kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (03/16/86)
Therapy is like debugging the software. The debugger has to have a clean copy of the section of code being debugged. If they don't, the whole routine will look like noise, and they'll want to replace it with something more primitive. I've had quite a few psychologists try to regress me to a more backward version of the Operating System. But I eventually found a teacher who was way ahead of me, and with him I learned wonderful new concepts in survival strategy. Axelrod is on to some good theories. So is Hofstatder and Smullyan. --Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/18/86)
>Axelrod is on to >some good theories. So is Hofstatder and Smullyan. Ummm, what works of Smullyan are you refering to? I have about 5 of his books (one on formal logic, two on retrograde chess analysis, two on popularized logic {like What Is The Name Of This Book}). He also gave a talk in Berkeley a few years ago that I had the pleasure of hearing. Has he done some other work that I am not aware of? Also, I never took Hofstatder seriously after reading GEB. Was that a mistake? -Tom tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (03/19/86)
Tom Tedrick (Hi, Tom) perks up upon reading a recent posting of mine: >>Axelrod is on to >>some good theories. So is Hofstatder and Smullyan. [KORT] > >Ummm, what works of Smullyan are you refering to? I have >about 5 of his books (one on formal logic, two on retrograde >chess analysis, two on popularized logic {like What Is The Name >Of This Book}). He also gave a talk in Berkeley a few years ago >that I had the pleasure of hearing. > >Has he done some other work that I am not aware of? > >Also, I never took Hofstatder seriously after reading GEB. >Was that a mistake? > > -Tom > tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu > [Matthew, you may wish to tune out at this juncture.] Smullyan's latest book is on combinatorial logic. It's called, To Mock A Mockingbird. Smullyan also hopscotches the planet to bring us the world of Lao Tse in The Tao is Silent. If you read enough Smullyan, you begin to see where Hofstadter got much of his style and material. Meanwhile, Hofstadter, who is now Professor of Cognitive Science and Human Understanding at U Mich, has given us two more classics. The Mind's I, composed and arranged by Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, brings us to the frontiers of speculation about the mind. Hof has also compiled his Metamagical Themas into a book, with additional commentary plus some previously unpublished material. Hofstadter is whimsical in his imagery, but deadly serious in his quest for deeper understanding. He is basically a translator who takes arcane material and dresses it up for a larger audience. Hof is teaching us how to play, be creative, be entertaining, and learn to enjoy ourselves as we learn. I love him. --Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (03/19/86)
In article <12481@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >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. -- gregregreg
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/20/86)
> Smullyan's latest book is on combinatorial logic. It's called, To Mock A > Mockingbird. If you read enough Smullyan, you begin to see where > Hofstadter got much of his style and material. > > Meanwhile, Hofstadter, who is now Professor of Cognitive Science > and Human Understanding at U Mich, has given us two more classics. > The Mind's I, composed and arranged by Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, > brings us to the frontiers of speculation about the mind. Hof has > also compiled his Metamagical Themas into a book, with additional > commentary plus some previously unpublished material. > > Hofstadter is whimsical in his imagery, but deadly serious in his > quest for deeper understanding. He is basically a translator who > takes arcane material and dresses it up for a larger audience. > Hof is teaching us how to play, be creative, be entertaining, > and learn to enjoy ourselves as we learn. I love him. [KORTEX] At last, a major point of agreement between me and the llama-guy. Hofstadter's "World Views in Collision: Skeptical Inquirer vs. National Enquirer", found originally in SciAm and reproduced in "Metamagical Themas", should be required reading for every single high school student in America (and should be read by anyone already out of high school who hasn't already done so). One of the most exquisite exposes on the nature of knowledge and sham I have ever read. (Religionists especially should peruse this.) -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (03/30/86)
In article <2772@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >At last, a major point of agreement between me and the llama-guy. >Hofstadter's "World Views in Collision: Skeptical Inquirer vs. National >Enquirer", found originally in SciAm and reproduced in "Metamagical >Themas", should be required reading for every single high school student >in America (and should be read by anyone already out of high school >who hasn't already done so). One of the most exquisite exposes on the >nature of knowledge and sham I have ever read. (Religionists especially >should peruse this.) If one argues with fools too much, one runs the risk of becoming a fool oneself. I might add that Mr. Rosen seems to be more in need of this advice than does Mr. Hofstadter. -- gregregreg