Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!greg
From: greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Helpful vs. Harmful Therapy
Message-ID: <792@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 12:09:31 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.792
Posted: Wed Mar 19 12:09:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 06:16:29 EST
References: <899@decwrl.DEC.COM> <402@aoa.UUCP> <192@ulowell.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg)
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 16
Xref: linus net.sci:350 net.philosophy:4291

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