Gary F., List: Gary, thank you very very much for your transcription of Bedrock text.
When time permits, I may comment in greater detail on the chemical aspects, since these aspects play a deep role in the necessity of embedding CSP logical style either within the logical style of organic chemistry or contiguous to this scientific style of reasoning. But before the body of this note, a statement is necessary to make clear logical distinctions between inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry. Note that in the 1870’s, CSP started writing several papers on chemical classification following the analytic schema used to separate and distinguish inorganic chemicals. The deep logical difference between inorganic chemicals and organic chemicals is simple enough state. Roughly speaking, the inorganic chemistry of salts was developed as a series of tables which listed the ionic names as pairs of positive and negative ions, e.g., Sodium chloride. The proper names were derived from the names of the chemical elements. The classifications were based on the relative ratios of each element 1:1, 1:2, 1:3,… , 2:1, 2:2, 2:3… , 3:1, 3:2, 3:3, and so forth. A critical predicate of each proper name of the salt was it’s solubility in water, or alcohol, or other liquids such as urine or blood. General speaking inorganic salts A new for of representation of things as forms was necessary to identify “organic chemicals” that, often contained several different atoms and remained as a “wholes” under distillation and burned. The term “radical” was used to identify the parts of organic matter. Linguistically, the terms, organic, organisms, organs, and organization are based on similar and over-lapping predicates of different classes of things. With that as informational background, on to the basic reasoning of this posting concerning the newly transcribed Bedrock manuscript concerning the role of subjects and predicates in the Bedrock as contrasted with the Artificial Intelligent Interpretations of John Sowa. > On Mar 4, 2019, at 11:21 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Notice that the Graphs are designed to facilitate logical analysis of the > reasoning process, not to facilitate reasoning itself — a point Peirce had > already insisted on in the 1903 Lowell lectures and elsewhere. > > [[ To this end, it is requisite that, as in mathematics, and as the deepest > and most thorough studies of Logic that {35} have hitherto been attained > show us to be clearly requisite, there should be (1) illustrations of the > logical procedure that shall represent it, (2) not merely by force of any > rule or habit of interpretation, and still less by any actual, or dynamical, > connexion between the sign, or representamen, and the object signified, but, > as far as possible, by and in an analogy, or agreement in the very forms > themselves, between a (3) visual, or optico-muscular, presentment and the > thought itself. ]] I believe that Gary has “hit the nail on the head” with his introductory sentence. CSP is attempting to create a way to reason about organic chemistry, following the well-establish chemical practice of relating the parts of the whole to one another. Chemical elements are NOUNS. Chemical elements have unique identities, described by predicates. The parts of the whole is synonymous, in chemical linguistics, with the concept of an index. The chemical table of elements is the universal index for all of the parts of atoms, all of the parts of molecules and all the composites composites of the same. The chemical term for the index of the atoms in a molecule is the “molecular formula”. The formula is an abstraction (corollary evidence, collateral experience?) from the qualisigns as analytical measurements. After CSP past, the system of atomic numbers was described. In this new system, every elemental name has a corresponding elemental number and every molecular formula has a corresponding molecular number. The algebra of chemistry is based on the perceptions of the numbers. My belief is that the existential graph is merely a thought about how chemical atoms are joined to form an organic chemical. It is a representation of perceptions of organic matter. Each “peg” is an abstraction for the modern concept of a nuclear atom. The “line of identity” is, in modern terms, a chemical bonds, (“glue”), that binds atoms to one another, creating the identity of a molecule from the identity of the atoms that it is made from. In physical terms, atomic relational logics are a consequence of electrical stickiness, that is, attractive and repulsive electrical forces associated with the nucleus and electrons. This knowledge was not available to CSP. Example of an existential graph as a consequence of stickiness of atoms. Consider three pegs: A, B, C as a collection of atoms. Connect the pegs by lines of identity. A—B—C Now, the collection is a different mathematical object than the three independent symbols, A, B, and C. Lets give the collection A—B—C a name that distinguishes it from A, B, and C. How are we going to create a name for the collection? The tradition in chemistry is to name A—B—C after its constituents. So, the name of the collection A—B—C will be composed from the names of precursor atoms, A, B, C. One possibility is that atom A and atom C have the same identity. Now, consider A and C to be the same atom and B to be a different atom. In one graphic case, let A and C be named “hydrogen” and let B be named “oxygen”. Then, the name of the collection, by tradition, by common practice, is “hydrogen oxide” or the common name of “water” !!! H-O-H. This example is overly simplified, but it is substantially faithful to CSP thoughts about how perceptions become existential graphs, produced as signs/ symbols, on paper by ocular-muscular actions. The argument holds for ALL triatomic molecules. MORE DEEPLY, Gary’s sentence: > Notice that the Graphs are designed to facilitate logical analysis of the > reasoning process, not to facilitate reasoning itself — a point Peirce had > already insisted on in the 1903 Lowell lectures and elsewhere. can be interpreted as a simple description of “triadic trinity” where the perceptions are thought of in terms of different referential meaning for each of the nine terms. These nine terms can be thought of as spanning the linguistic domain of discourse such that the argument will be consistent with organic chemistry. Mathematical logic (e.g., bastardized to mathematical model theory, one of the philosophical justifications of Artificial Intelligence) as a domain of discourse, does not correspond with triadic trinity terms as used in the Bedrock manuscript (organic chemistry). However, Tarski’s meta-languages (meta-logics) fit linguistically, very nicely with the sequence of terms formed around (organic, organ, organism, and organization) the different scopes of meanings derived from the same linguistic “taproot” notion of organic chemistry. What other logical notions will emerge from this “tap-root” or well-spring of CSP’s vision of the logic of relatives? And, what other potential interpretations of CSP’s philosophy will be either strengthened or weakened? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
