From: "Noam Chomsky" To: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation®gmail.com> Subject: RE: Re: Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 01:27:29 +0000 Just getting to mail and found several letters of yours. The "boundaries" in question have to do with the very general architecture of the mind/brain, abstracted from mechanisms. At this level, the visual system is an input system, and language is both an input and an output system (trivially) but also (for reasons discussed in the paper I sent you) a central system. The question of awareness doesn't seem to interact with this analysis of general architecture, as far as I can see. The analogy you give is a good one for a different topic that I've discussed (as usual rejecting standard doctrine): inaccessibility to consciousness of the rule systems that enter into use of language and other actions. From: jeffrey E. [mailtoleevacation@gmaitcom] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 4:50 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: as an apparatus to guide your view . think of a cell where the vast majority of its activity is inside its membrane, only what happens on the membrane would be awareness. the activity inside would be inaccessible , but obviously a principled relationship exists. between the activity inside ,outside and ACROSS. the membrane is where the input output occurs. , the membrane is only aware of what transports across it. and as its own ecology. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Noam Chomsky • > wrote: Will be interested to learn if that's true. Right now, I don't see the problems you envision. Almost all of what we're discussing is inaccessible to consciousness, much like the principles that govern visual interpretation, or most of what goes on in the organism, including the cognitive. From: jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:51 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: i propose that the boundary can be considered where awareness takes place. the old engineering charts drew boxes and ignored t