Gödel Escher Bach

=== Notes ===
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jFhq3Rj6DI The lecturer asks how did eyes come to be from non-eyes. This is the wrong question to ask. Rather , on what basis do we assume that eyes derives its meaning as the negation of non-eyes. For the question "How did nothing give rise to something" we have to explain on what basis do we presuppose that there is no third option to nothing/something in the context of Agrippa's trilemma.
Figure out what your pressuppositions are and then ask yourself on what accountability to impose such on anything. 
=== Wikipedia ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
"....It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself...."
The fundamental notion of "meaning" derives its meaning as the Platonic opposite or negation of non-meaning and that there is no third option. Both Atheists and YEC assume this, yet only YEC can account for this from the KJV.
== review1 ==
http://lesswrong.com/lw/8n7/a_discarded_review_of_godel_escher_bach_an/
:"....the shift of focus from material components [of the human mind] to abstract patterns allows the [surprising] leap from inanimate to animate, from nonsemantic to semantic, from meaningless to meaningful, to take place. But how does that happen? After all, not all jumps from matter to pattern give rise to consciousness or soul or self... What kind of pattern is it, then, that is the telltale mark of a self? GEB's answer is: a strange loop....."
:"...After all, not all jumps from matter to pattern give rise to consciousness or soul or self....."
This is the Adaptation conclusion, which by rhetorical circularity is contained in the adaptation premise: Adaption was solely derived by assuming adaptation.
The Hofstadter paragraph is a good example of rhetorical circularity, assuming the Adaptation conclusion in the premise and the obfuscation of this by laces of rhetorical tautologies. 
In the paragraph animate, semantic, meaningful all refer to consciousness, the Platonic contrast to unconscious .. Rephrasing of the paragraph as follows:
rephrase1: "....the shift from material to the abstract allows inanimate to animate, from nonsemantic to semantic, from meaningless to meaningful, to take place. But how does that happen? After all, not all jumps from matter to pattern give rise to consciousness or soul or self... What kind of pattern is it, then, that is the telltale mark of a self? GEB's answer is: a strange loop....."
rephrase2: "....the shift from the material to the abstract allows inanimate to animate, from nonsemantic to semantic, from meaningless to meaningful, to take place. After all, not all jumps from matter to pattern give rise to consciousness or soul or self...
rephrase3: "Adaptation is the conclusion that the shift from the 'material' to the 'abstract' allows the meaningless to leap too meaningfulness from the Adaptation premise that matter gave rise to consciousness... "
shift <=> leap and (material to abstract) <=> (meaningless to meaningfulness) , saying the same thing twice. This clouds the rhetorical circularity of Adaptation.
Category:Logical fallacies
Category:Adaptation