Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site osu-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!apr!osu-eddie!zwicky From: zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) Newsgroups: net.cog-eng Subject: Re: Godel, Escher, Bach Message-ID: <702@osu-eddie.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 15:59:42 EST Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.702 Posted: Fri Nov 1 15:59:42 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 05:13:34 EST References: <2246@iddic.UUCP> <2336@flame.warwick.UUCP> <2270@iddic.UUCP> Reply-To: zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) Distribution: net Organization: Ohio State Univ., CIS Dept., Cols, Oh. Lines: 22 The Pylyshyn in question I have not read. I have read some Pylyshyn, specifically on AI and the Turing test, and found it to be murky at best and in parts what even philosophers admitted was so philosophical as to be meaningless. This caused me to think twice before reading anything else of his; it's not good for the paint to throw books at the walls. GEB I read with great enjoyment, twice in a rather bed-ridden summer in high school. Once alone, and once with a friend who was also bed-ridden at the time and had nothing better to do. We both liked it, she perhaps more than I, although to this day it is all th connection she has to any of this stuff except Bach. I am not certain that Hofstadter is always right, but there is value in being intriguingly wrong (to a degree); if you hit the right balance between interest and falsehood, you can induce people to read enough more to find the truth. You can at least show them why anybody might be interested, which has more value than you might think, if you've never tried to explain to a health-inspector grandfather what cognitive science is an why you'd be interested in it. Elizabeth D. Zwicky