Apr 28, 2018, 3:03:56 PM4/28/18
Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message as abuse
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
Thomas Munnecke's, Riverside, Ca., letter to Scientific American,
I am happy to see that there has been no response to Dr.
Hofstadter's column on self-reference ["Letters," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
May]. Those who look at self-reference perch themselves precariously
on Ockham's Razor, tottering between hopeless confusion and fantastic
insight. One might as well open a dictionary and find, "recursion:
see recursion." He who is able to see recursion gains fresh insight
I am reminded of a conversation between an ancient philosopher,
Hee Hoo (whose epitaph reads , "Who is buried in Hoo's tomb?), and W.
Hoo: What is a question that is also its own answer?
Hee: Why not, "Why not?"?
Hoo: "Why not?"? Why not!