List, Edwina: > On Jul 15, 2019, at 6:36 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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’.
I agree with your assertion. Historically, as a consequence of inquiry into natural philosophy, the chemical sciences emerged, over several millennia, from the signs of matter. CSP was among the many who sought to spin a philosophy from the signs of matter. > > 2] I don’t share your dismissal of many researchers in other fields as unable > to understand ‘the logic of chemistry’. I agree with your assertion. > > 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. I agree with your assertion. > > 4] As for your personal insult - I’ll leave you to enjoy having made it. I > don’t deal with personal insults. I merely agreed with your assertion. Cheers Jerry > > Edwina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 7:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, >>> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> <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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
