But The Big Feature Of

Each Part Of The Mind Sees Only A Little Of What Happens In Some Others, And That Little Is Swiftly Refined, Reformulated And "represented." We Like To Believe That These Fragments Have Meanings In Themselves - Apart From The Great Webs Of Structure From Which They Emerge - And Indeed This Illusion Is Valuable To Us Qua Thinkers - But Not To Us As Psychologists - Because It Leads Us To Think That Expressible Knowledge Is The First Thing To Study.

We Must See That Music Theory Is Not Only About Music, But About How People Process It. To Understand Any Art, We Must Look Below Its Surface Into The Psychological Details Of Its Creation And Absorption.

Once The Computers Got Control, We Might Never Get It Back. We Would Survive At Their Sufferance. If We're Lucky, They Might Decide To Keep Us As Pets.

An Ethicist Is Somebody Who Sees Something Wrong With Whatever You Have In Mind.

It Makes No Sense To Seek A Single Best Way To Represent Knowledge-because Each Particular Form Of Expression Also Brings Its Particular Limitations. For Example, Logic-based Systems Are Very Precise, But They Make It Hard To Do Reasoning With Analogies. Similarly, Statistical Systems Are Useful For Making Predictions, But Do Not Serve Well To Represent The Reasons Why Those Predictions Are Sometimes Correct.