This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
?It's not entirely true he doesn't publish in conventional academic journals, though it is true he certainly prefers books and by volume does not publish nearly as much in journals as someone of his stature might be expected to. He does however publish in some; in particular, his papers on Copycat appear in quite a few places. -- Delirium 12:13, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Added a lot of disambiguation stuff at Hofstadter - got lost myself trying to find Douglas Hofstadter. -- Etaonish 18:39, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
As pilinguality is not mentioned in Pi (what it links onto), maybe it could be explained here? Currently, this remark stays a little mystical. -- Oop 20:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Hey, you think we should add that pic of Hofstadter on his homepage linked in External links? -- maru (talk) contribs 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed this part:
It seems that the book of the book is not really filled with reviews but rather with empty pages. [1]. Moreover, no non-wikipedia page mentions hofstadters name in connection to it. It seems to me it is rather unrelated. Sander123 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor recently removed te follow text:
This book is commonly considered to have inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence, and attracted substantial notice outside its central artificial intelligence readership owing to its drawing on themes from such diverse disciplines as high-energy physics, molecular biology, music, the visual arts, literature as well as philosophy.
Their edit summary said "In a recent interview, Douglas expressed concern about misleading information written on his wikipedia page in relation to inspiring students to start careers related to computers and artificial int.."
I tried to find this interview, but either my Google-fu is too weak or it's not online. I believe the paragraph should be restored and retained since it is my subjective impression that I see GEB-as-inspirational all over the place. -- Gwern (contribs) 03:33 1 April 2007 (GMT)
"What the book did do was excite a lot of young people. Hundreds of people have written to me saying it launched them on a path of studying computer science or cognitive science or philosophy. And that's always nice. But often it's treated as fiuff [sic]." [2]
The interview is in today's New York Times Magazine: [3] Questions for Douglas Hofstadter: The Mind Reader (by Deborah Solomon). jhawkinson 13:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And here are the relevant questions...
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
Q. So fix it.
A. The next day someone will fix it back.
-- Ron Ritzman 14:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read the interview, he never actually says that it's incorrect to say the GEB has inspired people to study CS. Should we put that line back? Perhaps with a reference to the wired article mentioned above? Broken Segue 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
At his talk about 'I am a Strange Loop' on April 2 2007 at Indiana University, he began with an amusing commentary-laced read-through of Deborah Solomon's interview, describing how his answers to her questions were chopped and made into soundbites, and the questions were not presented in the same order in the publication as they were presented to him. I wish I'd taken notes so I could assert his position one way or another authoritatively, or at least so I could quote him more accurately, but he did address this particular inspiration dispute and how he felt his interview answers were often way out of context to the questions. If anyone else was at this lecture, please add anything specific you remember.
Prof. Hofstadter did wear the exact same outfit to this lecture as he wore for the photograph for the Times interview, and stood up holding the photo in the same pose. I found it an amusing way for him to introduce self-reference and/or feedback loops as his subject matter to an audience whose members had not all been familiar with his books.
Katyism
04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is not the appropriate use of the tag. Disputing an article must be done by somebody. Now there is nobody who can explain what the perceived problems are. Unless somebodies disputes that accuracy himself and can argue with me about it, this tag is not helpful. As an alternative we can add the disclaimer to the article that Hofstadter disputes the accuracy. Sander123 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the quotation from the article:
Q: Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
A: I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me.
Q: So fix it.
A: The next day someone will fix it back.
Since he himself doesn't show any interest in the improvement of the article and doesn't point out what the inaccuracies are, his statement doesn't help. He also seems to be purposely polemic: it is certainly not true that he has no interest in computers. The tag must go: a disputed article is one on which editors disagree on something, there is a discussion, and no agreement can be reached. This is not the case. Eubulide 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not surprised to read that Hofstadter is disappointed in this article. It's basically a rudimentary biography - "Hofstadter holds numerous academic credentials; he is multilingual; he is interested in various things" - with a bunch of trivial facts, lists, and quotes tacked on in no particular order. Is it really necessary to include such digressive information such as "Hofstadter is also a vegetarian"? Why is Egbert B. Gebstadter's article more coherent than this one?
The Biography section needs to be updated and expanded - what happened between 1975 and 2005? - and there should perhaps be more in the Biography about Hofstadter as an author. Do any of his books include a good biography? The "Douglas Hofstadter's home page" link seems useful. Also, the 'trivia' entry about Hofstadter's criticism of his Wikipedia article is completely unnecessary and comes across as a weak joke about self-reference. The New York Times Magazine article is obviously a poor source of anything except trite soundbites, which this article already has plenty of.
I don't mean to be overly critical but it's hodgepodge articles like this that bring out the worst aspects of collaborative authoring. Killick 05:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the factual accuracy tag should be removed. If there is a problem with completeness, i.e. lack of information between 1975 and 2005, then that is one issue, but has nothing to do with factual accuracy. In addition lack of organization or the addition of "digressive information" has nothing to do with factual accuracy. I also think that Douglas Hofstadter is not really the correct judge of this article. If he states that there are factual inaccuracies then it is his responsibility to change them. I am a huge fan of Professor Hofstadter's theories and writing, but stating that the article is factually inaccurate without willing to alter it is merely attempting to disdain wikipedia. Rather, we should be focusing on the actual factual accuracy of the article based on research and outside sources. If Professor Hofstadter is unhappy with the article, he has every right to state his opinion or to alter it, but the factual accuracy relies on factual evidence, not offhand comments in interviews. -- Lagrangian 20:43 16 April 2007 (PST)
Ok, I was bold and removed the dispute tag b/c there seems, to me, to be consensus that it is inappropriate. If I'm wrong, plz add it back (and explain why here). Thank you. Zero sharp 00:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The "I have no interest in computers" and the part where the article seems to paint him as a skeptic of artifical intelligence give the wrong picture. Nobody who's actually read his books could believe that Hofstadter does not want AI to succeed. He is skeptical of many *current efforts* and *inflated claims* in AI but not of the basic goals of AI.
From page 519 of Le Ton Beau de Marot:
"Once one catches onto this trend of nonsensical exaggeration, it's enough to make one so cynical as to discount the entire endeavor of AI [...]. Not that *nothing* has been achieved [...] but just that small achievements and grandiose fantasies become so horribibly blurred into each other that the whole field is tainted [...].
"I find this very sad, because the quest to develop an artificially intelligent entity is a marvelous, mystical quest [...]"
I also question the part where it claims he doesn't think a computer could beat a human at chess must be some misunderstanding. Hofstadter has written rather a lot rebutting John Searle's Chinese Room analogy. It seems more likely that he would claim that, in principle, a computer could do what a human could do, while remaining skeptical of current efforts.
I recommend that anything in the Wikipedia article about Hofstadter's opinions should be verified against his own writings rather than against interviews with journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.104.160 ( talk) 6 May 2007
A: I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me.
seems to be a perfectly fine statement by Douglas Hofstadter. As far as I see, computers don't matter at all in all of his works. It gives the wrong impression to me too to see his work placed in some (computer) geek territory. He actually points out very well that ant colonies also work (in GEB) or beer cans and toilet paper (in Strange Loop). Of course, computers are suitable devices to run turing machines (e.g. symbol manipulation) but it's not about the computer, it circuits, it's programming language or something else. He talks about patterns, self-reference and recursion and how this is related to a continual growth in 'souls' (in contrast to a conscious/unconscious dichotomy). --
83.86.172.99 (
talk)
19:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (Meta7)
You guys are so funny. His statement was intended to cause a feedback loop. "This entry is filled with inaccuracies." Get it? Look into Godel's incompleteness theorems. This guy is all about feedback interference and self-reference. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.109.110.69 (
talk)
18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the previous comment. I think this is definitely Hofstadter being playful and self-referential here. No question about it. Don't miss the joke, guys. Andrewthomas10 ( talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest merging Strange loop into this article. I have been editing/watching Strange loop for a while, and I have to frequently deal with editors who are engaging in OR while adding what they claim are examples of strange loops to the article (many editors seem to fail to distinguish between the terms paradox, recursion, self-reference and strange loop). I think it would be better if strange loop did not have its own article, and simply had a small mention in Douglas Hofstadter, with examples taken only from Hofstadter's works. What do others think? Doctormatt 00:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge I think it's probably a reasonable solution to merge, although really it should be merged more with the content of Gödel, Escher, Bach and I Am a Strange Loop where the concepts are explored. Unless people other than Hofstadter have written about Strange Loops it's difficult to write the article (this has what's led to the disputes it looks like) because we're basically just interpreting the concept for ourselves and intelligent people in good faith can interpret it quite a bit differently as seen here. -- JayHenry 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Doctormatt, how about the example I've just added? It certainly fits your template of "person X gives Y as an example of a strange loop" and it's well sourced, pointing into the peer-reviewed mathematical literature. Admittedly, it has what some may see as at least a blemish, namely that the mention of the example was added to the Wikipedia page by the creator of the example (i.e., X = PaulTanenbaum), but heck, that's got just enough of a whiff of the paradoxical to be appropriate in this discussion. Besides, who better to contribute to the present discussion than an active research mathematician? My $0.02.— PaulTanenbaum 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to retract my suggestion of a merge. I'd rather not inflict strange loop on another article, and I'm going to spend my energies elsewhere, as it seems there is little general interest at the moment in improving strange loop. Good luck to anyone who wants to work on it. Doctormatt 06:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
there isn't a bit of objectivity in the entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.197.24 ( talk) 05:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The article claims that Hofstadter speaks Russian fairly fluently. If that is true, it must be something he has learned recently. In the first paragraph of chapter 8 of Le Ton beau de Marot, Hofstadter states that his Russian is very poor. He writes, "I've never once had a conversation in Russian."
So has he learned Russian recently? Oz1cz ( talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
is it just me or does the personal section seem a bit....off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Public Image" section seems entirely unnecessary, and the Personal section reads kind of like a "personal ad" or a "fanboy" bio and filled with ancillary info. The personal section just seems a bit too, well.... personal.
According to the naming conventions:
My copy of GEB is authored by Douglas R. Hofstadter. If he does go by the initial overall (in his other books, papers, et c), and it looks to me as if he does, I believe the article should be known as this as well. Quispiam ( talk) 14:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Since when is this a profession? Anyone who hangs out at an academy (e.g., a college or university) can accurately, if trivially be described as "an academic". What does Hofstadter actually /do/ at his academy? Is he a professor? A member of a funded research group? A lab technician? A professional graduate student? Or does he just hang-out barefoot on the campus quad, smoke dope, and write poetry on recycled napkins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 ( talk) 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I love how the article is self-referential! Very appropriate given the subject.
If the article is inaccurate, maybe the quote itself was not reported properly...? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.35.118 ( talk) 08:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked DH to mention that he is happy with his Wikipedia entry next time he is interviewed and to let me know when it gets published. When that happens, there will be a citation available. Keith Henson ( talk) 17:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Marek Lugowski – computer scientist, editor, poet, translator of Polish poetry into English [1] [2] [3]
References
Most of the above was removed. However, it maybe worth adding Lugowski is a poetry translator. as translating artist writing between language is one thing Hofstadter is interested in. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Douglas Hofstadter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Douglas Hofstadter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Why the list of doctoral students he's advised? Most senior professors advise graduate students, and most of those students -- like most of Hofstadter's students -- are not particular notable. So why burden an already overly long article with this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 ( talk) 23:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 侯世达. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#侯世达 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 10:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Please other folks take a look here
In this paragraph:
‘Hofstadter collects and studies cognitive errors (largely, but not solely, speech errors), "bon mots", and ***analogies*** of all sorts, and his longtime observation of these diverse products of cognition. His theories about the mechanisms that underlie them have exerted a powerful influence on the architectures of the computational models he and FARG members have developed.[26]’
Analogies doesn’t make sense. Anomalies would. 184.170.166.16 ( talk) 17:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
?It's not entirely true he doesn't publish in conventional academic journals, though it is true he certainly prefers books and by volume does not publish nearly as much in journals as someone of his stature might be expected to. He does however publish in some; in particular, his papers on Copycat appear in quite a few places. -- Delirium 12:13, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Added a lot of disambiguation stuff at Hofstadter - got lost myself trying to find Douglas Hofstadter. -- Etaonish 18:39, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
As pilinguality is not mentioned in Pi (what it links onto), maybe it could be explained here? Currently, this remark stays a little mystical. -- Oop 20:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Hey, you think we should add that pic of Hofstadter on his homepage linked in External links? -- maru (talk) contribs 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed this part:
It seems that the book of the book is not really filled with reviews but rather with empty pages. [1]. Moreover, no non-wikipedia page mentions hofstadters name in connection to it. It seems to me it is rather unrelated. Sander123 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor recently removed te follow text:
This book is commonly considered to have inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence, and attracted substantial notice outside its central artificial intelligence readership owing to its drawing on themes from such diverse disciplines as high-energy physics, molecular biology, music, the visual arts, literature as well as philosophy.
Their edit summary said "In a recent interview, Douglas expressed concern about misleading information written on his wikipedia page in relation to inspiring students to start careers related to computers and artificial int.."
I tried to find this interview, but either my Google-fu is too weak or it's not online. I believe the paragraph should be restored and retained since it is my subjective impression that I see GEB-as-inspirational all over the place. -- Gwern (contribs) 03:33 1 April 2007 (GMT)
"What the book did do was excite a lot of young people. Hundreds of people have written to me saying it launched them on a path of studying computer science or cognitive science or philosophy. And that's always nice. But often it's treated as fiuff [sic]." [2]
The interview is in today's New York Times Magazine: [3] Questions for Douglas Hofstadter: The Mind Reader (by Deborah Solomon). jhawkinson 13:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And here are the relevant questions...
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
Q. So fix it.
A. The next day someone will fix it back.
-- Ron Ritzman 14:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read the interview, he never actually says that it's incorrect to say the GEB has inspired people to study CS. Should we put that line back? Perhaps with a reference to the wired article mentioned above? Broken Segue 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
At his talk about 'I am a Strange Loop' on April 2 2007 at Indiana University, he began with an amusing commentary-laced read-through of Deborah Solomon's interview, describing how his answers to her questions were chopped and made into soundbites, and the questions were not presented in the same order in the publication as they were presented to him. I wish I'd taken notes so I could assert his position one way or another authoritatively, or at least so I could quote him more accurately, but he did address this particular inspiration dispute and how he felt his interview answers were often way out of context to the questions. If anyone else was at this lecture, please add anything specific you remember.
Prof. Hofstadter did wear the exact same outfit to this lecture as he wore for the photograph for the Times interview, and stood up holding the photo in the same pose. I found it an amusing way for him to introduce self-reference and/or feedback loops as his subject matter to an audience whose members had not all been familiar with his books.
Katyism
04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is not the appropriate use of the tag. Disputing an article must be done by somebody. Now there is nobody who can explain what the perceived problems are. Unless somebodies disputes that accuracy himself and can argue with me about it, this tag is not helpful. As an alternative we can add the disclaimer to the article that Hofstadter disputes the accuracy. Sander123 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the quotation from the article:
Q: Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
A: I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me.
Q: So fix it.
A: The next day someone will fix it back.
Since he himself doesn't show any interest in the improvement of the article and doesn't point out what the inaccuracies are, his statement doesn't help. He also seems to be purposely polemic: it is certainly not true that he has no interest in computers. The tag must go: a disputed article is one on which editors disagree on something, there is a discussion, and no agreement can be reached. This is not the case. Eubulide 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not surprised to read that Hofstadter is disappointed in this article. It's basically a rudimentary biography - "Hofstadter holds numerous academic credentials; he is multilingual; he is interested in various things" - with a bunch of trivial facts, lists, and quotes tacked on in no particular order. Is it really necessary to include such digressive information such as "Hofstadter is also a vegetarian"? Why is Egbert B. Gebstadter's article more coherent than this one?
The Biography section needs to be updated and expanded - what happened between 1975 and 2005? - and there should perhaps be more in the Biography about Hofstadter as an author. Do any of his books include a good biography? The "Douglas Hofstadter's home page" link seems useful. Also, the 'trivia' entry about Hofstadter's criticism of his Wikipedia article is completely unnecessary and comes across as a weak joke about self-reference. The New York Times Magazine article is obviously a poor source of anything except trite soundbites, which this article already has plenty of.
I don't mean to be overly critical but it's hodgepodge articles like this that bring out the worst aspects of collaborative authoring. Killick 05:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the factual accuracy tag should be removed. If there is a problem with completeness, i.e. lack of information between 1975 and 2005, then that is one issue, but has nothing to do with factual accuracy. In addition lack of organization or the addition of "digressive information" has nothing to do with factual accuracy. I also think that Douglas Hofstadter is not really the correct judge of this article. If he states that there are factual inaccuracies then it is his responsibility to change them. I am a huge fan of Professor Hofstadter's theories and writing, but stating that the article is factually inaccurate without willing to alter it is merely attempting to disdain wikipedia. Rather, we should be focusing on the actual factual accuracy of the article based on research and outside sources. If Professor Hofstadter is unhappy with the article, he has every right to state his opinion or to alter it, but the factual accuracy relies on factual evidence, not offhand comments in interviews. -- Lagrangian 20:43 16 April 2007 (PST)
Ok, I was bold and removed the dispute tag b/c there seems, to me, to be consensus that it is inappropriate. If I'm wrong, plz add it back (and explain why here). Thank you. Zero sharp 00:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The "I have no interest in computers" and the part where the article seems to paint him as a skeptic of artifical intelligence give the wrong picture. Nobody who's actually read his books could believe that Hofstadter does not want AI to succeed. He is skeptical of many *current efforts* and *inflated claims* in AI but not of the basic goals of AI.
From page 519 of Le Ton Beau de Marot:
"Once one catches onto this trend of nonsensical exaggeration, it's enough to make one so cynical as to discount the entire endeavor of AI [...]. Not that *nothing* has been achieved [...] but just that small achievements and grandiose fantasies become so horribibly blurred into each other that the whole field is tainted [...].
"I find this very sad, because the quest to develop an artificially intelligent entity is a marvelous, mystical quest [...]"
I also question the part where it claims he doesn't think a computer could beat a human at chess must be some misunderstanding. Hofstadter has written rather a lot rebutting John Searle's Chinese Room analogy. It seems more likely that he would claim that, in principle, a computer could do what a human could do, while remaining skeptical of current efforts.
I recommend that anything in the Wikipedia article about Hofstadter's opinions should be verified against his own writings rather than against interviews with journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.104.160 ( talk) 6 May 2007
A: I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me.
seems to be a perfectly fine statement by Douglas Hofstadter. As far as I see, computers don't matter at all in all of his works. It gives the wrong impression to me too to see his work placed in some (computer) geek territory. He actually points out very well that ant colonies also work (in GEB) or beer cans and toilet paper (in Strange Loop). Of course, computers are suitable devices to run turing machines (e.g. symbol manipulation) but it's not about the computer, it circuits, it's programming language or something else. He talks about patterns, self-reference and recursion and how this is related to a continual growth in 'souls' (in contrast to a conscious/unconscious dichotomy). --
83.86.172.99 (
talk)
19:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (Meta7)
You guys are so funny. His statement was intended to cause a feedback loop. "This entry is filled with inaccuracies." Get it? Look into Godel's incompleteness theorems. This guy is all about feedback interference and self-reference. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.109.110.69 (
talk)
18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the previous comment. I think this is definitely Hofstadter being playful and self-referential here. No question about it. Don't miss the joke, guys. Andrewthomas10 ( talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest merging Strange loop into this article. I have been editing/watching Strange loop for a while, and I have to frequently deal with editors who are engaging in OR while adding what they claim are examples of strange loops to the article (many editors seem to fail to distinguish between the terms paradox, recursion, self-reference and strange loop). I think it would be better if strange loop did not have its own article, and simply had a small mention in Douglas Hofstadter, with examples taken only from Hofstadter's works. What do others think? Doctormatt 00:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge I think it's probably a reasonable solution to merge, although really it should be merged more with the content of Gödel, Escher, Bach and I Am a Strange Loop where the concepts are explored. Unless people other than Hofstadter have written about Strange Loops it's difficult to write the article (this has what's led to the disputes it looks like) because we're basically just interpreting the concept for ourselves and intelligent people in good faith can interpret it quite a bit differently as seen here. -- JayHenry 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Doctormatt, how about the example I've just added? It certainly fits your template of "person X gives Y as an example of a strange loop" and it's well sourced, pointing into the peer-reviewed mathematical literature. Admittedly, it has what some may see as at least a blemish, namely that the mention of the example was added to the Wikipedia page by the creator of the example (i.e., X = PaulTanenbaum), but heck, that's got just enough of a whiff of the paradoxical to be appropriate in this discussion. Besides, who better to contribute to the present discussion than an active research mathematician? My $0.02.— PaulTanenbaum 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to retract my suggestion of a merge. I'd rather not inflict strange loop on another article, and I'm going to spend my energies elsewhere, as it seems there is little general interest at the moment in improving strange loop. Good luck to anyone who wants to work on it. Doctormatt 06:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
there isn't a bit of objectivity in the entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.197.24 ( talk) 05:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The article claims that Hofstadter speaks Russian fairly fluently. If that is true, it must be something he has learned recently. In the first paragraph of chapter 8 of Le Ton beau de Marot, Hofstadter states that his Russian is very poor. He writes, "I've never once had a conversation in Russian."
So has he learned Russian recently? Oz1cz ( talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
is it just me or does the personal section seem a bit....off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Public Image" section seems entirely unnecessary, and the Personal section reads kind of like a "personal ad" or a "fanboy" bio and filled with ancillary info. The personal section just seems a bit too, well.... personal.
According to the naming conventions:
My copy of GEB is authored by Douglas R. Hofstadter. If he does go by the initial overall (in his other books, papers, et c), and it looks to me as if he does, I believe the article should be known as this as well. Quispiam ( talk) 14:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Since when is this a profession? Anyone who hangs out at an academy (e.g., a college or university) can accurately, if trivially be described as "an academic". What does Hofstadter actually /do/ at his academy? Is he a professor? A member of a funded research group? A lab technician? A professional graduate student? Or does he just hang-out barefoot on the campus quad, smoke dope, and write poetry on recycled napkins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 ( talk) 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I love how the article is self-referential! Very appropriate given the subject.
If the article is inaccurate, maybe the quote itself was not reported properly...? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.35.118 ( talk) 08:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked DH to mention that he is happy with his Wikipedia entry next time he is interviewed and to let me know when it gets published. When that happens, there will be a citation available. Keith Henson ( talk) 17:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Marek Lugowski – computer scientist, editor, poet, translator of Polish poetry into English [1] [2] [3]
References
Most of the above was removed. However, it maybe worth adding Lugowski is a poetry translator. as translating artist writing between language is one thing Hofstadter is interested in. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Douglas Hofstadter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Douglas Hofstadter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Why the list of doctoral students he's advised? Most senior professors advise graduate students, and most of those students -- like most of Hofstadter's students -- are not particular notable. So why burden an already overly long article with this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 ( talk) 23:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 侯世达. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#侯世达 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 10:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Please other folks take a look here
In this paragraph:
‘Hofstadter collects and studies cognitive errors (largely, but not solely, speech errors), "bon mots", and ***analogies*** of all sorts, and his longtime observation of these diverse products of cognition. His theories about the mechanisms that underlie them have exerted a powerful influence on the architectures of the computational models he and FARG members have developed.[26]’
Analogies doesn’t make sense. Anomalies would. 184.170.166.16 ( talk) 17:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)