Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy
Subject: Mythological Dogmas
Message-ID: <155@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 20:06:48 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.155
Posted: Thu Mar 20 20:06:48 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 06:41:53 EST
References: <899@decwrl.DEC.COM> <402@aoa.UUCP> <192@ulowell.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Artificial Research, CA
Lines: 54
Xref: linus net.sci:351 net.philosophy:4296

>>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 - greg

     Regardless of one's opinions of Hofstatder, he is to be praised for
     popularizing the work of Goedel, Turing, Quine, etc.. In 1975, who
     could have guessed that Goedel's work would finally achieve the
     same kind of intense pop-cult adulation (and misinterpretation) as,
     say, that of Einstein?

     Inevitably, those who are spurred on to the writings of, for instance,
     Quine or Russell, will discover that Hofstatder pales in comparision,
     in style, intelligence, creativity. Against such unfair competition,
     what else could we expect?

     "Mind's I", by the way, is not supposed to be original. It is a
     compilation which includes many popular authors, including Dennett,
     Smullyan, Searle being clever. This book is a fairly accessible
     introduction to different points of view about mind, although
     Hofstatder's rabid scientismical bias becomes pretty evident in his
     commentaries.

     Metamagical Themas strikes me as largely a rearguard defense of themes
     presented in GEB, wasting much effort on unconvincing attacks directed
     against `the enemy' (Searle). Turing machine functionalists should find
     this book reassuring. Sadly, Hofstatder seems to have become little
     more than a mouthpiece for computer science types who seem to be
     unaware that the good old days of physical realism, causal determinism,
     and strong objectivity are history. 
     
     There is no place for mind, much less free will, in Hofstatder's world.
     This is no criticism -- regardless of my (rabid mentalist) bias, I urge
     all who are interested in the philosophy of mind to check out the 
     fascinating work of high class anti-mentalists like Rorty, Quine, Feyerabend. 

     Perhaps my worst difficulty with Hofstatder is his flimsy (and
     convenient) incorporation of the no-mind aspect of Zen while remaining
     thoroughly attached to an occultist materialism addicted to a pin ball
     universe. To his credit, he tried, I suppose.

-michael

    Realism is linked with rationalism, with the reality of the human mind,
    of human creativity, and of human suffering. - Karl Popper