seems like common sense to me or not.
What do you think about >>9969059 ?

>>9969102
I feel I didn't express myself clearly and I'm sorry for that. I didn't mean to say that you should be educated (and I'm not comfortable with this word either) by that age. I was trying to answer to the idea that stem people attack the book simply because there's not enough mathematics and they refuse any philosophical implications.
There are plenty of people like that of course. I was trying to illustrate one possible critique to the book.

If I wasn't clear enough, let me know and I'll explain myself better when I have the chance.

>>9969102
>>9969117
oh and no I don't think you need to be familiar with anything philosophy related. That is what makes it such a great introductory book.
He also does have a very down to earth style as anon said.

>>9969117
Worry not my friend, you were very clear and I did not get the idea that I should be educated (nor the feeling that you were overly aggressive in your first reply). In fact, I very much appreciate your willingness to express yourself and help me. So I wanna again say thanks to both of you, and I will be reading it as soon as I finish the current book that I am reading.

>>9969139
What are you reading now?

>>9968962
I was about to make an identical thread OP. I'm on it right now, and got the feeling that the introduction and the message of self reference being essential to any system (whether it be mathematics or conciousness) to be very interesting. I just hope the rest of the book isn't downhill after that succinct conceptual introduction to the thesis.

As a math major and frequenter of /sci/, I agree with this guy >>9969050 on his point about STEMfags shooting it down for 'lack of rigor' or something similar.

>>9969073
'scuse me buddy but had you already pondered over the importance of self reference as in the "infinite tv" (and other so called strange loops) examples? I haven't read the book, but why do you dismiss it as so 'basic'? Can you expand on what you mean in your usage of the word? And yes I read the rest of your replies to who I can only assume was OP: >>9969074.

For the record, I feel like I probably agree, as I hinted at in the first few sentences of this post, and thanks for the Godel's proof req, will check it out. Have you by chance looked over his supposedly more rigorous book Fluid Concepts And Creative Analogies: Computer Models Of The Fundamental Mechanisms Of Thought? A lot of the reviews on Amazon were positve (and as trivia, it was also the first book sold on that site).

>>9969274
100 Years of Solitude

>>9968962
read the last sentence and try to pretend it wasn't written by a full retard autist.

>>9968977
no it isn't

>>9969102
you actually need to be more equated with some mathematical concepts like axioms and set theory more than philosophy. You can look these up as you reach a concept you are not familiar with though, it might make for slow going but you'll learn a lot.

GEB==GOAT

absolute total garbage

>>9970478
Garbage Everywhere (the) Book?

>>9969704
Me here to say I'm still mad. I'm wondering how you, >>9969073, approached the book. Did you expect it to be a textbook? Or a liesurely cruise through music, art and math? Because I, my friend, expected the latter - and that has made all the difference.

I think Robert Anton Wilson praised the book in Cosmic Trigger or so

>>9968977
I Am a Strange Loop is literally GEB written for people who didn't understand GEB. Hofstadter was frustrated how readers of GEB seemed stuck on the surface topics he used without getting the big picture idea he was using those topics to try to explain implicitly, so he wrote I Am a Strange Loop to explicitly spell out what he was really getting at the first time around.

i enjoyed the dialogues

bump to request math/philosophy geb hating anon