Citeste Godel, Escher, Bach: Brilianta Ghirlanda Eterna Douglas R. Hofstadter PDF, ePUB si eBook. Download Godel, Escher, Bach: Brilianta Ghirlanda Eterna Douglas. Download Hofstadter - Godel Escher Bach Uneterna ghirlanda brillante [Pdf Ita] torrent or any other torrent from Non-fiction category.

An axiom is something that is just assumed to be true. It is not based on logic or reasoning. It is said to be self-evident. The truth of it is An axiom is something that is just assumed to be true. It is not based on logic or reasoning. It is said to be self-evident. The truth of it is supposed to be so obvious that it need not be proven.

Indeed, it cannot be proven. A theorem is an assertion of fact. It usually is not obvious. Its truth can only be proven by arguing according to a set of rules called 'logic.'

Its truth depends on the truth of the premises, so if you can start with axioms and follow the rules and reach the assertion, then the theorem is considered 'proven,' and 'true,' and can be used as the basis for further argument to prove other theorems. Hofstadter dives into levels of meaning, recursion and strange loops to try to explain consciousness. He proposes that consciousness is both a result Hofstadter dives into levels of meaning, recursion and strange loops to try to explain consciousness.

He proposes that consciousness is both a result of the neural net and something more. It's a complex, many-layered argument. The second half of the book deals greatly with consciousness, but the mathematics in the first half is essential to understanding his argument. If you open up the '20th Anniversary Edition' of GEB, you'll see that the first thing Douglas Hofstadter does in the introduction - the very first thing - is grouse that nobody seems to understand what his book is about. Not even its publishers or readers who just absolutely love it. A quick glance at the back cover will give you the same impression - even the glowing, two-sentence blurbs are hilariously vague, all of them variations on the theme of 'Well, that certainly was. Yes, If you open up the '20th Anniversary Edition' of GEB, you'll see that the first thing Douglas Hofstadter does in the introduction - the very first thing - is grouse that nobody seems to understand what his book is about.

Not even its publishers or readers who just absolutely love it. A quick glance at the back cover will give you the same impression - even the glowing, two-sentence blurbs are hilariously vague, all of them variations on the theme of 'Well, that certainly was. Yes, quite a wonderful something indeed.'

So how are you supposed to know whether to pick it up? Or put less delicately, how are you supposed to know whether reading all 740 dense, sprawling pages is worth your while? The short answer is: 'Read this book if you like to think about thinking, as well as to think about thinking about thinking.' The long answer makes me nervous - since the typical review of this book apparently misses the point entirely, I feel like I'm starting out on thin ice. Oh well, I'll take a crack at it anyway. At its heart, this book is about whether you can start with simple parts and from them, build a system which is so complicated that it becomes more than the sum of its parts in a significant sort of way.

For example, scientists have a very clear understanding of how a single neuron functions. They even have a fairly good understanding of how neurons operate in groups to take on specific tasks, like wiggling your pinkie finger. But there are around a hundred billion neurons in a human brain and the structure quickly becomes preposterously complicated - groups of groups of groups of neurons, all acting in interconnected ways to produce conscious thought. How do we get something as complex as human consciousness out of something as simple and well-understood as a neuron? The answer Hofstadter likes is that the brain operates on many different interacting levels, and that conscious thought is a product of the complex interaction between all these levels. So in order to understand something you're reading, you depend on individual neurons operating in basically deterministic ways to move signals around your brain, but you also depend on groups of neurons in your vision centers to recognize text, as well as other groups of neurons on other levels to understand that text, and other groups of neurons on other levels to fit that new understanding into the context of the previous sentence, and so on. All of this applies equally well to, which is Hofstadter's field.

It's just that an electronic brain would be built from transistors and subroutines instead of brain tissue. The title is a little misleading - this book is not at all about how when you get right down to it, Kurt Godel, M.C. Escher, and J.S. Bach are totally interrelated, man. Their work is just useful in getting deeper down into that idea of interacting layers that produce complexity. For example, Kurt Godel was a mathematician who proved that in any self-consistent formulation of number theory, you could generate theorems that, while 'true', were not provable in within that formulation. Basically, he showed that any formal mathematical system is necessarily incomplete in specific ways.

Here's the part where things start to get craaaaazy: If you build a 'well-formed' number theory labeled X, then X can be used to generate a proof of X's self-consistency only if X is inconsistent. The reverse is also true. And all this relates back to how a system can be more than the sum of its parts. These are definitely interesting ideas and very worth reading about, but whether GEB is worth reading is a harder question. It's a very well-written, well-researched book. I love that the author goes (way, way, way) out of his way to spend time explaining difficult ideas, rather than to assume a dull or disinterested readership. But sometimes that tendency to dig deeper can start to obscure the central point of a chapter.

I think that's why so many people lose track of what the book is actually about - there really are a ton of fascinating ideas that are all given equal weight. The book hops between two different formats. The first is your standard, well-written, popular discussion of complex scientific, artistic, or philosophical ideas. In fact, Hofstadter is very good at this part. He excels at getting the reader interested in - and even excited about - some traditionally inaccessible stuff. The second format is a series of short dialogs between fictional characters, interspersed between every chapter, that help to allegorically enforce the ideas in whatever chapter.

Overall, this approach is very good at getting you to understand the complicated ideas Hofstadter is getting. I found that my problems with the book weren't with the subject matter, which was fascinating and enjoyable, but with the author. Ol' Dougie H. Loves this material.

He loves it so much that he tries to infect you with his own personal sense of wonder and whimsy at how complex and beautiful art and life and science are. And of course he's right, but that's not the point. If he trusted you to feel these things for yourself, the book would be maybe 200 pages shorter. As it is, his constant pedagogical wordplay and artful brain teasers started out fun but after page 400 they started making me tired. Also, those forced injections of wonder and whimsy start to take on the flavor of little plugs for the personal fantasticness of Douglas Hofstadter. For example, his discussion of the language processing functions of the brain is interesting, but did he really have to bring up the fact that he's fluent in Russian and translated Eugene Onegin? In a short book or a movie, cleverness can be fun and exciting.

In a 740-page tome, not so much. I strongly recommend this book to a very narrow set of people. If you think you'd be interested in the subject matter AND you wouldn't mind playing simple word or math games in the service of understanding it AND the inner workings of a computer scientist's marvelous brain seem interesting to you, then definitely read this book.

I enjoyed it and found it very fun and informative, overall. But if you read this review and you get the feeling you probably won't like this book, you're probably right.

I could not with a clear conscience recommend this book to everyone, because I'm simply not that cruel. It would be like recommending large doses of LSD to everyone: some small minority will find the experience invaluably enlightening, but for most people it's just going to melt their brain. While you do not need to be a professional mathematician to appreciate this, you really have to like math a lot. You can't just sort of like it. You can't just differ with the masses in not hating mathematics I could not with a clear conscience recommend this book to everyone, because I'm simply not that cruel. It would be like recommending large doses of LSD to everyone: some small minority will find the experience invaluably enlightening, but for most people it's just going to melt their brain.

While you do not need to be a professional mathematician to appreciate this, you really have to like math a lot. You can't just sort of like it. You can't just differ with the masses in not hating mathematics. You can't just find it mildly interesting rather than utterly abstruse and inaccessible. For example, you pretty much have to find the following joke to be hilarious: There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

If you are slapping your knee right now, then you might like this book. If, during the course of slapping said knee, all the pens fell out of your pocket protector and landed scattered across the piece of paper you were using to make Venn diagrams to help you decide what to have for breakfast, that, of course, is even better. If you really like math, then this is going to be one of the best books you've ever read. Go get it now! But if you really like math, then you've almost certainly already read it. If you haven't read it already, then you can't possibly like math enough to enjoy it. There's a recursive paradox in there somewhere.

Best not to think about it. It might melt your brain. From Randall Munroe. Mouseover says: 'This is the reference implementation of the self-referential joke.' ------------------------ I know, I know, I know. I'm just kidding myself.

I'm as likely to read this as a book on string theory. (Please don't. Please don't tell me I have read a book on string theory, I'm trying to forget the whole sordid story.) But. I hope you like this.

A friend of mine established The Harvester Press in the 1970s. He did it on a wing and a prayer, he was a young teaching a from Randall Munroe. Mouseover says: 'This is the reference implementation of the self-referential joke.' ------------------------ I know, I know, I know. I'm just kidding myself.

I'm as likely to read this as a book on string theory. (Please don't. Please don't tell me I have read a book on string theory, I'm trying to forget the whole sordid story.) But. I hope you like this.

A friend of mine established The Harvester Press in the 1970s. He did it on a wing and a prayer, he was a young teaching academic who couldn't find in print the old literary books he wanted to use as texts and so he set about publishing them.

He was probably as surprised as anybody when the idea quickly became viable. He put together a list of books, sold them as a subscription to libraries and away he went. He wasn't an academic any more, he was a proper publisher with a strong reputation for intellectually high end output. At some point he got sent a completely insane looking ms, ridiculously long, bits of paper stuck on bits of paper, all these pictures which hadn't any copyright permission, and as for the title.well, who was going to buy a book called that.he sent it back with a polite letter. Some years later he was in NY lunching with the boss of Basic Books, a US academic publisher.

He wanted to publish this strange ms. He'd been given. As he was describing it, John interrupted with 'Godel, Escher, Bach I presume?' Evidently Hofstadter had gotten lucky and had on loan a very early word processor.

The whole thing was no longer the shambles it once was. Basic Books was keen. John got talked into taking some thousands of copies. This turned out well for him, but. What he had lost. Godel, Escher, Bach in English and in translation would have made him many millions. I won't say he cried about it, but he did ask for a discount on the books he was buying.

After such a sad tale it was impossible to say no. Expand your mind! Not for the faint of heart & yet by no means dry. Hofstadter makes some fascinating observations about emergent properties (such as intelligence) and diverts us into the extremely heavy mathematics of Godel via the self referencing systems that are Bach's fugues and Escher's 'optical illusion' style artwork. Before too many chapters have passed though you'll be firmly in number theory land, albeit doled out as painlessly as is possible with such stuff, leavened with imagined Expand your mind! Not for the faint of heart & yet by no means dry.

Hofstadter makes some fascinating observations about emergent properties (such as intelligence) and diverts us into the extremely heavy mathematics of Godel via the self referencing systems that are Bach's fugues and Escher's 'optical illusion' style artwork. Before too many chapters have passed though you'll be firmly in number theory land, albeit doled out as painlessly as is possible with such stuff, leavened with imagined philosophical debates between ancient Greeks and other proxies. I seem to remember Achilles spends a lot of time talking to a tortoise. Number theory requires no great resource of mathematical knowledge - just an extremely agile and open mind.

If you let him Hofstadter will show you how Godel destroyed Betrand Russell's Principa Mathematica - his attempt to logically deduce all of mathematics from a set of axioms. Godel shows us that (I paraphrase drastically) that all logical systems allow statements about natural numbers that are true but unprovable within the system. And somehow this isn't even what the book's about. As the pages turn you will be steadily more tested and at some point it will become apparent you've not been paying close enough attention. However, even without taking pen to paper and labouring through the instructive exercises you can get a pretty decent glimpse at some exciting and fundamental thinking. This is quite a remarkable book: a repository of many brilliant, provocative and insightful ideas (although occasionally not fully developed), and a contributor of much food for thought in disparate areas such as neurosciences, AI, mathematical logic, computer science, molecular biology, even art and music.

A unique endeavor that, while not always successful in the pursuit of a coherent and convincing elucidation of the author's theses, represents something of a classic that must be read for its This is quite a remarkable book: a repository of many brilliant, provocative and insightful ideas (although occasionally not fully developed), and a contributor of much food for thought in disparate areas such as neurosciences, AI, mathematical logic, computer science, molecular biology, even art and music. A unique endeavor that, while not always successful in the pursuit of a coherent and convincing elucidation of the author's theses, represents something of a classic that must be read for its enriching, wide-ranging, multidisciplinary, hugely entertaining, wonderfully brilliant, highly creative nature. It is definitely not a great example of conciseness (with its sprawling 800 pages), and not always rigorous (for example, in its treatment of some aspects of mathematical logic and Godel's incompleteness theorems), and also occasionally a bit loose with the terminology; however this is more than compensated by the peculiar and exhilarating way with which the many interconnections and analogies between different disciplines and perspectives are illuminated by the author in his wondrous and sprawling synthesis, architecturally beautifully even if not always based on completely sound foundations. Conversation overheard at a diner in Upstate NY between Rabbit and Dante.

They have been arguing about the existence of God. Dante has been arguing against the proposition. Rabbit: I have been recently reading a book which helps me to counter many of your points Dante.

You should take a look at it. Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter carries within it the seed of an answer to your skepticism.

Hofstadter argues, using the pictures of Escher, the music of Bach and Conversation overheard at a diner in Upstate NY between Rabbit and Dante. They have been arguing about the existence of God. Dante has been arguing against the proposition. Rabbit: I have been recently reading a book which helps me to counter many of your points Dante. You should take a look at it.

Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter carries within it the seed of an answer to your skepticism. Hofstadter argues, using the pictures of Escher, the music of Bach and the mathematical formulas of Godel, that for those inside a system of any kind, be it music, art or mathematics, you can never prove everything which is true about the system! He does this in the most entertaining way, through dialogues and examples that lead even a Rabbit like me to the obvious conclusion.

Dante: it may be obvious to Mr. Hofstadter, and even to you, but to me, there may be an entirely different conclusion from the same information. Can you give me an example? Rabbit: Of course. Ah, imagine an Escher drawing, one of those odd drawings where the stairs seem to lead endlessly upward, yet always end back at the bottom. Dante: I believe that Bach wrote a similar “Endlessly Rising Cantata”.

Rabbit: Exactly Right Comrade! Well, the drawing seems consistent, internally, to the characters in it. They can not imagine the world any other way. Yet for us, standing outside the picture, we can see the obvious tricks that were used to construct it. Dante: So Mr.

Hofstadter somehow argues that this proves there is a God? Rabbit: Not exactly.

He points out that those inside an internally consistent system can never fully understand the forces outside the system. Godel proves it mathematically by showing that there are true equations in mathematics which cannot be proven. (“This statement is false” is an example of a true statement which Godel translates into numbers, then transmutates into a number which cannot exist but does. It is all very confusing to a Rabbit!) Dante: “Is a statement that is false” is a statement that is false. Is that a true statement? You do have a way with words, Rabbit! Rabbit: But they are not my words.

Hofstadter says that Godel said something like that. And he proves it, I think.

Dante: Whatever. Absolutely beautiful. GEB reads like a collection of sparks, produced when the mind is working at its primed, relaxed, hyper-aware and associative best.

I read this over numerous nights, curled up in bed, each time feeling as if I was with a wonderful best friend, with whom I could discuss any topic or previously-unformed idea, exercise my memory indexing resources, and unabashedly release the inner infovore. Few things have allowed me to unwind, concentrate, and harness my mental energy as quic Absolutely beautiful. GEB reads like a collection of sparks, produced when the mind is working at its primed, relaxed, hyper-aware and associative best. I read this over numerous nights, curled up in bed, each time feeling as if I was with a wonderful best friend, with whom I could discuss any topic or previously-unformed idea, exercise my memory indexing resources, and unabashedly release the inner infovore. Few things have allowed me to unwind, concentrate, and harness my mental energy as quickly and satisfyingly. While it requires the reader to think, process, and invest effort in understanding his notations and work through the concepts, it’s written so that a creative young person with basic grounding in math could read through the chapters and be occasionally stumped, but mostly richly rewarded and inspired.

I could not think of a more ideal book for a parent/ mentor to go over carefully with a growing child. If only I could get hold of books that offered a similarly high-quality shot of serotonin more often. This book told me something about intelligence - the smartest thing to do is to avoid this book's overly lengthy babblings of a self-important graduate student who is way too impressed with himself. It took this guy over 700 pages to illustrate by analogy his not-particularly novel theory which he sums up (finally) as follows: 'My belief is that the explanations of 'emergent' phenomena in our brains --for instance, ideas, hopes, images, analogies, and finally consciousness and free will--are base This book told me something about intelligence - the smartest thing to do is to avoid this book's overly lengthy babblings of a self-important graduate student who is way too impressed with himself.

It took this guy over 700 pages to illustrate by analogy his not-particularly novel theory which he sums up (finally) as follows: 'My belief is that the explanations of 'emergent' phenomena in our brains --for instance, ideas, hopes, images, analogies, and finally consciousness and free will--are based on a kind of Strange Loop, an interaction between levels in which the top level reaches back down towards the bottom level and influences it, while at the same time being itself determined by the bottom level.' I'm going to be the only one who uses a gif in their review of GEB, aren't I? Erio Connection Usb Modem Direct Driver on this page.

I'm definitely going to be the only one who uses a Legally Blonde gif. Part 1 deals with catching the reader up to speed on formal logic, number theory, and Godel’s incompleteness theorem. It’s the more tedious part of the book, to be sure. I took formal logic in university, and in Hofstadter’s more recent book, “I Am A Strange Loop,” he gives a pretty good overview of Godel and his relevance, so this wasn’ I'm going to be the only one who uses a gif in their review of GEB, aren't I? I'm definitely going to be the only one who uses a Legally Blonde gif. Part 1 deals with catching the reader up to speed on formal logic, number theory, and Godel’s incompleteness theorem. It’s the more tedious part of the book, to be sure.

I took formal logic in university, and in Hofstadter’s more recent book, “I Am A Strange Loop,” he gives a pretty good overview of Godel and his relevance, so this wasn’t horrible. If I had no basis I might have struggled intensely. Part 2 covers applications of part one to more philosophical explorations about consciousness and artificial intelligence and the meta-composition of everything. Hofstadter was in love with the word “meta” before any of us- actually, he’s the reason we use it the way we do today. In fact, that’s essentially the whole point of this book: manipulating mathematical & logical systems into paradoxes by bringing them to extremes through “going meta.” Probably my favourite part of the book was when he got into discussing applying Godel’s incompleteness theorem to other domains of study than math and logic. Like psychology, or self-identity. Since our own mind is doing the thinking, how can we know what we’re thinking?

How can we trust what we conceive of ourselves and our minds when it’s the mind that’s conceiving of itself? Doesn’t that create an infinite loop with no foundation, no proven things to stand on, just like Whitehead & Russell’s work on the “foundations of math” in Principia Mathematica, totally proven to be unprovable and foundation-less by Godel? That’s some acid-trip shit right there. Hofstadter’s more recent book “I Am A Strange Loop” (gonna call this “IAASL” from now on), was written because he didn’t think anyone really understood what he was getting at when he wrote GEB twenty or thirty years earlier. I’m not surprised.

This is probably going to be an unpopular thing to say, but I truly think Hofstadter does a better job of explaining, engaging with, and articulating his project in IAASL- which has the added benefit of being a third the size of GEB. Now, I acknowledge that IAASL is a recent book that’s only building on GEB, and that’s why GEB is more important, generally. It discussed important concepts early on, and was very influential in the 80s and 90s (now very dated and a little less shocking). But it’s unnecessary expanded, and gives you pieces of a jigsaw puzzle without ever really putting them together. Also, I have this thing where I fucking hate dialogues. I like Hofstadter, just like I like Bishop Berkeley (love him, actually) and Plato and Galileo, but I Hate With A Capital H that they employ dialogues to communicate their thoughts.

They're tedious and beat around the bush and make what should be one paragraph into several pages. Hofstadter's pre-chapter dialogues are no exception to my hatred.

So GEB gets points subtracted for that. There’s next to zero Hofstadter himself in GEB. I have no sense of who he is, why he thinks what he thinks. And I value that in a writer. Whereas in IAASL, I got to know Hofstadter very, very well.

I suspect it’s just that over time he has became a better writer, thinker, and communicator and is better able to impart his thoughts straightforwardly. So if you’d like to read the Book That Influenced The World, read GEB. If you’re only interested in understanding and playing with his ideas, read IAASL. If, like me, you say “the fuck with it, I want both” then by all means.

Both are worth reading, if dense as all hell, and both gave me some really delightful epiphanies. But read IAASL first. Trust me on this.

This book was very disappointing, especially after recieving so much hype. I was struggling along through it in a workman like fashion, trying to follow his arguments (which to me often seemed like so much dribble and unnecessary obfuscation and nothing like a fun puzzle), when I got really stuck and so I went to the MIT website and started reading the class notes on this book. That only made me more disgusted with the book, since it turns out that the book is riddled with historical errors wher This book was very disappointing, especially after recieving so much hype. I was struggling along through it in a workman like fashion, trying to follow his arguments (which to me often seemed like so much dribble and unnecessary obfuscation and nothing like a fun puzzle), when I got really stuck and so I went to the MIT website and started reading the class notes on this book. That only made me more disgusted with the book, since it turns out that the book is riddled with historical errors where Hofstadter just made things up or ignored actual evidence in favor of making his points. At that point, I just gave up.

If you are going to read this sort of thing as part of something other than a textbook, you'd be better off wading through the last part of Neil Stephenson's 'The Diamond Age' where it detracted from the text as well, but at least was more amusing than this was after the third chapter or so. Actually, just read Neil Stephenson period, as between his various work he manages to do everything Hofstadter attempts only better. Deep geekery. Let's build logic from its component parts. And then after by-hand fabricating that nomenclature, we'll use it to talk about intelligence, problem-solving, heuristics, etc. Building up to general intelligence (generally) and artificial intelligence (specifically). Deep, heavy, at times extremely fun.

Took me five years to read it. And so somewhat in the spirit of the text: GEB is like this incredibly attractive, incredibly smart, incredibly funny/witty woman that you meet through a f Deep geekery. Let's build logic from its component parts. And then after by-hand fabricating that nomenclature, we'll use it to talk about intelligence, problem-solving, heuristics, etc. Building up to general intelligence (generally) and artificial intelligence (specifically).

Deep, heavy, at times extremely fun. Took me five years to read it. And so somewhat in the spirit of the text: GEB is like this incredibly attractive, incredibly smart, incredibly funny/witty woman that you meet through a friend. The early part of the relationship is a little tentative—what with both of you trying to get a feel for each other, and both of you not quite knowing what to make of each other—but the time you spend together is lots and lots of fun. And after a little while, you're both very comfortable with each other and the time passes quickly.

Perhaps too quickly. You just can't get over how lovely she is, how funny, how brilliant. But then out of the blue she gets heavy. Even your light-hearted conversations end with your head spinning.

What happened to the woman you thought you were falling in love with? So you walk away. But she doesn't seem heart-broken in the least. You walk away, and you stay away for a while.

Until one night you realize that even if she was getting into deep and heavy subjects that it was YOU who was afraid; she'd asked nothing of you but to listen. And like a coward you walked away. But when you return to her, she takes you back—like nothing ever happened.

And before you know it, you really have come to the end of your journey together. But you feel so enriched for it. And yes that's a terrible and cloying analogy that takes it way too far. But I couldn't help myself. GEB is an astonishing achievement in popularizing mathematical philosophy (!), and among the few truly life-changing books I've read. The central thesis is that under certain conditions sufficiently complex, recursive self-editing systems can develop arbitrarily complex behavior without reference to external organization - and given an author who spends his days coding AI systems, you can see where he's going.

That's dense, dense stuff, but helped by the author's charming expository style and vas GEB is an astonishing achievement in popularizing mathematical philosophy (!), and among the few truly life-changing books I've read. The central thesis is that under certain conditions sufficiently complex, recursive self-editing systems can develop arbitrarily complex behavior without reference to external organization - and given an author who spends his days coding AI systems, you can see where he's going. That's dense, dense stuff, but helped by the author's charming expository style and vastly erudite range of references. (Many concepts are elucidated as comedic dialogues between characters borrowed from fellow author and logician Lewis Carroll or others, and there are many fascinating illustrations.) Many years of operating in the stratosphere of mathematics have made the author perhaps a little too playful in his sense of how many meta-levels a book or argument should contain, but he reiterates the thesis from enough angles that you can skip off the surface of a few pages if you find your brain exploding. GEB has the potential to put your beliefs about the nature of consciousness and life on a much sounder, but more challenging intellectual footing, and it's a great distillation of the ferment but ever increasing levels of profundity experienced in theoretical science since the 1950s - when we found ourselves with power to explain phenomena we were confident we could leave to the spiritual even post - Enlightenment, just as Godel encountered our first (?) nonnegotiable limit on human knowledge.

This is an absolutely phenomenal work. Let me break it down for you. Topics covered: DNA and RNA replication, Artificial Intelligence, Zen Buddism, Eschers artwork, Computer programming, Bachs fugues, a whole host of literary paradoxes and critical thinking exercises wow fun!

Now let me tell you what all of this great information rests in, the framework of mathematics housed by Godels own theorems and proof. Luckily the author understands that not all of us think mathematically.

Don't get This is an absolutely phenomenal work. Let me break it down for you. Topics covered: DNA and RNA replication, Artificial Intelligence, Zen Buddism, Eschers artwork, Computer programming, Bachs fugues, a whole host of literary paradoxes and critical thinking exercises wow fun! Now let me tell you what all of this great information rests in, the framework of mathematics housed by Godels own theorems and proof.

Luckily the author understands that not all of us think mathematically. Don't get me wrong its math, there is no getting around it.

But he presents the material in so many various forms. He uses Lewis Carols interaction between Achilles and the Tortoise to help make mental connections for those of us who are literary minded (thank you!) and artwork for those of us who are visually minded. And then long strands of proofs in, yes you guessed it, mathematical formulas and the like as the bulk of the work. It is a staggering accomplishment, I was especially impressed by his using Achilles the Tortoise and the Crab (plus Genes) to get ATCG for the DNA portion. I will say that I can't comment on how much of math I actually understood.

I can say that his mingling of approaches lead me to a great deal of conclusions and just as with everything in math you get those great Ah Hah! Moments where it all seems to come together and you make those connections that you have been meandering around for awhile. It is one of the fun things about math that doesn't often duplicate itself in other portions of life. A work worth taking your time over. After an entire tome about the workings of the mind and what it means to be intelligent, you'd think the author would be more self-aware by the end of the book than to say, 'indirect self-reference is my favorite topic'.

Hofstadter, blatant self-reference is your favorite topic. I'm notoriously bad at distancing the creation from the creator, so perhaps I was biased from the start -- reading the 20th anniversary intro was like listening to a narcissist who insists he's modest.

I didn't fin After an entire tome about the workings of the mind and what it means to be intelligent, you'd think the author would be more self-aware by the end of the book than to say, 'indirect self-reference is my favorite topic'. Hofstadter, blatant self-reference is your favorite topic. I'm notoriously bad at distancing the creation from the creator, so perhaps I was biased from the start -- reading the 20th anniversary intro was like listening to a narcissist who insists he's modest. I didn't find what followed to be original, revolutionary, or brilliant; rather, I found it repetitive, regurgitated, and egotistical.

Each chapter, he spent many pages questioning himself and the reader about connections between DNA, Godel's Theorem, fuges, AI, and many other topics from a well-educated mind. Ultimately, he would 'prove' himself right -- usually by citing someone else's work with great derision. Hofstadter has led a very privileged life by somehow accomplishing the task of convincing people that his educated acid trip is something to be read and cherished. Bravo to him. I'd love to see his reaction now that so many of his predictions have proven false (a topic not touched on in the 20th anniversary intro). I have always wanted to be brilliant.

Project Igi 5 For Pc more. So this was the book I chose to make myself brilliant. Just brilliant. Alas, it didn't work.

It's taken me years (yes, literally years) to get through this tome. If you asked me what it is all about, I couldn't tell you, Alfie.

I remain blitheringly stupid. That's why they make British baking shows, for dunces such as I. This should be part of a Marines-type training course for readers. Much admiration for those who I have always wanted to be brilliant. So this was the book I chose to make myself brilliant.

Just brilliant. Alas, it didn't work. It's taken me years (yes, literally years) to get through this tome. If you asked me what it is all about, I couldn't tell you, Alfie. I remain blitheringly stupid. That's why they make British baking shows, for dunces such as I. This should be part of a Marines-type training course for readers.

Much admiration for those who understand whatever the bloody hell it's telling you. Book Season = Year Round (still lost). Pretentious crap. Hofstadter is about as interesting and insightful as a 14-year-old stoner who got a hold of some of his dad's reference books. The actual content of this book could fit in under a hundred pages, but Hofstadter feels it necessary to pack on pages upon pages upon pages of barely-relevant filler, much of it apparently just to show off with the fact that he read some classical Greek poetry once.

To be fair, it is a very ambitious book, and one that could have turned out very interes Pretentious crap. Hofstadter is about as interesting and insightful as a 14-year-old stoner who got a hold of some of his dad's reference books.

The actual content of this book could fit in under a hundred pages, but Hofstadter feels it necessary to pack on pages upon pages upon pages of barely-relevant filler, much of it apparently just to show off with the fact that he read some classical Greek poetry once. To be fair, it is a very ambitious book, and one that could have turned out very interestingly, but it's also plainly obvious Hofstadter just wasn't up to the job. The whole thing is a massive (and I do mean that literally) waste of time, though since it does have a knack for making dumb people feel smart, it will undoubtedly appeal to the xkcd crowd. Even if none of them will ever actually finish the whole thing. Synopsis: Two books, interwoven. The first is a series of comedic dialogues in which characters created by engage in friendly battles of wit and skill, or just conversations, each dialogue being modeled after music by Johann Sebastian Bach.

The second is a prosaic exploration of the nature of artificial intelligence, self-reference, and free will. The two halves intertwine with eachother and refer to eachother.

This book was made with great care, and is a masterpiece. It is the most Synopsis: Two books, interwoven.

The first is a series of comedic dialogues in which characters created by engage in friendly battles of wit and skill, or just conversations, each dialogue being modeled after music by Johann Sebastian Bach. The second is a prosaic exploration of the nature of artificial intelligence, self-reference, and free will. The two halves intertwine with eachother and refer to eachother. This book was made with great care, and is a masterpiece. It is the most joyously creative written work I have ever encountered, overflowing with wit and wisdom. The ideas presented in this book, and the manner of their presentation, seems to always be present in my mind.

Disclaimers 1. There is a lot of detailed discussion and demonstration of computer science and formal logic in this book, including many formulas and symbols. This can be off-putting for those without inclanations towards logic or math. This is an epic book that covers an insane amount of ground. While covers that ground with astonishing clarity, it is still a long and winding journey, and requires quite a commitment.

Not a light read. This book will change the way you think about everything. Even the author has struggled to summarise what is the book about. In the broad sense, it is a classic on a theory of information and formal systems for the readers without particular special knowledge in the area.

It was written in the 70s, I think, and has won Pulitzer prize then. He approaches this subject from the variety of angles: logic, neuroscience, mathematics, music and visual art and finds a lot of analogies in these areas. The structure of the book is interesting: a chapter of a di Even the author has struggled to summarise what is the book about. In the broad sense, it is a classic on a theory of information and formal systems for the readers without particular special knowledge in the area. It was written in the 70s, I think, and has won Pulitzer prize then. He approaches this subject from the variety of angles: logic, neuroscience, mathematics, music and visual art and finds a lot of analogies in these areas. The structure of the book is interesting: a chapter of a dialogue (in a way of Socrates's tradition, i guess) is followed by the more technical chapter on the same subject.

I found some chapters more interesting than the other. For example, I liked his consideration of genetics. It is written from the logical and mathematical point of view and very lucid. However, his speculations about the possible boundaries of the artificial intelligence has left me cold (probably because I am not very interested in the subject).

Also the book is a little outdated - Ferma theorem, for example, has been proven by now. But it was great to be in the company of such a sparkling polymath and curious author.