From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 11:33 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: is a first step to get a group together of people that mig=t add useful insights. . people you respect . though you might=disagree. maybe we pose the question to the group. =C2 re eyes, it seems that each sense should have both a transmitt=r and receiver, . scent. smell., hearing voice. , touch =ovement, sight -? , I think the eyes transmit info. =A0 my work on placebo showed video did not work, no explanation, =AO interrogators. use eyes to gauge truthfulness. But these are all cogniti=e interpretations of the (internal) output of the visual system. , -- not =ure what input is not- a cognitive interpretation.? why I like=the music work is that our brain must first deconstruct the chords. =ourier transform , or something like, it. then have a memory to know=whether the next two or three notes follow grammatically from the past few= On Sat= Aug 1, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote= Been on the road all day from the Cap= to Cambridge. Along with every other car in Mass. Glad you liked the paper. Since=Leonard Bernstein's Charles Eliot Norton lectures at Harvard about=40 years ago there has been interesting work seeking structural similarities between language and at least some musical traditions, mostly=western tonal. You might want to have a look. One of those doi=g the best work is my colleague David Pesetsky, a fine linguist and excell=nt musician. You're right that "re=ding the eyes" is a complex and fascinating topic, even extrapolat=ng gaze, the way infants do but probably not other animals. And famo=sly, staring into someone's eyes is far from neutral: either serious th=eat or real intimacy. But these are all cognitive interpretations of=the (internal) output of the visual system. It could be argued that the computati=ns involved in determining what we see are a central system, not just part=of a processing system. Hard