From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 9:18 AM To: Noam Chomsky mailt Subject: Re: Re: " processing" -my use of sloppy language , sorry, thanks for the great paper. music and its" understanding" , might be a clo=er representation to expressing a formalism that might help describe the events. it is not an either=, or , it is a superposition of melody, prosody, harmony, within cer=ain bounds that differentiate it from noise. fyi, in the paper it says the vis=on system is only input, .not sure that is corrrect. reading t=e eyes might have more to it than previously thought. On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Noam Chomsky note: There is a view that language is esse=tially a processing system. The arguments against it seem to me very power. I'll attach a recent paper about it, a =ontribution to a volume of essays dedicated to Jerry Fodor and focusing on=his conception of language as processing (input modules). His =ersion is far more sophisticated than the signal processing approaches that were all the rage in the 1950s, drawing from the successes=of wartime technology in signal analysis and Shannon's information=theory. Noam From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 7:34 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: can it be thought of as no more than signal processi=g. why not use the same technology that attempts to intercept commun=cations and decode the signals and apply it to language. normally one tries to process the signals. i wonder if they put it i= reverse. and processed the language in an attempt to find coherence=??? On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Noam Chomsky > =rote: There is a notion of coherence in bot= cases, but how to unify them, or whether it's possible, I don =80 t really see. 3 EFTA_R1_01613409 EFTA02491394