Roger Penrose supposedly wrote Emperor's New Mind as a direct rebuttal of GEB from a physics point of view. These two books, ironically, seem to form an undecid

Roger Penrose supposedly wrote Emperor's New Mind as a direct rebuttal of GEB from a physics point of view. These two books, ironically, seem to form an undecidable dual. One of them is true, but neither managed to prove its point. p.s. GEB is ultimately arguing that mind arises from complexity in structure and algorithm. ENM counters that by noting (apparent) non-deterministic aspects of consciousness, proposing quantum effects as a possible source of consciousness. (That was my overall take on the these two books.) p.s.s. What is not convincing about GEB's argument is the lack of a reasonable explanation for meaning. What it does argue well is how meaning unfolds (self-reference, recursion, composition) but just as Cellular Automatas (CAs) deceptively look like natural phenomena but entirely ignore the extra-CA substrate that simulates the CA world, GEB too ignores the missing mind that is supposed to traverse these layers of abstraction based on self-reference, recursion, and composition. So it is ultimately a purely aesthetic argument (even though the machinery of logic and mathematics are thrown in,) just like certain branches of modern theoretical physics.