Thoughts?
I am a strange loop is better
popsci meme book
the book spends a long time explaining ai, basic cell biology/dna, basic logic, etc and basically 800 pages of this masturbatory conjecture amounts to little more than
>paradoxes exist
>>8105884
Why? Not OP but I have limited time and don't want to read 1,000s of pages if not necessary.
I have a background in math logic already.
>>8105911
I am a strange loop is basically "what I tried to say with GEB that you people didn't understand, with less programming bullshit and more <what's the meaning of life>"
G.E.B. touches everything, and it's very interesting, but at the same time it doesn't really address many doubts as it should, and in the end many of the examples are... outdated.
I am a strange loop is almost a revision to make a better G.E.B., point is, his wife died before he wrote the book, so he gives also his philosophical poin of view about the life itself.
(furthermore, yes, free will is a myth)
>>8105911
>have limited time
>farts around at 4chan
>>8105946
Sad to his about his wife. I actually have 'I am a strange loop' on my bookshelf but never cracked it open because I intended to read GEB first. Now I'll check it out.
I'm more interested in a book that ties logic to category theory.
>>8105839
meme tier
>try really hard to read GEB
>wade through '''''''''''''''whimsical Carrolian dialogues''''''''''''''''''''''''''
>get to the chapter about "Typographical number theory"
>mfw
I suppose books like these are fine if you have the energy to read them but when I come home tired from a day at work I just cannot summon the fortitude to read the logic bits, maybe I'm just too stupid for it.
>>8105969
then leave it on the bookshelf
not that anon but I read it and it's pretty annoyingly popsci/toned down -- if you already have an actual education (if you're talking about category theory, I'm assuming you do) and want something genuinely edifying, look elsewhere
[spoiler]although full disclosure I didn't finish it so maybe it gets more serious towards the end?[/spoiler]
>>8106063
>>[spoiler]although full disclosure I didn't finish it so maybe it gets more serious towards the end?[/spoiler]
there are literally many pages about the mathematical proof
>>8106063
OK. Thanks. At most I'll skim through it. But I'd rather focus on other things. Thanks man!
>>8105988
op here
im lucky to have a job where i literally do nothing, so i spend my time reading such books and studying various things
>>8105839
It's pop-math that pretends to not be pop-math by muddling around in philosophizing about foundations for several hundred pages
It's alright.
It has some serious flaws, like being too fucking long, being pretty outdated in the AI bits and just going off the fucking rails without much coherence at the end. However I think the first part about the different aspects of Gödel's theorem and similarly occuring themes with Escher and Bach is really well done and is very useful to when trying to explain the severity of the theorem to non mathematicians.
>>8105884
I agree with this.
IAASL is more focused and personal. GEB is a good book and can be really fun to read if you aren't already educated about its topics, but it's definitely "lighter" in both content and tone to me.
I remember GEB as "oh, that was fun to read at parts," while I recall IAASL as "oh, he made some actually good points in there." If you like Hofstadter, you might as well read both. Certainly neither is a waste of time, although you have permission to skip things in GEB if you already know what they are
>>8105988
in my case it was the other way around. I never skip around so I had to endure reading achilles and the tortoise (which sometimes were fun, granted), but it was often reallly long just to demonstrate something as simple as recursion, all before I could get to the more interesting explanations of Godel's theorem and such.
OP it's p good, I really just read the first half, the second half goes deep into considering artificial intelligence as a possibility and it gets too annoying and philosophical. The first part has nice explanation (popsci tier) of some interesting concepts, my favorites of which are Godels numbering and the incompleteness theorem, and an interesting thought experiment about ants and anthills
>>8105839
Didn't find it particularly interesting on a mathematical/scientific or philosophical level. Kind of fun to read, though. You won't learn anything substantial from it, but it's more interesting to read than most pop-sci, pop-math, or pop-philosophy trash.
>>8105839
How does this compare to The Emperor's New Mind?
How about this one? I heard about it here on /sci/, but I don't know if I should even bother.
>>8105839
good read for highschoolers and non-STEM majors
meh read for STEM majors
>>8105988
You shouldn't read books like this. You're a dumb weeaboo.
