4 ms·
I first read it years ago, 1979 or 1980. It was the first time I ever thought about how math related to music, art and nature. I had never heard of recursion
by KC8ZKF 17y ago
I first read it years ago, 1979 or 1980. It was the first time I ever thought about how math related to music, art and nature. I had never heard of recursion or self-reference, never programmed a machine to do anything, never thought about how it could be done, or why I might want to do it.
So the book opened up new worlds for me. It changed the way I think.
- gnaritas 17y agoHow do you think you'd rate it today, already knowing about all those things? It's sitting on my table in my to read stack but I haven't managed to get to it yet.
- trominos 17y agoMy (potentially unpopular) feeling about GEB is that it's a book that explores some very interesting areas but that doesn't say all that much of interest itself. Reading it I felt like different sections could be put into two categories: (good and somewhat romantic) exposition about something interesting, and observations that seem profound until you think about them and realize that they're stupid (e.g. Hofstadter spends some time discussing how a Bach piece that ends up one semitone higher than it starts [and can therefore be repeated to form an infinite ascension] embodies self-referentiality and that this is the critical component of self-awareness, and that therefore the two are connected; of course, this is all just more-or-less meaningless fluff). So I'd say skip it.
- guitarjunkie 17y agoI have to agree. I found the dialouges mind numbing.
- peterbraden 17y agoYeah - I much preferred "The Emperors New Mind" Which covers many of the same themes without the pretentiousness.
- peterbraden 17y agoYeah - I much preferred "The Emperors New Mind" Which covers many of the same themes without the pretentiousness.
- Tichy 17y ago"This sentence is a lie" That pretty much sums it up.
- Radix 17y agoTo give an alternate opinion. You should read through the first dialogue and the following chapter, then decide for yourself. Maybe skip ahead a bit. I read half of it sitting in a library when I didn't really have time to read it, it presented ideas I hadn't thought before. I hadn't heard of figure and ground, at least not generalized, so I enjoyed noticing that my conversations jumped around the subject rather than being on the subject. I also hadn't heard about recursion before, so... If the writing engages you then you and presents interesting ideas, to you, in a non-obvious way, then it is worth reading.