What does /lit/ think about GEB?
Dunno; never read it. Anyone have an ePub of it? All I can find are PDFs.
I find it boring without much point other than just 'ooh look at this loop/paradox, cool amirite?'
Just rambles about those 3 guys plus alan turing. Might as well just read their biographies
do you really think any of the pseudo on /lit/ are capable of understanding its contents?
its basically a fluffed up 1000 page explanation of godel's incompleteness theorems.
i enjoyed it
>>7389394
>>7389386
>>7389172
>>7389168
learn emacs and understand macros/human-computer interaction
then understand the "read eval print" mechanism of lisp and recursive programming
then get a webcam on a long usb cable and record the live feed back into itself, adjusting the parameters until you get trippy graphics, tinker for infinite complexity
happy hacking
>>7389412
Dude loops lmao
>>7389416
dude philosophy linguistics and physics lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion#In_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
>>7389386
Do you think any psuedo /sci/fag is capable either?
I gave this book to my scientist father for his birthday thinking he'd like it, and he hasn't read a single page.
>>7389147
It's extremely stupid on multiple levels. The harmless stupidity is when he claims that a fugue is self-referential in the same way that an Escher-painting is self-referential (musical notes simply don't have a referential function in this way. The most you can do in terms of mimesis is 'this flute part sounds like a bird', or 'if you know that this piece is named for a river, it kinda sounds like one (very vaguely)'. Music simply doesn't work like that).
The more important stupidity is that he thinks strange loops are consciousness and thus a mathematical system which includes a strange loops is a consciousness. That is retarded both in relation to consciousness and in relation to the level on which symbolic concepts 'exist'.
>>7389168
There isn't one yet, the guy spent so much time on the lateX formatting he doesn't like the idea.
>>7389427
A few could with serious effort. Though most /sci/fags could not since a good chunk of that board is people baiting for homework answers.
It's the epitome of pop-sci, all style, no substance, and a bullshit pet theory snuck in among established theories. It's sad that people like >>7389427 think that concepts like regular languages, limits, Turing completeness and Gödel's incompleteness theorem are hard because they are badly explained using metaphors that make no sense.
passive-aggressive attempt at appropriating Godel for nefarious materialist ends
