Talk:Gödel, Escher, Bach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Important publication in mathematics?

I've reverted the addition of this book into Category: Important publication in mathematics. Although GEB could certainly be considered an "important publication", and it does indeed discuss a lot of mathematical concepts, I don't think it belongs in this category. It did not really have any significant impact on the world of mathematics (in the way that The Elements or Principia Mathematica did), as the book did not come up with any new mathematical ideas (this is not a failure of the book, of course - it was not attempting to do so). It would be most suitable to a category "Important Publications in Artificial Intelligence" if such a category existed. Category:Important publication in computer science could be acceptable, but even that might be pushing it. Keithmahoney 14:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

then please create sucha category fr storage, before you subtract an existing one.

[edit] Chinese

In the paragraph on translation, I don't see what "including Chinese" is doing there. Is the fact that it was translated into Chinese, as opposed to any other particluar language, relevant? I'd like to remove it, but I've been warned about removing information before. But I think irrelevant information should be removed. I suppose we could list every language that the book has been translated into, but who cares? That doesn't seem like the job of an encyclopedia. Lots of books have been translated into lots of languages, it's not our job to list them all. --GGano

I think the reason why Chinese was mentioned was because of the Chinese room argument. Hofstadter says the central idea of GEB is the idea of emergent intelligence, the Chinese room argument tries to dismiss the idea. The Chinese room argument is aimed at non-chinese readers, so to make it work for Chinese people you'd need to change the language to a different language - but then it wouldn't be a Chinese room! The fact that the book has been translated into Chinese could be argued is more interesting than the fact it's been translated into French - think about the themes of base versus ground and of strange loops. --Number 0 18:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you have read the book, and if you understand the problems of any translation, you will wonder how translation of this book is at all possible. And, obviously, translation into a remote language, belonging to a remote culture, is extremely difficult. Hofstadter discusses this in another book of his, Le Ton beau de Marot.
--S.
I have read the book, and I do wonder how translation of this book is at all possible. Therefore I'm not any more curious about the fact that it was translated into Chinese than any other language. In fact, as the article states, I'm more curious about how it was translated into French and other languages that appear in the book. (I don't remember any Chinese in it, but I could be wrong.) In any case, when I read that sentence, it isn't at all clear to me that "including Chinese" is there because Chinese is "a remote language, belonging to a remote culture," and so some people are more interested in the book's translation into Chinese than other languages. I think it should either be clarified or (preferably) removed. --GGano
I've read it in both English and French :-) --Tarquin 22:38 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
The book was originally thought to be nigh untranslateable (at least, impossible to translate really well). That it's been translated so many times in interesting in and of itself. The subtitle changes for each language, which is a sort of cunning wordplay in and of itself. (In Chinese, it's "Ji Yi Bi", meaning "Collection of Exquisite Jade", or so I'm told.) Note to self: look up alternate-language titles and make a new section on that. --grendel|khan 18:43, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Something about what Hofstader said in the 20th anniversary preface to do with gender and translation should possibly be mentioned. I don't have the book with me but the gist is that Hofstader regretted that all his characters were male and was pleased that in french "mr tortoise" became "madame tortue". Teutanic 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I quoted the preface concerning the Tortoise in the article, so that the translation section would be more balanced out. I also found that to be quite interesting, as a reader of the book in both French and English. 87.90.149.129 13:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Alexandra Sourisseau

[edit] Jean-Yves Girard

This text was added to the article recently:

  Mathematician Jean-Yves Girard criticized the book for being
  a "masterpiece of vulgarity". presenting Gödel's theorem as
  a kind of arcane curiosity in a move to impress to audience.

Where and when did he express that opinion? --Bevo 22:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read this thread on c2. It links to a paper which is in PostScript format, which I can't read right here, as a source. Numerous criticisms of the book are included; perhaps we could merge something in.
I had just read Le Ton Beau de Marot at one point, and was all fired up about machine translation. I spoke to a computer science professor of mine about some ideas I'd had, and she sort of looked down her nose at the idea that I'd been reading Hofstadter, saying that it was really a poor introduction to the idea of translation, and that AI was way ahead of what he'd said it was at the time of writing (the book includes some laughably bad SYSTRAN et al. output), and seemed quite... defensive. Is there something about Hoftstadter that threatens or insults academics?
There's also a lot of criticism of his prose, both below and on the c2 thread. While his work is admittedly dense, I really enjoy reading it. (He's the sort of author I'd read even if he were discussing tofu densities for six hundred pages.) That's a matter of taste, though. As with anything else non-bland, you can't please everyone. --grendel|khan 18:41, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
It was a required book when I studied Computer science at UCL. Mind you that was a little while ago :-) --Phil | Talk 10:56, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Over-rated

This book has got to be the most over-rated book of all time and in my opinion, the most nauseating piece of pseudo-intellectual ostentation ever written. -- --K1 07:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You've shared your opinion. So? --grendel|khan 18:35, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
I happen to thing it's the best book of all time. To each his own.
Yes, to each his own. I'm actually quite curious: which books are considered not nauseating by K1? --SaulPerdomo 15:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dialogue Characters

I admit it's been a few years since I last read this book, but I don't remember a Genie anywhere. I remember the Crab mentioning his Gene, during his speech in the middle of the Crab Canon. As far as other characters go, I remember an Anteater and a Sloth. Do I just need to read the book again? Is there a Genie I've forgotten? --Squidd 21:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Genie character occurs in the dialogue Little Harmonic Labyrinth. This is the fifth dialogue... the one that discusses "pushing", "popping", and "GOD". The Genie appears after Achilles is retrieved from the "hanging" lamp in an Escher drawing. Do you need to read the book again? If you enjoyed it the first time through. --laonoodlekeemow 08:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Right, right. I remember that now. I'd hardly call him one of the "main" characters, as the article does, but I don't think it's worth an edit.
I actually enjoyed the book the second time through, too--but that's not going to stop me from forgetting large portions of it. --Squidd 21:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Achilles

Going to remove the link to the Achilles article as it doesn't really add anything or to either article if I do. --Whispering 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC) disambiguation link repair (You can help!)


[edit] Hebrew Meaning

The phrase "Gödel Escher Bach" transliterated into Hebrew is

גדל אשר בך

which literally means "The greatness that is in you". I don't know if this was intentional or not, so I don't know whether I should add it to the article. It is a very interesting fact and I think it should be recognised in the page, but I don't know whereabouts to put it or how it should be put. Can someone with more wikipedia experience please place this fact somewhere where it will seem to flow naturally in the article --AndreRD 12:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a meaningless coincidence to me. How many foreign phrases come out as something meaningful in Hebrew when you transliterate them? What did you do with the vowels? If you asked a Hebrew speaker how to say "The greatness that is in you", would he pronounce the words "Gödel Escher Bach", or would there be a more natural way to say it? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hofstadter is a smart guy, but I think that is giving him too much credit. --maru (talk) contribs 19:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If a hebrew speaker were to say "the greatness that is in you", they would say "Gadal Asher Bach" which I think is close enough to "Gödel Escher Bach" to be taken notice of. I won't deny that it could be a co-incidence, but if it is then I see no reason not to put it on the page.--AndreRD 15:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's a coincidence, which it sounds like, then it certainly shouldn't go on the page because there are meaningless coincidences like it everywhere. Facts reported by an encyclopedia should be meaningful. Also, facts should be reported elsewhere so that they are verifiable - your observation seems like original research. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree - leave it out, unless there's some evidence that it's not just a coincidence. - DavidWBrooks 02:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This and the other discussions going on in this article appear to walk the razor's edge of "original research" and therefore the data seem (to me) to belong in the discussion section until someone publishes. It is unclear to me where the critical threshold lies whereby we could then edit the article to state "certain people have noted that..."dvd 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone should at least send Hofstadter a note about it, though; it seems like the sort of thing he'd find amusing. grendel|khan 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


I think this talk of "meaningless" coincidence is quite apt, given the central thesis of GEB... anyway, at least it's discussed here, if not in the main article. It's amused and delighted me. I suspect it's deliberate; one of the little unannounced puzzles and gems to be found all over the GEB work... Sinewalker (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Am A Strange Loop

Anyone heard any information about Hofstadter's new book I Am A Strange Loop? It seems to be a continuation of Godel Escher Bach. --24.125.103.109 05:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazon's editorial summary certainly makes it sound that way. --maru (talk) contribs 05:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost done reading it during my lunch-half-hours, and it's quite different from GEB -- though I'm 30 years older and more jaded. It's more of a discussion on the meaning of concsiousness and what he calls the soul. It's thought provoking, but not eye-opening like GEB was to me as I read it deep in the North Atlantic during the cold war. -- Nonenmac 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humorous self-referential bibliography entry?

There is an entry in the bibliography which is clearly intended to be a satirical self reference to the book itself. ("Copper, Silver, Gold: An Indestructable Metallic Alloy" or something similar...) I am not a big fan of giving a lot of content of the book in the article, but if any one piece of wordplay, self reference, metafiction or structural pun captures the spirit of these in the book as a whole, this reference is it. Also, as this is in the bibliography (which is quite extensive), most readers of the book are not likely aware of it.

What does anyone think about mentioning it? Baccyak4H 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Already an article on Egbert B. Gebstadter... AnonMoos 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Book Contents?

This article discusses a lot of meta-book (ha ha..:), talkign about structure, yet there's not ,much there about content or even a general overview..this article is seriously lacking.--Procrastinating@talk2me 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree; it gives a sufficient discussion of the content, for a book like this. We really don't need any of the tedious "and then the turtle talks to Achilles, and in the next chapter blah blah" that clutters up many wikipedia book articles. - DavidWBrooks 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The third paragraph provides the overview, the rest of the article specifics about the content. ∴ here…♠ 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the introduction

I would like to remove the phrase "A metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll" from the first bold sentence of the introduction, as I think it makes the intro hard to read. The discussion of this book seems like it could use some clarification and streamlining, which I will try my humble best to do shortly. Still, it's a neat phrase, and I don't exactly want to throw it out. I'm just not sure it would be best to put it in the opening sentence. I'm adding this note here as good faith to show I'm not trying to delete the phrase, I'm just unsure where to put it at the moment. --Culix 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the page a bit. I think this article might be better served discussing the overall themes and intent of the book rather than trying to list all of the topics individually. As I haven't finished the book yet, I'm not an ideal candidate to do that, so I'm going to do more reading before I do much more editing. --Culix 14:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty with trying to "discuss overall themes and intent" is that it's very easy to slip into Essay Land, full of review-style philosophizing about Hofstadter's thought process, which quickly descends into edit wars. Sticking to the individual topics may be less elegant but makes it easier to stay on the straight and narrow. That doesn't mean your approach is impossible, only that it's fraught with peril.
But, yeah, you probably should finish reading it first. - DavidWBrooks 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Good call. In the meantime I have done my best to clean things up and add references. Would anyone complain if I removed the "Needs Citations" template? --Culix 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error on italian word

The article refers to "signorina Tarturaga". The italian correct spelling is "signorina Tartaruga". I wonder if the mistake is in the book or it is only a mispelling of the editor of the english wikipedia article. In the second case, it should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.57.253.130 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2007

Good catch. The book correctly spells the word "Tartaruga". I have fixed the spelling. --Culix 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original reasearch

Please make text bazed on published reviews of the book. All unreferenced opinions will be deleted. `'Míkka 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference in the lead section

The lead section seems an inappropriate emphasis on the theme of 'self-reference' and states the matter in terms that seem far less subtle than is indicated by an impartial reading of the book itself. Moreover, the depth and scope of the book itself make this particular "interpretation" only one of infinitely many. Therefore, I request that the lead be reformed: 1) to rely more on language from the book itself about the scope, purpose, and interpretation of the book (yes, I am asking for more "self reference"); and 2) to suggest the breadth of subtlety of this book, without being so conclusory.

I'm going to modify the lead after I post this, but I post this in advance to explain my rationale, in case anyone wishes to object. dr.ef.tymac 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Hofstadter himself said in the introduction to I Am A Strange Loop that he wanted people to understand that GEB is primarily about self-reference. I quote from the preface of Strange Loop: "I started working on my first book, whote title I imagined would be "Godel's Theorem and the Human Brain", my overarching goal was to relate the cocept of human self and the mystery of consciousness to Godel's stunning discovery of a majestic wraparound self-referential structure." So thus discussing "self-reference" in the lead section is appropriate. This "particular interpretation" just happens to be the author's own, and I encourage you to read at least the intro to Strange Loop before rewriting the intro here. --JayHenry 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. That's all I am after, the author's own words. I was not protesting "self-reference" as a theme but rather the inappropriate emphasis placed on this theme by the exact wording of the lead section. For example:
   Strange loops are Hofstadter's attempt to explain how formal systems are 
   able to relate to or perceive themselves and thus become 
   self-aware.
Really? Does Hofstadter ever make this assertion directly (I mean within GEB, not his other works)? Sure, it's not an unreasonable conclusion that one can derive through examination, but is this an unambiguous conclusion that must be derived from a neutral reading of GEB itself? If yes, I recant, If not, it seems like an inappropriate and conclusory reliance on a theme from the book to make statements that are (deliberately) not entirely spelled out by the book itself. dr.ef.tymac 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the new lead section is an improvement, in my opinion. I was writing my comment on the talk page at the same time you were writing the new lead so I didn't see your revision when I made my comment. I was mostly just concerned that you might take out self-reference altogether, but the way it's handled in your new intro is quite appropriate. Cheers! --JayHenry 21:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxes?

Has anyone heard any claim that there are known hoaxes in GEB. Currently there is a discussion at Talk:PQ (logic).Gregbard 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)