ntributions of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vision, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls "the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity that I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least at the level of

Subject: RE: There are lots of people whom I like a lot and whose work I respect (and often though not always agree with). I think I've mentioned Randy Gallistel at Rutgers. Norbert Hornstein (who has a blog you might look at) and Paul Pietroski at Maryland. Gennaro Chierchia at Harvard. Lots of others. I ra

tributi=ns of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vis=on, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls =80 the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity =hat I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least a= the level

tributi=ns of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vis=on, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls =80 the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity =hat I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least a= the level

tributi=ns of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vis=on, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls =80 the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity =hat I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least a= the level

ntributions of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vision, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls "the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity that I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least at the level of

tributions of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vision, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls "the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity that I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least at the level of

ntributions of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vision, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls "the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity that I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least at the level of

tributi=ns of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vis=on, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls =80 the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity =hat I sent you. And yes, they're certainly connected, at least a= the level

tributi=ns of Berwick and his students, including Yang. 3. The idea that there is a "ug" for vis=on, language, etc., seems to be essentially what Randy Gallistel calls =80 the norm in neuroscience," quoted in the paper on modularity =hat I sent you. And yes, they're 2 EFTA_R1_01624356 EFTA02498694 certain