From: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 13:52:07 +0000 Inline-Images: image00 1 jpg As Always everything written by me to you should be seen alongside a smile and twinkle . expressing my enjoyment you engage in slippery definitions. . I suggested the gromov desciiption on pg 26, on his view regarding the math since the 1960s? . If you can help me understand then what you mean by" language "at least in our dialogue. . I thought we had agreed to separate it from communication. sound wave analysis. etc. why is the waggle dance a study of a living system more than say written directions is a study of humans. Im unclear. by marrs method i assume you mean Computation : like scaling down, when speakers of a given language variety have a choice between two or more denotatively equivalent forms of expression, are there computational or mathematical principles (i.e. about the goals that language can, often, or always is achieving) that predict why speakers exhibit the gradient preferences that they do? Algorithmic: How does human language generally, a specific language, or a specific speaker achieve some of these abstract goals? Implementation and How might (and are) these algorithms and representations be implemented in the brain? not sure any new insights greater than your UG was achieved after many attempts . I will now read recursive function work. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Noam Chomsky > wrote: Sorry, but I don't follow. Insect navigation is a study of a living system, and the work that I'm familiar with studies it as a computational system. If there's a better way of analyzing it, well and good: the scientists working on the topic would be glad to see it. Outside observers like me too. At another level of analysis, insect navigation is a sensory-motor process in physical space. There's no semantic error that I'm aware of. Studying systems at various levels of abstraction has be