Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

This book has a preface by the author. After twenty (20) or so pages, I was thinking, "Can I understand what he wrote about in the rest of this book?" but I persevered and read the whole book. This book is intense, like any philosophical book. His motive is to "suggest ways of reconciling the software of the mind with the hardware of brain" and that is quite an endeavor he succeeds at, sort of. No wonder he won the Pulitzer prize for this book. He talks of how he came to write and develop the book, and then, upon preparing for republication, he decides to not redo the book: it is what it is, from back then, any addition or correction would create a new book, and it can been seen every so often he imagines some stuff that we use daily, like spell correction, that were just not available back then. If he was to do that, he might as well write a whole new book, and that was not in the cards, nor was it the purpose of the new edition. Gödel goosed him to realize the notions he writes about, but Escher and Bach represent examples of what Gödel was writing and he is thinking about. As you read the introduction you realize this is one educated and well rounded fellow. He describes the development of Bach's preludes and fugues like a music teacher (I realized that I have a recording of Wanda Landowsky playing "The Well-Tempered Clavier" Book 1, preludes and fugues, but that did not help me understand as you will see). Bach worked up various themes and notions through his music and than then did some fancy finagling and out came some thing wild and crazy wonderful. I listened to the recording I have to no avail. This is something you get to know by playing and playing the tunes, a lot, for yourself, but Mr. Hofstadter's exposition explains what is what for you. Escher is easier (visual experiences are more important or easier to comprehend than aural experiences). The pictures are presented as examples of repetition or growth from one thing into another. The idea of repeating or self-reference is important: it is one thing that computers do not do. We can do imagining things as well, but at a more basic level we self-reference creating a hump of ability that computers have to accomplish if they are to get to be self aware or intelligent. As he said, he wants to understand the hardware of the brain, but in comparison, computers are simpler, but getting more complicated. He is working from the bottom up with computers: machine language, assembly, programing languages, etc. Fro our brains he is working from the top down, trying to see how the thoughts (software) we think get from one point to another. It is difficult because we do not have access to the basic growth of each thought (neurons firing). Logic tries, yet, as that one guy two (2) or three (3) thousand years ago said, "All I know is that I do not know anything." Mr. Hofstadter just comes to that thought in another roundabout way. I kept thinking of sex deviants doing what they do and that if we could look into their heads, we would be hard pressed to see where the impetus for their deviant behavior comes from, how it develops or why they do it. It is somewhere in there, but the thoughts (software) are so complicated that we can not see how it develops into what is expressed. I also think of how we all speak. We talk without thinking (something I am accused of constantly and embarrassingly), but in reality we just do not follow the thought process from what we hear and see, etc., to what we think of it, to what we will say, to saying it. Another thought is what is happening in the brains of mediators, you know, those Zen folks who quiet the mind, what is happening in there then? The mind is just amazing in what it does. Throughout this book Mr. Hofstadter writes of the mind and the brain like a psychologist, how it works and what it does. He also delves into genetics. His forte is math and all its intricacies. He develops a couple of different math models to illustrate Gödel's incompleteness theorem. The logic starts out straight forward enough, then veers off into some esoteric realm where the notion of paradox lives, and this is where we have to develop our math notions. We can study the properties of prime numbers or infinities, but we always must end up knowing we do not know everything, because our logic can not encompass paradoxes, and they will be somewhere in all we do, or something like that. As you can see, I was not able to understand his math models, but I think I got the jist of it. This book reminds me of another book published in 1978, "The Seven Mysteries of Life" by Guy Murchie. It is amazing that they talk of the same things in the same way and for the same reasons. Though this is a treatise on computers and artificial intelligence, and the other is a religious book, sort of, about the awesomeness of life. As for the artificial intelligence aspect, I like his development towards that goal, but, and I find no fault in the imagining of it, I am disappointed that computers will just be like us. It will not create a Spock like machine, or what science fiction has led us to hope for (see Isaac Asimov, "I, Robot" etc.). I did like his notion of combining genotypes to create new genes, but I am a guy and I like that sort of stuff. I find that I agree with someone who said, "There are much more fun ways to create intelligence, and it is not artificial." If artificial intelligence is not going to be all that great, it is only good to try to develop it for the exercise and the experience it will give us, but otherwise, eh, no big deal.

GEB: EGB is basically an exploration of the idea of intelligence, artificial and otherwise. Hofstader's goal is to shed some light on how intelligence / consciousness / self-awareness happens. I would call him a materialist, in the sense that he believes that there is a physical basis for thoughts, feelings and emotions. He is dismissive of "soulists," who believe that there is some sort of inexplicable metaphysical aspect to consciousness. The question, in Hofstader's mind, is, "If the human brain is made of essentially the same stuff as a kitchen table or a pocket calculator or a tree, why does the first have a sense of of self -- of being an 'I' -- whereas the others do not? Hofstader explores how physical activity in the brain, which seems completely mechanistic and completely unlike the process of thought that we experience, can in fact give rise to a qualitatively different sort of activity occurring at the "higher levels" of the brain. He gives several examples of such systems, such as an ant colony: the individual ants are stupid, acting in response to basic stimula, but the colony as a whole is much smarter. This kind of qualitative difference between the different levels of a system is key to Hofstader's thesis that critics of the possibility of artificial intelligence have misinterpreted the implications of such limitative notions as Godel's theorem. Godel's theorem states, in essence, that any sufficiently powerful system will contain truths that are not provable within the system. The problem with computers, these critics charge, is that they are stuck within a particular system -- there is no way to program them to realize that there is no solution to a particular problem within the system, even though such a fact would be perfectly obvious to an intelligent person who can "jump out of the system." So the computer is stuck trying to solve the problem with a method that is doomed to fail. Hofstader argues, on the other hand, that there is nothing magical about being able to jump out of the system and reflect on whether it is the appropriate system to be using. In fact, in doing this one is still "in" a system -- it's just a bigger system, one that has the ability to think about lower level systems. And one can jump out of that top level system and reflect on it as well -- but then of course one has entered a new system again. There's always another system, at a higher level, no matter how high up you go. At a certain point these levels blur together, because they are recursive -- meaning they reflect back on themselves. Hofstader uses the works of Escher and Bach to illustrate the concept of recursivity. For example, there is Escher's stairway that goes up and up until you are back where you started, or the two hands, each of which is drawing the other. Hofstader believes that self-awareness -- the "I" -- arises from this kind of recursivity. To put it very simply, at the highest levels the brain is a system that deals with symbols, and the "I" is the symbol for the system itself. There is much, much more to this book. There are lengthy tangents into mathematics, philosophy, biology (the section about the recursion that takes place in the copying of DNA is particularly fascination), etc. Thankfully the book is organized into sections that alternate between straight exposition of some concept and a fictional dialogue that illustrates the concept. Still, it's not light reading, and I did wish at points that there was a Reader's Digest version that would just give me the main points without going off on a tangent for 30 pages about wasps or something. Godel, Escher, Bach made me rethink a lot of my preconceptions about consciousness and artificial intelligence, and is well worth reading the next time you have three months to spare.

Not for beginners ... it requires pateince dedication and time

A good book

Il faut avoir un bon sens de mathématiques et de l'anglais pour apprécier les phrases super-bien construites. Si c'est le cas ce livre est un bijou sans comparaison. Les paradoxes mathématiques inhérent dans la langue même dont on décrit la mathématique est clairement mis en avant. Et les liens avec l'art, que ça soit les dessins paradoxaux d'Escher ou la musique auto-référente de Bach, sont captivants.

It's amazing how much one can get out of this book. It covers pretty much everything... like all things. While I don't agree with everything in there, it's very fascinating and a fun read. It's one of those books where you can flip to any page and find a fantastic little gem. In saying that though you will want to read it cover to cover, as you can lose a bit of context jumping around. It's a book that tends to be recommended a lot to programmers, but I bought it for my wife when she was studying psychology and she loved it!

Livro em ótimas condições