Have any of you actually read this? and why?
I'm a few chapters in, and I expected complete bullshit math theory, but it's actually one of the better philosophy books I've read
>>8144498
>Have any of you actually read this? and why?
Yeah I've read it entirely once, then gone back and read significant portions here and there.
Why? I thought it was going to have a lot more "actual" mathematics, and I was about to go for my BS in math. Still I kept reading after I realized there wasn't a ton of math.
It gets shit on a lot but it's a very fun book. I don't think you're supposed to take it very seriously. It's a lighthearted philosophical romp that's supposed to get you to think, and expose you to some cool ideas, good music, neat pictures, funny dialogues, etc.
You can read it without thinking he's right about every assertion he makes, which is something the reddit crowd doesn't get.
>>8144498
I get through like half of it each time and then realize that its basically a watered down version of my undergrad theoretical CS class. Read QC since democritus (scott aaranson) if you want a rigorous, and arguably more fun read.
read I am a strange loop, is better if you like the philosophy parts
>>8144770
You mean the book that was literally made for those too dumb for GEB?
>>8144519
ayyyyyyy lmao.
really though GEB was written for the layperson.
I started reading it awhile back but the preface wore me out. It was so indulgent.
>>8144911
>It was so indulgent.
That's why it's fun.
