From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:23 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: the chemicals and their actions storage, transmission, can=ot be sliced away. they are the ultimate source of langu=ge. the grammar of the cellular signals. , or shapes , i= protein folding. are the tinker toys . the =bject that they produce is your digital infinity On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:05 PM, =oam Chomsk > wrote: I don't see where that gets ur. Everything is generated, ultimately, by the same sources. 8u= we still want to understand the nature of the visual, immune, enteric nervous, linguistic, etc., systems. From: jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Monday, October 19 2015 7:22 PM To: Noam Chomsk Subject: Re: but the words are generated by chemical electrical=C2 actions. . nothing more. there is no make believe force.=C2 . go to the source. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Noam Chomsky >= wrote: eat, great, great. But=for the moment, roles reversed. Valeria Had to call of our trip. Last=one was called of Maybe the next one ecause=our og wi ave a nervous breakdown. It's certainly true that ther= are all kinds of information transfer. Human language, a particular biological object, can also be used for this purpose (though it is hard to=comprehend the common claim that this is its "function").=C2 Suppose, however, that we limit ourselves to organ-to-organ signalin=. Would it be appropriate to ask why chemical signals are not "merely a signal for internal use", just like elec=rical, linguistic, other? I don't think so. We would w=nt to know what chemical signals are and how they work, and the same for e=ectrical, linguistic, etc. They are all radically different, and their particular nature is the object of inquiry into them.<=> EFTA_R1_01599978 EFTA02483032