From: "Noam Chomsky"

From: "Noam Chomsky" To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: RE: FW: gromov Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:59:19 +0000 Whatever memory is, it is doubtless something with neural representation. Whether it makes sense to think of it as a distinct biological object, a module of the cognitive/neural architecture, I don't know. The mapping of light to mental constructs is similar to the mapping of sound to mental constructs at the abstract level of architectural-computational analysis, as in the modularity discussions — Marr's computational level. Language however is crucially different. It's not an input system. The rest is fascinating, but I have only a dim grasp of it. From: jeffrey E. [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:11 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: FW: gromov I understand. is your view compatible with my proposal that human memory is also a biological object. ? the mapping that takes light filters it, focuses it. maps onto mental consructs. which can generate maps onto physicological or other maps. is that different from sound. the underlying structure and architecture that takes it filters , focuses ,deconstructs, and maps it onto a mental construct . am i getting closer to language as biological object I will read anything you send. BTW It was not until the 1920's and the spread of the automobile that home mortgages outnumbered farm mortgages. In the 1930's, the mortgage industry got a huge assist from the feds — not from the tax deduction, but from agencies like the Federal Housing Administration, which insured 30-year loans, banking and the financial system is a complex subject. banks can lend money , create money, buy other bank paper creating more paper. than borrow against that paper. loans , purchases repo agreements, credit default swaps. interest. supply, exchange rates. accounting balance sheets , income statements. assets and libilitties , both actual and contingent. few of the above are independent variables. once you can understand a rough idea. I was lucky and never understood why work was necessary to have money. the system , never touching anything real. generates as much as one needs. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Noam Chomsky < wrote: Message is clear, as I think is its significance. It makes sense to formulate meaningful scientific ideas within Gromov's language if by doing so general results obtained within his system have some consequences for the ideas in question. Otherwise not. Rather like category theory in this respect. It's rarely done by scientists, or by mathematicians for that matter, because the condition is so difficult to satisfy. If it is satisfied, everyone applauds. In the language case there isn't even a hint as to how formulation in these terms would achieve more than obfuscation. From: jeffrey E. imailto:[email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:11 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Fwd: gromov EFTA00854627 Forwarded message -------- From: Jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:42 PM Subject: gromov To: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation®gmail.com> gromov quote Yet, I hope that I managed to convey the message: the mathematical language developed by the end of the 20th century by far exceeds in its expressive power anything even imaginable, say, before 1960. Any meaningful idea coming from science can be fully developed in this language. please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation®gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA00854628