From: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 13:18:08 +0000 " processing" -my use of sloppy language , sorry, thanks for the great paper. music and its" understanding" , might be a closer 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 certain bounds that differentiate it from noise. fyi, in the paper it says the vision system is only input, .not sure that is corrrect. reading the eyes might have more to it than previously thought. On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Noam Chomsky > wrote: There is a view that language is essentially a processing system. The arguments against it seem to me very power. I'll attach a recent paper about it, a contribution to a volume of essays dedicated to Jerry Fodor and focusing on his conception of language as processing (input modules). His version 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 <M > Subject: Re: Re: can it be thought of as no more than signal processing. why not use the same technology that attempts to intercept communications and decode the signals and apply it to language. normally one tries to process the signals. i wonder if they put it in reverse. and processed the language in an attempt to find coherence.??? On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Noam Chomsky < > wrote: There is a notion of coherence in both cases, but how to unify them, or whether it's possible, I don't really see. From: jeffrey E. imailto:jeevacation@gmailcomi Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 1:33 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: EFTA00849919