From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 2:02 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: you can recognize valerias face in a crowd, and know its=her voice immediately on the phone. I'm not sure if analysis as =pposed to shape recognition ( distance time function) for the face a=d fourier=transform for voice. is rightly considered analysis and parsing. I don'=t think so on another note ,using your right eye and then your=left try to focus for a moment on Valeria's right eye and=then focus on her left.while you are talking to her, . see if=you get different info. the expression "the eyes are the =indows of the soul ", might be wrong, it might only be one eye,.) On Su=, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Noam Chomsky Ma> wrot=: The idea of interpreting sensory syst=ms as involving both input and output, and hence presumably accessing a ce=tral system of competence (as distinct from the input-output performance systems) is a very interesting one, particularly =he hints about eyes. I don't see quite how it works, but wor=h pursuing and thinking about. Very few people I can think of, but w=ll think more. What sensory systems provide to the b=ain is always interpreted by internal systems, memory included, and the se=sory systems themselves carry out analysis. There's a good deal of detailed work on this, mainly for sound and=vision. Turns out, for example, that chimp auditory system yields so=ething very close to the physical features that enter into the phonologica= systems of human language, but lacking the internal interpretation, for the apes it's noise while for the new=orn infant it's language. From: jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 7:33 PM To: Noam Chomsky < & Subject: Re: Re: is a first step to get a group together of people th=t might add useful insights. . people you respect . though you=might disagree. maybe we pose the question to the group. re eyes, it seems that each sense should have both a tra=smitter and receiver, . scent. smell., hearing voice. , touch mo=ement, sight -? , I think the eyes transmit info. my work on placebo showed video did not work, no explanation, interrogators. use eyes to gauge truthfulness. ( But these are all c=gnitive interpretations of the (internal) output of the visual system. , -- not su=e what input is not- a cognitive interpretation.? why I like t=e music work is that our brain must first deconstruct the chords. Fo=rier transform , or something like, it. then have a memory to know whether the next two or three notes follow grammatic=lly from the past few. EFTA_R1_01614996 EFTA02492331

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Noam Chomsky c w=ote: Been on the road all day from the Cap= to Cambridge. Along with every other car in Mass. Glad you liked the paper. Since=Leonard Bernstein's Charles Eliot Norton lectures at Harvard about 40 years ago there has been interesting work seeking structural similariti=s between language and at least some musical traditions, mostly western to=al. You might want to have a look. One of those doing the best=work is my colleague David Pesetsky, a fine linguist and excellent musician. You're right that "re=ding the eyes" is a complex and fascinating topic, even extrapolat=ng gaze, the way infants do but probably not other animals. And famously, staring=into someone's eyes is far from neutral: either serious threat or =eal intimacy. But these are all cognitive interpretations of the (in=ernal) output of the visual system. It could be argued that the computati=ns involved in determining what we see are a central system, not just part of a processing system. Hard to see how to pose that a= a real empirical issue that can be tested. From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:jeevacation@gmailcoml Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 9:18 AM To: Noam Chomsky <d 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 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. 2 EFTA_R1_01614997 EFTA02492332