ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (03/21/86)
>>Also, I never took Hofstatder seriously after reading GEB. >>Was that a mistake? >> >> -Tom >> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu > >No, it wasn't. If you think GEB is bad, take a look at how Hofstatder handled >the Prisoner's Dilemma (the non-iterative one) in Mathemagical Themas in >Scientific American. Hofstatder apparently decided that his own philosophical >meanderings were mathematically more correct than basic game theory. Also, >a friend of mine read "The Mind's I", and said that it only repeated parts of >GEB. I happened to go to one of his talks freshman year, and he again re- >peated parts of GEB - greg Regardless of one's opinions of Hofstatder, he is to be praised for popularizing the work of Goedel, Turing, Quine, etc.. In 1975, who could have guessed that Goedel's work would finally achieve the same kind of intense pop-cult adulation (and misinterpretation) as, say, that of Einstein? Inevitably, those who are spurred on to the writings of, for instance, Quine or Russell, will discover that Hofstatder pales in comparision, in style, intelligence, creativity. Against such unfair competition, what else could we expect? "Mind's I", by the way, is not supposed to be original. It is a compilation which includes many popular authors, including Dennett, Smullyan, Searle being clever. This book is a fairly accessible introduction to different points of view about mind, although Hofstatder's rabid scientismical bias becomes pretty evident in his commentaries. Metamagical Themas strikes me as largely a rearguard defense of themes presented in GEB, wasting much effort on unconvincing attacks directed against `the enemy' (Searle). Turing machine functionalists should find this book reassuring. Sadly, Hofstatder seems to have become little more than a mouthpiece for computer science types who seem to be unaware that the good old days of physical realism, causal determinism, and strong objectivity are history. There is no place for mind, much less free will, in Hofstatder's world. This is no criticism -- regardless of my (rabid mentalist) bias, I urge all who are interested in the philosophy of mind to check out the fascinating work of high class anti-mentalists like Rorty, Quine, Feyerabend. Perhaps my worst difficulty with Hofstatder is his flimsy (and convenient) incorporation of the no-mind aspect of Zen while remaining thoroughly attached to an occultist materialism addicted to a pin ball universe. To his credit, he tried, I suppose. -michael Realism is linked with rationalism, with the reality of the human mind, of human creativity, and of human suffering. - Karl Popper
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/28/86)
In article <155@spar.UUCP>, ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > "Mind's I", by the way, is not supposed to be original. It is a > compilation which includes many popular authors, including Dennett, > Smullyan, Searle being clever. This book is a fairly accessible > introduction to different points of view about mind, although > Hofstatder's rabid scientismical bias becomes pretty evident in his > commentaries. > > Metamagical Themas strikes me as largely a rearguard defense of themes > presented in GEB, wasting much effort on unconvincing attacks directed > against `the enemy' (Searle). Turing machine functionalists should find > this book reassuring. Sadly, Hofstatder seems to have become little > more than a mouthpiece for computer science types who seem to be > unaware that the good old days of physical realism, causal determinism, > and strong objectivity are history. Right on, and they don't know that all that history has been rewritten by those of us who recognize the supremisy of the subjective Eastern mind over the arrogance of the dogmatic Western mind. Their scientismatistical bais shows thru as clear as mud. And everyone knows that bais alone is enough to toss their ridiculous Western scientific thoeries in the garbage can. Those "good old days" in which those dogmaticalists use to tell us that our personal beliefs were bunko just because we couldn't verify them using their stupid scientific methods are OVER! You are right about these dogmatic Western types needing to read up on the works of some of these modern philosophers who know the real truth. Pete has often mentioned Carl "Pop" Firebrand as a leader of new ways of thinking, totally alein to tthe old ways involving using the brain and stuff. I incourage everyone to learn the truth from today's modern philosophers. Oh, ya, by the way, I read your Organization name is Schlumberger Artifical Research. What sort of Artifical Research do you do, man? -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr) (Public Access Un*x - The Soup Kitchen)
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/29/86)
In article <434@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > [ ... much sarcasm about ... ] the supremisy of the subjective > Eastern mind over the arrogance of the dogmatic Western mind. Listen, you jerk, would you stop talking about the Eastern mind, damnit! I've been there and the supreme value of the Eastern mind seems to be acquiring as much materialistic Western trash as they can grab ahold of. Why don't you try something like "Germanic intuition" instead, like your buddy Hitler did. He was the one who said "We don't need the Jews and their scientists with their Jewish physics. We can do without physics for the first 100 years of our thousand year Reich."
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (04/03/86)
In article <434@unirot.UUCP>, cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > Oh, ya, by the way, I read your Organization name is Schlumberger Artifical > Research. What sort of Artifical Research do you do, man? The taste test shows that Artificial Research is indistinguishable from the real thing. Peter Ladkin