From: Jeffrey E. [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 3:36 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: the mathematical model. is quite beautiful,&nbs=; though the basic rules are simple , o=ce they have run over and over again, and produced a result you cann=t tease them out by any form of reductionism. or al=orithm, just like the series 7- 21 -37... cannot be found by alogrithm, i= is simply the difference of cubes, . &=bsp; Have you written about the iran deal? On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Noam Chomsky <-> wro=e: What you suggest is very much the model=that has been current in the behavioral sciences for many years. It has a record of colossal failure, and for good reasons, I think. l='s disproven, but keeps coming back, most recently with Big Data il=usions. A child doesn't grow arms and l=gs rather than wings, or a mammalian vs insect visual system, the way an ant searches for food. Rather, the path of development is sharply r=stricted (and evolution follows constraints too). Acquisition o= language (and other cognitive achievements) seems very much like physical g=owth. Highly contentious in the field, but in=my opinion that's a comment on the failures of the field.=/u> From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:44 PM To: Noam Chomsky < <mailto Subject: Re: Re: > > ants and evolution work by trying things and finding t=e best solution. math and physics works by algorith=s. Im suggesting that maybe just as a child sends out many connection= and then discards the unused might be a better template for biological thin=ing. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Noam Chomsky <-> wro=e: There were plenty of warnings about one=currency. Not heeded, unfortunately. 3 EFTA_R1_01613884 EFTA02491663