5 ms·

I would recommend Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter if you haven't already read it.

by lgas 6y ago

bobosha 6y ago
TBH I have attempted to read it many times but escapes my feeble mind. GEB is one of those books ...
- fit2rule 6y ago
  I always find that the best way to get something out of GEB, which I have consumed a thousand times, is to read it backwards. ;)
- maurits 6y ago
  You could have a look at 'The Mind's I' [1]. Its a collection of short essays edited by Hofstadter and Dennett. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I
- donquichotte 6y ago
  GEB always struck me as masturbatory, self-aggrandizing ramblings about simple ideas like self-similarity, with strewn-in, stream-of-consciousness anecdotes about Greek mythology, art and biology.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  What helped me get through it was consciously reminding myself "It's OK if I don't grok every single thing in this book this time through. I can always read it again. And again, etc." In other words, I didn't try to read it like a traditional textbook (which it really isn't) where everything is strictly factual, and laid out in a nice, linear, straightforward order. I found that I just had to accept that GEB is non-linear, byzantine, self-referential, and frankly confusing at times. Instead of being blocked when I felt confused, I just kept reading. Did I get everything out of it that Hofstadter intended to put in? Almost certainly not, but I still got quite a bit of out it, IMO. And I can always go back and re-read it.
braythwayt 6y ago
I am of the generation that fixated upon GEB as some sort of deep wisdom, and I have a nostalgic fondness for it. I certainly credit it for sparking a lot of my curiosity about Lisp. But in hindsight, its value to me was not in the content of the book, as much as in communicating the kind of delight and curiosity around programming that has kept me interested in the subject since 1972 or so. Other books have done the same thing for me, most notably everything by Martin Gardner, Raymond Smullyan's books about logic puzzles that sneak an education past you, and William Poundstone's books about Game Theory and Computability. In a way, I'm delighted that this book is not sitting as the number one thread so far. Not because it's terrible, but because new generations ahve written great books, and they deserve mention too.
- AQuantized 6y ago
  It's interesting that despite Hofstadter having negative interest in computing himself, he inspired so many people in the field.
  - braythwayt 6y ago
    I was aware of this many years ago. To this day, I don't actually consider myself that interested in computing for its own sake. Or mathematics, for that matter. To me, the most interesting thing about programming is what it teaches us about our own minds. It's a little like being an archeologist and finding collections of pottery, houses, &c. but no people. You make deductions about how they lived from their tools. In our case, we have only a limited ability to directly examine the workings of our brains, but a wealth of ways to study the things we do with our brains, including the making of tools for our brains to use. Programming is one of those tools, and its study is indirectly the study of us. At the end of the day, it's all just 1s and 0s, but when we argue about whether the Visitor Pattern addresses the Expression problem, and so forth, we're indirectly exploring the (metaphorical) shape of our brains. I have just said in several paragraphs what Michael Fellows said in one sentence: "Computer science is not about machines, in the same way that astronomy is not about telescopes." They may have been thinking about mathematics, but I am thinking about people.
ludami 6y ago
This is one of the few books I've read that I would actually call 'mind bending' (though stretching might be a better word). Another amazing book of his that I don't see mentioned a lot (perhaps because it is more technical that maybe any of his other books) is 'Fluid Concepts And Creative Analogies'.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Another amazing book of his that I don't see mentioned a lot (perhaps because it is more technical that maybe any of his other books) is 'Fluid Concepts And Creative Analogies'. I'm reading that one now. I recommend it, along with Perception as Analogy by Melanie Mitchell, and the aforementioned Godel, Escher, Bach to anyone interested in AI / cognitive science. I've only read a small part of Metamagical Themas to date, but I've read enough to recommend that as well. Just the stuff on self-referential sentences makes it worth reading.
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    Derp, derp... I meant to write "Analogy-Making as Perception by Melanie Mitchell". I blame lack of coffee.

I would recommend Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter if you haven't already read it.

by lgas 6y ago

I would recommend Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter if you haven't already read it.

bobosha 6y ago

TBH I have attempted to read it many times but escapes my feeble mind. GEB is one of those books ...

fit2rule 6y ago
I always find that the best way to get something out of GEB, which I have consumed a thousand times, is to read it backwards. ;)
maurits 6y ago
You could have a look at 'The Mind's I' [1]. Its a collection of short essays edited by Hofstadter and Dennett. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind%27s_I
donquichotte 6y ago
GEB always struck me as masturbatory, self-aggrandizing ramblings about simple ideas like self-similarity, with strewn-in, stream-of-consciousness anecdotes about Greek mythology, art and biology.
mindcrime 6y ago
What helped me get through it was consciously reminding myself "It's OK if I don't grok every single thing in this book this time through. I can always read it again. And again, etc." In other words, I didn't try to read it like a traditional textbook (which it really isn't) where everything is strictly factual, and laid out in a nice, linear, straightforward order. I found that I just had to accept that GEB is non-linear, byzantine, self-referential, and frankly confusing at times. Instead of being blocked when I felt confused, I just kept reading. Did I get everything out of it that Hofstadter intended to put in? Almost certainly not, but I still got quite a bit of out it, IMO. And I can always go back and re-read it.

braythwayt 6y ago

I am of the generation that fixated upon GEB as some sort of deep wisdom, and I have a nostalgic fondness for it. I certainly credit it for sparking a lot of my curiosity about Lisp. But in hindsight, its value to me was not in the content of the book, as much as in communicating the kind of delight and curiosity around programming that has kept me interested in the subject since 1972 or so. Other books have done the same thing for me, most notably everything by Martin Gardner, Raymond Smullyan's books about logic puzzles that sneak an education past you, and William Poundstone's books about Game Theory and Computability. In a way, I'm delighted that this book is not sitting as the number one thread so far. Not because it's terrible, but because new generations ahve written great books, and they deserve mention too.

AQuantized 6y ago
It's interesting that despite Hofstadter having negative interest in computing himself, he inspired so many people in the field.
- braythwayt 6y ago
  I was aware of this many years ago. To this day, I don't actually consider myself that interested in computing for its own sake. Or mathematics, for that matter. To me, the most interesting thing about programming is what it teaches us about our own minds. It's a little like being an archeologist and finding collections of pottery, houses, &c. but no people. You make deductions about how they lived from their tools. In our case, we have only a limited ability to directly examine the workings of our brains, but a wealth of ways to study the things we do with our brains, including the making of tools for our brains to use. Programming is one of those tools, and its study is indirectly the study of us. At the end of the day, it's all just 1s and 0s, but when we argue about whether the Visitor Pattern addresses the Expression problem, and so forth, we're indirectly exploring the (metaphorical) shape of our brains. I have just said in several paragraphs what Michael Fellows said in one sentence: "Computer science is not about machines, in the same way that astronomy is not about telescopes." They may have been thinking about mathematics, but I am thinking about people.

ludami 6y ago

This is one of the few books I've read that I would actually call 'mind bending' (though stretching might be a better word). Another amazing book of his that I don't see mentioned a lot (perhaps because it is more technical that maybe any of his other books) is 'Fluid Concepts And Creative Analogies'.

mindcrime 6y ago
Another amazing book of his that I don't see mentioned a lot (perhaps because it is more technical that maybe any of his other books) is 'Fluid Concepts And Creative Analogies'. I'm reading that one now. I recommend it, along with Perception as Analogy by Melanie Mitchell, and the aforementioned Godel, Escher, Bach to anyone interested in AI / cognitive science. I've only read a small part of Metamagical Themas to date, but I've read enough to recommend that as well. Just the stuff on self-referential sentences makes it worth reading.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Derp, derp... I meant to write "Analogy-Making as Perception by Melanie Mitchell". I blame lack of coffee.