List: > On Jul 15, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> This analytic framework, I suggest, can be used to describe and analyze all >>> complex adaptive systems. For one example - take speciation of the >>> progressive movement to diversity and complexity -- for example, plant >>> speciation where plants evolve barriers to genetic exchange between >>> previously interbreeding populations. That is, informational stimuli from >>> such external agents as changes in an external pollinator and/or habitat >>> [[a semiosic interaction] promotes adaptive divergence in local areas. That >>> is, 'small networks' or local semiosic networks' can promote rapid adaptive >>> and evolutionary changes that are confined to a local area. >>> >>>
Unfortunately, CSP’s analytical framework, while he viewed it from a chemical bedrock perspective, does not represent chemical entities. The necessities for chemical representations include symbols for the identity of each atomic number and the associated electrical graphs representing part-whole bindings to create the unity of chemical sentence. In addition, one of the bedrocks of modern chemical logic is the requirement that a sentence describing the facts of the synthesis of molecules from atoms associate copulative conjunctions with emergent predicates. Of course, the claim that CSP’s framework represents "complex adaptive systems" is unchallenged because this claim is merely philosophical musings, lacking any ontological status within natural philosophy. JMHO. 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 .
