Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!eliot
From: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Message-ID: <4215@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 23 Nov 90 04:33:54 GMT
References: <1990Nov9.202525.11717@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3489@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <15724@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Shitson University, New Crapsey
Lines: 17

In article <15724@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes:

;                                  I am reminded of an analogous remark I
;included on a recent article on algorithmic composition of music, when I
;claimed that "we may be able to say little more than that music education
;is that which entitles one to have his behavior judged as 'musical' after
;his education is complete."  Trying to define science is no easier than trying
;to define music.  Musicians assume patterns of behavior based on those of other
;musicians (Satie's definition:  "Music is what happens at concerts.");  so it
;would not be ludicrous to say that scientists assume patterns of behavior based
;on those of other scientists.

Yes, but look how inadequate Satie's definition is. It doesn't begin
to cover a zillionth of all musical activity, and entirely misses the 
media -- nor does Satie even indicate a loophole whereby that inclusion
might be at least potentially signalled. Perhaps that may be also true 
of "science" -- a word almost as useless and as limiting as the word "music."