Jerry 1] - all sciences are ‘based on perceptions’ [and the analysis of these perceptions]. I don’t know what YOU mean by ‘signs of matter’.
2] I don’t share your dismissal of many researchers in other fields as unable to understand ‘the logic of chemistry’. 3] What’s the difference between a ‘general variable’ and a ‘species’? And I don’t agree with you that a ‘species is specified by its qualisigns’! And I think you are missing my point about the morphological formative process of semiosis - using the basic triad. 4] As for your personal insult - I’ll leave you to enjoy having made it. I don’t deal with personal insults. Edwina Sent from my iPad > On Jul 15, 2019, at 7:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]> wrote: >>> >>> 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 . >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
