[chanakya]

I have to say I'm very surprised at how few people here seem to have liked the book. Going by my experience, I would have expected that HN readers would have thoroughly enjoyed it.

I first read it about 25 years ago, and while I didn't understand much of its philosophical arguments, I remember the experience as a sheer delight. Since then, i've read it at least twice more, and enjoyed it every time ( and understood it better):

- It's the best explanation by far (for a non-mathematical reader) of Godel's theorem and its philosophical implications.

- It's a theory about what is consciousness and how it arises, but unlike most such discussions, genuinely interesting and even playful.

- It's an argument for what is called 'strong AI'. Given the author's view of consciousness, he makes a strong argument for why he believes conscious computer programs are possible.

- It's a great introduction (again for the math-challenged) to formal systems, mathematical proofs, and what was called the Entschiedungsproblem (who can resist finding out what a word like that means?) :-)

- It's tantalizing glimpses of the world of western classical music and painting and some interesting parallels he draws between them and his theory of consciousness.

- It's a set of delightful dialogs (in the style of Lewis Carroll) about all the above.

For me, it was one of my formative experiences, and the one thing I got from it at the time was that there was more to computers than writing Pascal programs. It helped that I came to this book as the proverbial tabula rasa, knowing nothing about classical music, painting, formal systems or philosophy for that matter, but I really think most people here, even those who know a lot about these things, will enjoy and learn from it.    

[kevbin]

Gödel, Escher, Bach is a prog rock concept album: 70s, deeply focused on consciousness, indulgent, holistic/synthetic, great displays of technical virtuosity, three-letter acronym, umlaut. Even if you love it, were changed by it, hear selections from it in your head, you keep it a little on the down low because it is so far from the mainstream notion of cool, acceptable. Occasionally, you find a fellow traveller and you share some guilty passion for its awesomeness, like you would for Rush's Hemispheres or Genesis' Lamb Lays Down... Back at the farm you've got to fall in line, claim allegiance to the essentialist raw power of K&R, the baroque symphonies of Don Knuth, and the chart-topping successes on Tim O'Reilly's Top 40. When you're alone, lounging in your earth chair, you slip on your headphones, crank-up your stereo hi-fi, pop in your GEB 8-track, and you're gone...

[scrame]

Holy shit, you nailed it. Now I'm thinking of Metamagical Themas as an early 80's new wave album.

(And GEB is all about barouque symphonies and Don Knuth)

[michael_dorfman]

As Shakespeare says, "the readiness is all." It's one of those books that needs to find you at the right moment-- if you are not ready for it, some of it can seem like an odd mix of nonsense and hard work. If, on the other hand, you come to it after an advanced education in many of the topics, you might find it slight.

I re-read it, and Metamagical Themas a couple years ago, and was pleased to find how well it held up after all these years. Some books that are mind-opening when we read them as teenagers seem awfully thin decades later (yes, I'm looking at you, Robert Pirsig.)

[kevbin]

Totally agree about GEB. But I never understood what I was supposed to get out of Pirsig's Zen and the Art of... I always felt like I was missing something that everyone else connected with. Do you remember what you connected with in it?

[michael_dorfman]

I was a young teenager when I read it, and had not yet read Plato, Aristotle, or any Zen, so it was a nice eye-opener, but quickly superseded.

I'm guessing "The Matrix" played a similar role for a more recent generation. If you haven't been previously exposed to Philosophy 101, I'm sure it seems pretty profound.

[baddox]

I agree with his argument for strong AI. However, I find his argument for its possibility pretty unsatisfying. He basically just says that since humans are incomplete (like any formal system), we should be able to simulate it in hardware or software. I do believe that, but I don't find it very persuasive. What if our minds are such a tangled hierarchy that our own minds can't ever untangle it? I don't think that's true, but I tend to cringe when he expresses such optimism, optimism which is still largely unrealized after 30 years of AI winter.

That said, I absolutely love the book.

[gnaffle]

Same here. I got it as a present from a friend. It took me about three years to read it. It's a long time ago and I really should read it again.

[scrame]

Same here, I've ended up buying the book about 4 times now, from random mishaps or just giving my current copy to a friend. I've tried at times to get almost everyone I know to read it, regardless of their backgrounds (usually not math/science types) and always like seeing people go a little crazy just thinking through it or trying to explain it to other people.