Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.32 AVERAGE
4.32 AVERAGE
I am a college educated person with only a layman’s knowledge of math and science. I was determined to read all or most of this because it explored theories of artificial intelligence. Also I heard this book inspired the producer of the movie Inception.
What I enjoyed: the author’s use of the Greek question and answer writing technique to introduce main concepts. This also gave a break from the very dense text. His obvious love of classical music and his use of it to make points.
What I got from it: A birdseye view of how scientists theorize about the human brain versus the artificial brain. The word RECURSIVE. How recursive is through everything. How intelligence needs to include recursive ness. The idea of fractals explaining hiw life can be. Here is the end of my meager review. Take notes as you read.
What I enjoyed: the author’s use of the Greek question and answer writing technique to introduce main concepts. This also gave a break from the very dense text. His obvious love of classical music and his use of it to make points.
What I got from it: A birdseye view of how scientists theorize about the human brain versus the artificial brain. The word RECURSIVE. How recursive is through everything. How intelligence needs to include recursive ness. The idea of fractals explaining hiw life can be. Here is the end of my meager review. Take notes as you read.
challenging
funny
informative
slow-paced
Full disclosure: I didn’t quite make it to half way in my second reading of this book.
I remember liking this book but not quite getting it or reading it carefully enough. This time, I just find it a bit self-indulgent: there are some interesting ideas, but it takes him awhile to get there.
Either the book or I haven’t aged well. If you’re really interested in Godel’s proof of incompleteness, read the Nagel instead. It may take a few hacks, but I felt like I got it better than working through this on again.
I remember liking this book but not quite getting it or reading it carefully enough. This time, I just find it a bit self-indulgent: there are some interesting ideas, but it takes him awhile to get there.
Either the book or I haven’t aged well. If you’re really interested in Godel’s proof of incompleteness, read the Nagel instead. It may take a few hacks, but I felt like I got it better than working through this on again.
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".
No, Mr. 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).
No, Mr. 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).
Parts were fantastic, parts were boring, parts were confusing. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I understood more of it!
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
Douglas Hofstadter thinks he's so fucking clever
informative
slow-paced
I am not sure what to think. While I appreciate what Hofstadter is trying to do with his hypothesis, I am not sure if I agree with his proofs. He is trying to understand how from immaterial objects can consciousness arrise. He does this with number theory and loops, seeing brain and mind as hardware and software. The trouble is that in many places he is cutting corners to see things the way he wants. One place where he does this is how neural pathways work and how brain can reorganize itself even in his so called hardware side. But maybe I just misunderstood his arguments and he is speaking on the synapsis and chemical level, but even there learning and environment affects the pathways. But an interesting read, making me see language and mental syntaxes in his perspective. I don't feel he is far off with the loops and what might follow, (whole new intelligence being created), but this book doesn't proof it in the scientific sense. Not for me. This is a thought experiment and such it remains. An exciting one. If you are a masochist and love to consider how AI might come to be and maybe are excited about computer science and like logical syntax puzzles then, this is for you to torture yourself. Not an easy read, but not impossible.
Maybe I'll finish it in the future, but for now I'm incapable of comprehending the essense of this book