Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

List, Clark: On Nov 2, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> On Nov 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >> wrote: >> >> 1. the nature of the chemical bond was highly controversial and no clear >> general propositions were available. >> The iconic representation of chemical bonds was

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

> On Nov 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > 1. the nature of the chemical bond was highly controversial and no clear > general propositions were available. > The iconic representation of chemical bonds was NOT yet standardized. > Multiple icons were used to represent the same

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

general fact that he was doing logic > as semiotic — he wasn’t trying to theorize about chemistry. > > gary f. > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: 2-Nov-14 4:04 PM > To: Peirce List > Cc: Gary Fuhrman > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

> On Nov 2, 2014, at 6:49 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: > > This brings me to Gary R’s question about the relations between concepts and > symbols, and where consciousness fits into this picture. Briefly, if we agree > that the function of consciousness is to add a higher level of self-control — >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

> On Nov 2, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Gary Fuhrman > wrote: > > Jerry, yes, Peirce does say in many places that the structure of a rheme, or > a predicate, has a valency analogous to chemical valency. But if you look at > my statement carefully, you’ll see that it is about P

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

M To: Peirce List Cc: Gary Fuhrman Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four List: On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: Jerry, to give a short answer to your question: No, neither Peirce's doctrine of Dicisigns nor Frederik'

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

List, Sung: First, please note that it was the general historical state of the chemical sciences that was incomplete (relative to 30-40 years later after quantum mechanics was introduced) as an explanation for physical-chemical identities. I did not wish to imply that CSP lacked understanding

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

List: On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: > Jerry, to give a short answer to your question: > No, neither Peirce’s doctrine of Dicisigns nor Frederik’s explanation of it > in NP have anything to do with “chemical causality” or with the structure of > molecules. Nor do Peirce’s exist