From: "Noam Chomsky" To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Re: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:34:53 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.jpg Found a few minutes to start plowing through masses of mail. Much too brief. Things we'll have to talk about. But some thought below and then for later messages. Noam From: jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 9:52 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: As Always everything written by me to you should be seen alongside a smile and twinkle . expressing my enjoyment Same here you engage in slippery definitions. Glad to try to sharpen them if you can direct me to them. . I suggested the gromov desciiption on pg 26, on his view regarding the math since the 1960s? Don't see the problem. I read the description. It's doubtless important work, and mathematicians pay attention to it under the conditions I mentioned, which don't apply in the present case. . If you can help me understand then what you mean by" language "at least in our dialogue. By "language" I mean I-language, a biological object, as discussed in the papers I sent you (and in much closer detail in technical papers that I didn't send). . I thought we had agreed to separate it from communication. sound wave analysis. etc. That's what I've been arguing for many years, in virtual isolation, as discussed in those papers. why is the waggle dance a study of a living system more than say written directions is a study of humans. Im unclear. Not sure why you brought up the waggle dance. I referred to the computational system of insect navigation, a different matter. The waggle dance is surely a living system. Don't see what written directions have to do with our discussion. by marrs method i assume you mean EFTA00854769