Good bunch of books - all on a similar theme. Hofstadter is
amazing. Thinking Fast and Slow was good. Deutsch I like as a
person and his profession, although I haven't read this one, but
Tegmark is the only one I'd really put some criticism towards.
Minsky - I remember the name and I have a positive 'feel' for
him but I can't remember from what. I *think* I liked him. My
criticism of Tegmark is that everything's too neat and pat with
him. But the rest I like. == AH! Minsky - yes, Minsky. He
expanded complexity theory and came up with a good viable plan
of action towards a workable AI scheme. His ideas also lead well
into embodied cognition, which is a way of thinking that I like.
Ok, yes, I read him in college. Ok, yes, Minsky - I'm a fan. ==
Yeah, I studied Tegmark a year or two ago. Wrote some stuff
about it. The issue I have with Tegmark is that he's mistaking
the model for the thing itself. An artist can draw a realistic
person on a piece of paper. A person with a computer can
mathematically model a Universe. But neither is the drawing of
the person a person nor is the mathematical model of the
Universe a Universe. Math is an effective sketching tool but
it's sketching reality but it's not reality. == I'm just saying
by the definition he gave, that's what society is. Humans are a
collection of living machines that together create an organism
of its own and the name for that organism of comprised of humans
is a society. Minsky took it a step further and transferred it
into being possible for machines as well, using society as an
analogy for a kind of collective consciousness... sort of a
twist on the collective unconscious concept. It was a brilliant
step actually. == I never read either in full - but GEB if I
remember right was a very thick read, but strange loop is more
approachable, likely given the extra 20+ years he had inbetween
to be able to refine his thinking into an easier to digest way.
== Well, I'd put the basis to analogy instead of math, as the
alien has to analogize rocks to the abstract concept of number
and sameness. I think that's the distinction I'd make. But it's
a minor quibble I had/have with Sagan compared to the bulk of
everything he had to say. == Yeah you bring up a good point* : I
find it very helpful to read the critics when I am enjoying an
author or a concept. I don't think there's a concept out there
without some flaws, and it's good to know what the critics have
to say. They might have some things right. Maybe they're off
base. But I find a solid idea becomes more solid because while
the weak spots are exposed, the strong parts by comparison are
much much stronger because they withstood the
