I personally consider Bertrand Russel and Richard Feynman to be exceptionally admirable people for their contributions and philosophies. I also really like Liebnitz, Newton, Einstein, Grace Hopper, James Mattis, James Conway, Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, and Socrates.

I am a fan of science greats, some artist greats, and a few others. Many have mentioned some of those. 

Let me enter another arena: films.

Sylvia Chang: she's a director of some complex films, and I mean very complex. For example, Murmur of the Hearts, not to be confused with Murmur of the Heart. But she's also a screenplay writer, and for fairly big directors. She's also an actress, and a really big one. She's also a songwriter, and a fairly big one. A producer too.

But definitely Wong Kar-wai. He's a director. His films are a little different. And excellent. He employs a writing method for his films which is fairly unique. Have you seen Chungking Express or say, Days of Being Wild, or  say, 2046? There are at least six other films as well, at least one or two more well known than those I mentioned.

Did I mention Chris Doyle? Christopher Doyle, technically. He's mostly a cinematographer. Quirky fellow.

There's a lot more. Jia Zhangke, for one. Hirokazu Kore-eda, for another. 

My admiration also goes to the past as well. the trio of Hiroshi Teshigahara, Kobe Abe, and Toru Takemitsu are one such example. Geniuses by themselves as are all of the above. Combined in the same project, and you get pure art. 

Plenty more.

At the moment I've been watching a bunch of Jordan Peterson lectures, he's got a lot to say about keeping your head in order.

On 6/4/2018 at 2:09 PM, rip-off said:

The most recurring individual is probably Douglas Hofstadter.

Hofstadter is certainly interesting. Have you read The Mind's I? I have not read all of it, but some interesting questions arise regarding the beaming of individuals in Star Trek. Basically, one might think stepping into a transporter is suicide. That's what I think anyway. Isn't it just suicide while a duplicate of yourself is made elsewhere? We're supposed to be thinking of consciousness.

I am a Strange Loop is where Hofstadter discuss Chalmers. As in David Chalmers, who was a student of Hofstadter. Chalmers is another individual I think of as someone I idolize. Others are mentioned in my original post. Chalmers has written some books himself, as well as doing various TED talks and some YouTube videos. Probably his most famous book is The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Great reading, if a little dense.

Gödel, Escher, Bach, of course, as you mentioned, is great as well, He mentions Lisp, SHRDLU, among other things. The title is interesting in itself, especially related to this thread. Einstein walked a lot with Gödel. I admire Kurt Gödel too. His incompleteness theorem is well worth reading more about. And of course, Escher, as in M. C. Escher. Who doesn't like his drawings? I'm surprised at the number of individuals not familiar with his work. Must be an age thing. As for Bach, well, all I really know is not much more than anyone else.

On 7/3/2018 at 10:02 PM, JoshuaFraser said:

At the moment I've been watching a bunch of Jordan Peterson lectures, he's got a lot to say about keeping your head in order.

Actual Peterson quotes:

‘He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy.’ (on the incel van attack)

‘The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence’

‘Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners.’

‘Feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance’

http://angry-chef.com/blog/thermidor-part-1

Get a better idol. You could probably find smarter rocks.

Quote

Hofstadter is certainly interesting. Have you read The Mind's I?

Not yet! It is on my list, but I normally wait until I trip over such books in a bookshop, and Hofstadter isn't the easiest to find (G.E.B. aside). Likewise, I shall keep an eye out for David Chalmers.

Quote

I have not read all of it, but some interesting questions arise regarding the beaming of individuals in Star Trek. Basically, one might think stepping into a transporter is suicide. That's what I think anyway. Isn't it just suicide while a duplicate of yourself is made elsewhere? We're supposed to be thinking of consciousness.

He touched on the same topic in I am a Strange Loop. It is an interesting question.

Perhaps this was discussed in the other books you've mentioned, but one "counterargument" is that we regularly lose and regain consciousness, every night and morning, and this discontinuity doesn't trouble us much, most people don't think "<yawn>, I'm sleepy, I guess I should go to my deathbed and end my life".

However, perhaps we just a succession of clones that get to live consciously for a single day, like mayflies with generational memory? Pity the clones whose sole taste of consciousness is to groggily guide us to the toilet and back to bed during the middle of the night!

5 hours ago, rip-off said:

Perhaps this was discussed in the other books you've mentioned, but one "counterargument" is that we regularly lose and regain consciousness, every night and morning, and this discontinuity doesn't trouble us much, most people don't think "<yawn>, I'm sleepy, I guess I should go to my deathbed and end my life".

It's not only a counterargument, it also calls into question what consciousness is. I don't know, None of us know of course. Chalmers' whole book is about the Hard Problem. not the Easy Problem. The Easy Problem is how the brain functions, which is to imply the mechanics of how the brain thinks, how neurons work, etc. He admits that is by no means easy at all. But the Hard Problem is decidedly harder, and that is what makes consciousness, and why qualia exists. Some people can't even distinguish between the two, or insist they're the same problem.

I'm very pleased to see most people nominated various folks outside the industry, often not related to IT.

I'm also surprised John Carmack has been nominated only once so far. I haven't had the chance to follow him lately but I found his work extremely inspiring.

Despite his interests in physics and astronomy his bachelor's degree was in history (rebelled as a teenager ) yet he received the highest awards in mathematics and physics