From: "Noam Chomsky"
To: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation@grnail.com>
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. [mailtoleevacation@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:11PM
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:jeevacation@gmail.comj
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:11 AM
To: Noam Chomsky
Subject: Fwd: gromov
EFTA00854627
Forwarded message --------
From: Jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.corn>
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