What is Veeky Forums's stance on pic mentioned?

What is Veeky Forums's stance on pic mentioned?

Attached: GEB.jpg (300x168, 4K)

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.c2.com/?JeanYvesGirardOnGoedelEscherBach
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Stupid

Nice laity book on the mathematics of formal systems. I appreciated the links between Escher, Gödel, and Bach. Though, I read the first part and when straight to Gödel.

I dunno. Haven't read it. I'll get around to it at some point, but right no am very much enjoying researching synthetical mathematical proofs.

Thanks for the blog entry.

I assumed this was a mathematical thread, so I posted something related to mathematical literature, since this is Veeky Forums

Autism inducing

My favourite book. Doesn't get you a lot of cred on Veeky Forums though. "I Am A Strange Loop" is a better presentation of his thoughts on consciousness and godel's stuff, but GEB is just such a satisfying read with all the digressions and word play and analogy.

I can never imagine the appeal of such a book. And, don't think otherwise, my imagination is huge—I'm not STEM after all.

>STEM
I don't get this meme.

I read mathematics, differential economics, and political philosophy. Where does this put me?

It used to be called SMET.

That tells you literally everything you need to know.

Probably STEM, but you'd need to be in school for that sort of thing.

>you'd need to be in school for that sort of thing.
Bullshit. Absolute horsecrap. The coolest people study mathematics outside of school, because they have a real passion for it.

I read primary texts from people who write books on economics. I read ancient mathematics texts, ancient physics. Modern mathematics too sometimes.

My point is, read whatever you want, it's all literature in the end.

if you study STEM for a living or for school you are STEM if you are an autodidact then that’s fine. STEMniggers are such because they can’t think for themselves and are pure autism beyond redemption. that’s it. we shit on them because they have bad taste, piss poor diction and horrendous sense of ethics

>Bullshit. Absolute horsecrap.
No, for STEM to apply. See break it down.

No, I understand. STEM is a meme that needs to go.

I agree that people who only study STEM for school and for their jobs shouldn't be called intellectuals. But the people who study it because they enjoy it or at least genuinely enjoy learning more about it should be praised.

I find mathematics, and geometry fascinating. To the level of it being a science.

STEM does not need to go. Don't be an idiot, and no one's gonna call you STEM.

this i like scientists, enginwers, mathematicians and the cs nerds, that’s all fine. they just shouldn’t be allowed to control discourse or negate the humanities and turn our world into factorio

it's possibly the perfect book to get one interested in philosophy, although a lot of his positions are not tenable in the big picture

Not good.
wiki.c2.com/?JeanYvesGirardOnGoedelEscherBach

...did you actually read the page you linked?

And while the book's certainly not beyond criticism,
>The implicit message is clear: Goedel's theorem is an artificial, unnatural result, which cannot alter the triumphant march of positive science.
is not the what the book's trying to say at all.

You didn't read the entire page.

I did, it's just a bunch of back and forth discussion sparked by Girard's take. It doesn't land decisively in his favor.

I meant the whole page as criticism against GEB, not just Girard's. It's an ok book for fun facts and puzzles. But his philosophy on how animate comes from inanimate (the whole point of the book) isn't really good.

>But his philosophy on how animate comes from inanimate (the whole point of the book) isn't really good.

If we're specifically talking about 'consciousness', then yes, I actually agree with you. But at the same time, the criticisms given are poor and miss the aim of the book. He uses Godel to illustrate the idea of systems where the shear possibility of particular kinds of self reference necessarily implies certain things will necessarily result. This is the coer of what he's trying to get at.

The issue I have with him is that he correctly identifies a prerequisite for cybernetic/ego based cognition (i.e. self-aware waking conscious states), but fails to demonstrate that this is identical with consciousness in general (i.e. experiences of qualia, spontaneous thought).

jesus all the retards in this thread saying the book is about math.
it is about consciousness and what gives rise to it.

GEB is a fun book but Hofstadter is a little too pleased with himself, given that he hasn't actually made any stunning breakthroughs; he's just presented a problem and described a possible way of thinking about it.

That said, I think that self-reference might well be very intimately tied up with consciousness. You get a simple algorithm that solves problems mechanically, and you somehow get it to consider its own workings, and look - nothing up my sleeves - but KAPOW, self-awareness.

Maybe.

>Hurr guys I listen to Bach hurr
But the dialogues are great

I found it to be altogether rather... elementary. Read it between the ages of 12 and 16 but not thereafter.

Yes, the Bach parts are the least relevant to the rest of the material.

What am I if I study mathematics at uni, despise engineering and practical applications of science (they are obviously useful, but not my passion) but read a lot of classics and non-fiction books and have deep interests in philosophy?

What book are you guys talking about? That pic confuses me. Is it called EG?

on the virgin lot

In reading this at the moment, I've studied philosophy of mind and am currently studying cognitive neuroscience so I get the feeling it's gonna seem silly and out of date by the time I'm done.

It's just a bunch of stories at its heart. The "This is a statement of my religion" comment right at the beginning sets the tone perfectly. At 28, Hofstadter knew how little he understood about what we understand, but also knew that there is value in saying what we know.

Attached: water.png (431x506, 365K)

Dennett's new one is good for that. He's ignorant about memes but he does far less handwaving in BBB than he has ever had to in the past.

GEB is one of the books you can use to help get people into the field. But it's often referenced in conversation as its often a common ground for the different branches from which people from on the meta and hard problems.

godel escher and bach


the B is on the floor

A dude who likes to read stuff

Then you're in the "I desperately need your approval guys, notice meee!" camp.

>STEMniggers are such because they can’t think for themselves
This isn't a quality exclusive to people who study STEM. I've met plenty of people who study humanities and spend all their time reading YA fiction while complaining that cannon literature is racist/sexist and "out of date." The sad truth is that most fields of study are populated by drones

Great introduction to computational theory and some higher level maths. Not as groundbreaking as some people think, though. Just a fun book to broach complex topics.

>STEMniggers are such because they can’t think for themselves and are pure autism beyond redemption. that’s it. we shit on them because they have bad taste, piss poor diction and horrendous sense of ethics
Why is it almost always the exact opposite, then? Few outside of STEM can actually be called educated, intelligent, and thoughtful.

People start it, not many finish it. Metamagical Themas is a collection of his Scientific American columns that is an easier place to start.

>STEMniggers are such because they can’t think for themselves
Just try arguing with the average non-stem fag and he'll just recycled what he read in the last year. I've had a philosophy major say evolution is stupid just because he read Schopenhauer a few weeks back.