MD and GEB? (Spoiler)

[ERIK at smtp.goddard.com]

Legend.
> At 02:33 AM 6/10/97 PDT, Rick Vosper wrote:
> >(what Thomas Vieth wrote:)

> >No, it's not. It just happens to contain these same subjects. At the 
> >time of it's publishing (or shortly thereafter) I read the book and 
> >thought 'Wow!' Obviously I was too young then...
> 
> I agree, having much the same experience. Ditto that the stretch to Godel,
> Escher, Bach is too far...even for our esteemed TRP.

{interesting discussion of sects of buddhism, re: mu, snipped}

> Or were you referring more to the kinds of questions GEB deals with than to
> any particular aspect of Mu. Buddhahood and whatnot? Perhaps you could tell
> us more.

Yes---

Since I hadn't put a spoiler warning in my subject line (until now), I 
didn't want to be very specific in my post-- 

Actually, what I was specifically referring to is the acronym and 
wording of the description of the Learned English Dog in that part of 
M&D suggests that he is the "L.E.D." (light emitting diode, of course) and is 
described in mechanical terms (he flickers).  Now one of the whole obsessions of 
GEB is whether or not computers/machines can have human "souls" (the 
Turing test is a decision whether you're talking to a human or an 
imitator)  Hofstadter engages in some interesting discussion of Mu, too 
(he describes his Mu puzzle, in fact). The rest of GEB's dumbed-down Western 
Buddhism in support of the question of computers having the capabilities of 
humans fits in here, as well. 

I do think it is a stretch to imagine TRP alluding to GEB, but, if it isn't an allusion, 
there's some cool polygenesis going on in that one concentrated section of text. 
> 
> --rick
> (who recalls that Shakiyamuni hisself declined to speculate on whether men
> had souls, much less dogs)

Erik
(who doubts Shakiyamuni was too concerned about L.E.D.s then, either)