Edwina: First, to be clear about the issues involved.
1. The chemical science are based on the perceptions. Roughly speaking, only signs of matter are available for analysis at the level of chemical identity. One can assert that the roots of chemistry, as known during CSP’s lifespan, were entirely semiotic. Thus, after medical practice, the chemical sciences were the second source for the developments of the logics of semiosis. Today, of course, the collations of numerous sub disciplines rely heavily on abstract logical interpretations of signs. 2. The logic of modern chemistry and molecular biology is vastly more complex than CSP realized. Indeed, the logic of chemistry is beyond the grasp of virtually all logicians, mathematicians and physicians, but often understood in principle by biologists. The primitive graph theory of CSP is only remotely related to the electrical terminology needed to represent the relations between nuclei and electrons in forming molecules with EMERGENT properties, ie, complex relations beyond the inverse square laws. Does this offer you some insight about your assertion: "And I don’t see why Peirce’s semiotic framework can’t apply to ‘chemical entities’. After all - the semiotic process DOES apply to ‘matter’, and to my knowledge, ‘matter’ is a ‘chemical entity’.” A chemical entity is a single sort of thing with an identity (derived from an analytical index of atoms and, in CSP terms, rhema and dicisigns. It is no a general variable, rather a species specified BY IT’S QUALISIGNS.. With regard to: > Second - I’ve no idea what ‘ontological status within natural philosophy’ > means. In my opinion, your posts over the roughly two decades of our exchanges, fully confirm this assertion. Cheers Jerry > On Jul 15, 2019, at 1:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jerry -I’m not talking about ‘chemical representations’ or ‘symbols’ of > chemical molecules. And I don’t see why Peirce’s semiotic framework can’t > apply to ‘chemical entities’. After all - the semiotic process DOES apply to > ‘matter’, and to my knowledge, ‘matter’ is a ‘chemical entity’. > > Second - I’ve no idea what ‘ontological status within natural philosophy’ > means. > > Edwina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> List: >> >>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
