Live data from Hacker News

Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

blog.infinitenegativeutility.com

151–160 of 348 posts

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#151
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pigs are awesome and most of them (all except for wild boar) would not be around if not for us eating them. We should strive for avoiding unnecessary hardship and unsustainably high numbers, not for extermination through total disuse.

Is it such a great thing to be born that we are doing something good for certain pigs by causing them to come into existence?

Ending all life would end all suffering, it's one of those dangerous philosophical ideas we prefer not to think about to often. The other extreme would be "every sperm is sacred" and I firmly believe that both should be avoided, but only for pigs.

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#152
I could have plenty of other critiques (and share some of OP's), but I had no problem with the record-player metaphor, I found it pretty apt.

The very physical/analog nature of a record player makes it not hard for me to imagine a record designed to break a player, one can totally imagine one whose grooves jostle the arm so much it breaks (no idea if this is actually practical, it doesn't really matter).

I wonder if it doesn't work anymore now that fewer people have experienced a record player, although the author DID say he encountered it first 20 years ago and had trouble with it then, I dunno.

> can the problem of record-player-breaking-records be suitably addressed by redesigning record-players? If no, why not? What if we simply read the information from a record using a visual device with no moving parts?

Dude, it's a metaphor/analogy, it's not that hard to realize taking it that literally takes you out of it. No analogy can ever be carried to it's end and still be a good analogy or metaphor. That's why it's an analogy, not the thing analogized. (which is a lesson that is (ironically? intentionally?) consistent with the messages of GEB? The map is not the territory.)

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#153
There's a discussion in GEB about mystery/detective novels, and how the physical fact of seeing that you're near the end of the book leaks information about the state of the plot to you.

He muses - what if you inserted some number of blank pages at the end, so you weren't sure where the end was? But no, that's too easy - you might flip through and see them. What about Lorem Ipsum text? Well, that's better, but still obvious.

What you really need to do is pad out the book with text that looks as much as possible like the real book, but isn't.

And then one reads the latter parts of GEB, and you start wondering...

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#154
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a vegan, but his consciousness cone is something I seem to bring up frequently with people. Usually by the end of the conversation I don't quite know why I'm not vegan aside from habit. Last time I brought it up I was eating sushi and talking about how I had decided to quit eating cephalopods because they might be smarter than humans... But then ate pork belly and just didn't really know what I stood for any…

Pigs are awesome and most of them (all except for wild boar) would not be around if not for us eating them. We should strive for avoiding unnecessary hardship and unsustainably high numbers, not for extermination through total disuse.

I agree with you we should strive to avoid unnecessary hardship. Everything dies, and a life that ends with humane[0] slaughter is not necessarily one that wasn't worth living.

However I suspect we agree some lives are so filled with suffering that the compassionate choice is to not breed a sentient being into that life. Imagine choosing to get pregnant if you had certain evidence it'd damn your future child to a life of physical and mental anguish -- you'd refuse. That's the life of pigs and chickens on modern farms: too much suffering[1], below the threshold of "worth living."

Moreover, the state of the animal welfare movement is bleak[2] compared to the scope. Farm animal advocacy is a niche and regularly ridiculed. Progress is constantly on shaky ground: recent initiatives in MA and CA prohibiting animal products from animals raised in cages too small to turn around in is at serious risk of being overturned by the federal government's "King amendment," which would prevent any state-based welfare reforms. I'm passionately in support of this work, but under no delusion we're near the end of it.

Given that, the strategy I advocate for is both improved treatment of farm animals and reduced breeding of them -- at least until farm animal treatment improves. Hoping that treatment will catch up soon so that it'll obviate the need for dietary change is unrealistic today, though I sincerely hope (and will support those trying) to get there[3].

[0] Caveat that slaughter today is not always humane, in particular for chickens and fish.

[1] E.g. gestation crates and lifetime of small cages, genetic breeding that causes chickens to grow so fast they break their own legs, debeaking practices, and more.

[2] Progress is happening, and in fact the wins we've had are hugely beneficial to animals -- but I suspect decades before we're at "enough" of an improvement. Within that time billions of animals will be raised and slaughtered for food; the scale is hard to fathom.

[3] And frankly, I expect cultured meat and sophisticated plant-based meats like Beyond Burger to gain wide adoption before that.

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#155
post #153

There's a discussion in GEB about mystery/detective novels, and how the physical fact of seeing that you're near the end of the book leaks information about the state of the plot to you. He muses - what if you inserted some number of blank pages at the end, so you weren't sure where the end was? But no, that's too easy - you might flip through and see them. What about Lorem Ipsum text? Well, that's better, but still…

Wait what? Are you suggesting that at some point in the book the text is just padding to throw you off? I haven't read it yet, but if that is what you are suggesting then I actually want to read it now. (if not then my interest is still don't feel any pull to it at all)

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#156

The treatment of Godel's theorems in GEB always struck me as gratuitous: It treats a technical result as having great philosophical import. The philosophical content of Godel's theorems is already found in the Liar paradox, "This statement is false." and incompleteness in a grand sweeping sense involving language in its entirety can be found in works as early as the Daoists and the Greeks. Edit: I should say that thi…

> The philosophical content of Godel's theorems is already found in the Liar paradox, "This statement is false." Sort of. Common reactions to the English version of the liar paradox are along the lines of 'that's meaningless so it doesn't imply anything' or 'so natural language is inconsistent, what do you expect?' Most of the work Gödel did was to find a way to encode meta-logic into formal language in such a way th…

Sure, that's the technical content of Godel :) If people chose not to take the Liar paradox seriously, I think they would gnash their teeth just as vigorously at the incompleteness theorem, and there is an expansive graveyard of attempts to circumvent it.

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#157
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pigs are awesome and most of them (all except for wild boar) would not be around if not for us eating them. We should strive for avoiding unnecessary hardship and unsustainably high numbers, not for extermination through total disuse.

Is it such a great thing to be born that we are doing something good for certain pigs by causing them to come into existence?

Relevant comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/existence

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#158

I've read it cover-to-cover at least three times, gifted a copy, and read it out loud to my son. I find it very playful and mind-expanding. I will admit that it is verbose and wandering, but I think that's part of the charm. Out of curiosity I wandered through Amazon's 1-star reviews of this book to see what other people had to say. "Obtuse and impenetrable", I can certainly understand. It takes a certain bent to put…

I agree with you for the most part. My central issue while reading was Hofstadter’s self-references. They eventually fall into the background but it was a turn-off for me in the beginning. And they aren’t inherently distasteful but in context of the ‘wandering’ and precarious nature of the work, I had to wonder if the dependency on one’s own series of particular fascinations do have an intellectual corollary or not.…

"House of cards" is an interesting analogy. Most books do a better job of appealing to a wide audience, while GEB comes with a long list of potential pitfalls, even for interested readers.

Re: Why I Don't Love Gödel, Escher, Bach

#159

> decided to explain its working by coming up with a metaphor involving record-players and records that are designed to physically break the record-players they’re played on Wait... I've seen this style of explanation somewhere... M O N A D T U T O R I A L S

As I've heard it explained, monads are simply monoids on the category of endofunctors, or something.

(I know what monoids are in group theory, and have a vague glimpse that functors are maps between categories. I figure that endofunctors are functors from a category to itself; how they come to be their own category or how monoids even apply, well.)

Post reply on HN