Rating: 
Summary: Interesting views, if you have (some) time (to waste)
Review: This remains (although published over 25 years ago) a somehow uncomparable book that dwells extensively on the subject of various isomorphisms (structural similarities) and (the derived or inferred) meaning of such structural isomorphisms (or the meaning that one wishes to find in them).The inferred isomorphic link between language and reality does typically provide some sort of a rather soft and often very subjective (hence rather blurred) link between between reality and how it is being perceived, one could hence speak of a rather soft isomorphism between language and reality... Other fine examples would include ethymological studies as a way of going back to a certain origin of how certain things have once been (and often remain) communicated amongst the vast society of human beings, so as to give certain insights on an (often lost and forgotten) original meaning of things and (now alas often commonplace) communications... Anyway, having entered the subject of isomorphisms and their importance for the mind and a certain understanding thereof (the mind as a mirror of realities), the author (a computer programmer with a rather broad scientific and cultural background) will take you along various pathes in order to explore seemingly striking parallels between the biological, the scientifical, the musical, the graphic, the mathematical, the linguistic, the metaphorical and the cognitive worlds (please forgive me if I have unintentionally forgotten or added one). Some of these excursions are rather nice, but others are a bit more cumbersome and tedious, one of the autor's alltime favorites remaining the occurrence and analysis of so-called strange (recurrent, sometimes even self-reinforcing or self-reproducing) loops... What the author also goes on to show is that there are some strange phenomena occurring in our scientific world (so-called paradoxes), showing the limited applicability and validity of our common mathematical and geometrical world views, which would either need a very long stretch of these models, or a total remodelling thereof... Different worlds are in need of different mathematic models and different (self-) reference systems (if there are rules, there must alas be a certain number of exceptions), but here it often appears, at least in my mind, that it is our own (biological) minds that are the setters of these often re-occurring limiting factors... Although quite dense, and sometimes even quite ponderous for a quick read, the chapters are happily alleviated by a few sometimes almost comic dialogues between Achilles, Tortoise, Crab and other various fictive axiom-expounding characters (Zeno etc.) Even though already a bit (scientifically) outdated since its first inception (and hence also probably also somehow out of fashion in its almost mystic multidisciplinary approach), not modified own iota in its many subsequent editions since 1979, it can nevertheless be quite funny to poke in this book once in a while.
Rating: 
Summary: Remember: We're in Planesville
Review: I give this book high marks. The read is difficult, I concede. However, remember that in order to make progress, oftentimes we must take a leap of faith. The book even argues that proving something to be true requires you to "just believe" because logic eventually runs out upon deconstruction. See chapter VII. I have had similar trouble that others report. I have had to re-read parts to make sure I get his points, whether I agree or not. And yes, he conveys his ideas in what some may consider an offhand way. There is much value in the saying, "To be great is to be misunderstood." You dont have to like this book. Just make sure you're certain why you do or don't like it. Is it because the Hof doesn't know what he is talking about, or because he "wastes" your time with his lingo and fictional prancing about? Or is it because there's a chance that you don't understand? I am not condescending readers who don't like GEB, but we too often rate someone's ideas based on our inability to understand and yes, sometimes be entertained immediately. Don't expect him to do all the work. What are you bringin' to the party? This book is challenging. Once you have spent enough time with it, you might see that it requires you to challenge your understanding of things, take that leap of faith (it's not all about logic), suspend judgment, then see what you think when you get to the other side. Consider the section devoted to the topic of Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry: Euclid of Alexandria perfected the art of rigor in his Elements, becoming arguably the most influential mathematician in times of antiquity. He made a most convincing case for the accuracy and truthfulness of much of the fundamental geometry we know today. He did so by using five principals upon which to base the remainder of his volumes of assertion. Four of the five principles were based on truths quite simple and so understandable, for the most part we hold them to be self-evident. One of those (the first) was the notion of a straight line, as simple and direct as connecting point A to point B. His work seemed universal, truthful, and beyond reproach, especially considering the painstaking efforts he went to prove the seemingly most basic of concepts. This all seemed well and good, until others, implicitly or otherwise, began to question the notion or suggest what a different version of what a straight line is. In other words: What if there was more than one type of straight line? How could this be? To make a long story only slightly longer, we find that there in fact IS more than one type of straight line (what's the difference between a straight line drawn on a piece of paper and a straight line drawn on a basketball? hmmmm....), which spawned elliptical and spherical geometries. Turns out that Euclidean geometry is actually a subset of geometry, not the entire geometry. All these years we thought that a piece of the pie was the whole pie. The point here is that you must endeavor to see outside what you know to be true. It's not always comfortable or seemingly conceivable, but we must accept a degree of uncertainty before we can realize a new level of certainty. Give the book a shot. Maybe two. Suspend your judgment and take the hit. You'll see. Regards.
Rating: 
Summary: Choose wisely before spending $$$
Review: Hello Folks, I consider myself something of a seeker. I'm an avid reader of Lucid Dreaming, Zen Buddhism, Carl Jung, Herman Hesse, W. Somerset Maugham, Ghandi, Einstein and other amazing intellectuals......When I first heard about this book, I was positively thrilled. What an amazing idea I thought. Unfortunately, I was deeply disappointed. It is a laborious read, and I don't know that my understanding has broadened significantly by reading this book....in all fairness, I haven't finished the book yet, and maybe the last few pages will tie everything together nicely. But I'm a little annoyed that I bought this book. I won't tell you not to buy it. But I highly recommend browsing through it at a book store or library. It's a great title, and a terrific premise. However, it's extremely logical (for those of you who haven't taken logic/statistics or higher math, you're in for 800 pages of confusion). Perhaps if I was a programmer, this book would have done something different for me. I know that I'm in the minority here, but I offer this review based on my own experiences. Reader reviews is a great resource, but obviously it should not be the end-all be-all of your buying decision. It was for me, and I'm out $15 for a book that I don't really care for. Choose wisely my friends.
Rating:
Summary: Multi-faceted Thesis
Review: Ancient runic languages scrawled onto South Pacific stones. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorum. Shifted perspectives in artistic pencil pictures. Modern artificial intelligence research. Masterpieces of Baroque harmony.
It's not often that bestselling books manage to link all of the above items in a highly satisfying blend of fact and philosophy, but Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid defies both convention and classification.
The book is such a sprawling, wide-ranging argument that it's difficult to know where to start. Personally, I most enjoyed the chapters on the location of meaning within symbols; Hofstadter's description of the essential elements of a message's structure caught my interest because it seemed applicable in many fields: literature, cryptography, and psychology, to start. I was also quite intrigued by his exploration of the brain's mode of operation: sense impressions stored as complex 'symbols.' Fascinating. The long sections on mathematics and the often goofy dialogue chapters were trying, yes, but persevere; better parts lie in store.
Hofstadter's case is best made when he follow a topic through many disciplines. Though I ultimately disagree with his position on the feasibility of artificial intelligence, he has produced a stimulating read, and I am thankful for it. It is far superior to my other late-night literary conquest of the summer (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) and I recommend it to anyone with pondering time to spare.
Oh, and as a side note: don't buy Yudkowsky's review. Nothing personal, but this isn't the only thinking man's book out there. It just investigates so many nooks and crannies that almost anyone can find something to further pursue.
Rating:
Summary: good, but too long
Review: Don't buy into the wild hype surrounding this book that many of these reviews spout. No this in NOT the greatest book ever written. However, it is a pretty good "soft" introduction to many interesting areas of mathematics and computer science. In particular, this book covers mathematical logic, Godel's Theorems, the theory of computation, and artificial intelligence. The major flaw with this book is its length. Hofstadter is a very longwinded writer, and much of this book could be considerably shortened without losing much. In spite of this, I heartily recommend this book. It is the best introduction to Godel's theorems and computation that I know of. In addition, the whimsical dialogs are an excellent exploration of form and content, just beautiful.
Rating: 
Summary: Tremendous inspiration for those with a humanist worldview
Review: I admit it: I tried twice over the span of ten years to get through this book before I finally succeeded last year. And no, I can't claim to have read every single word on every single page ("Crab" grows tedious at times). Yet I don't think Hofstader would be too disappointed in me, because I laid the book down feeling more inspired and optimistic about humanity than at any previous time in my life. By my third attempt at digesting GEB, I had arrived at a point where I was hungry for rigorous apologetic commentary on my reason-based worldview. The stunning thing about Hofstadter's book is that he managed to capture, at a still-early stage in the digital computing revolution, the essence of what is inevitably to come. As I neared the end of the book, I was gripped with the visceral certainty that humanity will ultimately transcend everything we know, that progress for all--though ambiguous in meaning--is attainable, that the human mind is the only seed necessary to produce astounding revolutions in our collective conscious experience. I stand in awe of the singular act of creativity and vision that produced GEB. The book may not be for everyone, but I for one forgive Hofstadter all of his self-indulgences. The sum here is vastly greater than the many complex and fascinating parts. Pick your copy up again and give it another try!
Rating:
Summary: This guy thinks he's so clever
Review: Yeah - this is an interesting read, and well worth picking up. The content is naturally very complicated, centering on self-referencing systems and other mathematical mind-twisters, and I think the author's pompous approach of playing with those notions in his presentation of the ideas does less to illustrate the points than it does to confuse readers. If you have the patience to sit through a conversation with a serious mathematician who thinks he's really punny, you'll gain some interesting new perspective from this one. If you're just reading this so you can namedrop with your pseudointellectual friends, you probably won't make it through.
Rating:
Summary: Tedious
Review: First of all, I would guess that the vast majority of people who purchase this book never finish it. It's philosophically simple, though it is very clever. I had more fun reading "Windows XP for Dummies" to be quite honest (it also made more sense). Clever, but not worth the time or effort. I'm not sure why it has been such a success or gets such rave reviews. That's just as much a mystery to me.
Rating:
Summary: A remarkably thick book (the author must be very smart)
Review: This author only writes thick books (e.g. Metamagical Themas, etc.) Combined with the fact that there are nearly 200 reviews here, one must conclude that GEB is popular -- nay, fashionable; it seems that it's considered cool to have read it (though I wonder how many have actually done so.) I, however -- due to my limited mental capacity, no doubt -- found GEB excrutiatingly dry, pedantic, boring and tortuous right from the beginning; that realized, I immediately quit. All of the above reminded me of the following proven wisdom of my favourite writer, Arthur Schopenhauer (whose few books aren't anywhere as thick, nor do they sport hundreds of reviews): "The art of *not* reading is a very important one. It consists in not taking an interest in whatever may be engaging the attention of the general public in any particular time. When some [book] is making a great commotion, you should remember that he who writes for fools always finds a large public. - A precondition for reading good books is not reading bad ones: for life is short." I shall, as I have on many an occasion, follow this shrewd advice this time as well. Like the Greeks used to say, Mega biblia -- mega kaka. YMMV.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and *still* misunderstood!
Review: I've been reading reviews of GEB for years, and the most fascinating thing about them, aprt from the near-uniform enthusiasm of the readers, is that almost none of the enthusiatic readers have any idea of what the book is actually about! The typical reader seesm to think of GEB as a jouyous romp through any number of fascinating bits of logic, math and science without any idea as to what Hofstader's actually doing. Yes, it's about Goedel, and recursion, and "strange loops", and linguistics Bach and ants and all that- but only trivially. The bulk of the book is taken up with what amounts to a very entertaining tutorial that sets the reader up for the real thesis of the book. What Hofstadter has attempted in GEB is nothing less than a concise, bottom-up theory of mind. You can read it as a theory of AI, or a theory of human intelligence, but either way he's telling you how to construct an intelligent entity. True, he doesn't really have a theory of *how* a self-aware being should arise from his metaphorical anthill, but then, neither does anyone else. But he does have a very good story as to how intelligence does arise in such conditions. If you've read this book before without understanding what his aim was, read it again, with that notion in mind. And if you haven't read it, and you're the sort of person who enjoys mathematic and scientific amusements of any sort, well, read it and discover how much fun a speculative theory can be.
| 
