Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction
> > A system is a system regardless whether it is a human abstraction or not. > A system could be real in the Peirce sense that what it does is independent > of what we think. I am tempted to say nothing is just anything. Everything > is something. A weather system is real. A system for determining wins and > losses is real. This post is real. One could say everything is an > abstraction and that would not affect all that occurs regardless. > > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
RE: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction
Irrespective of the semiotic-relational aspects of a silicon atom with other atoms, molecules and crystals within a rock, a rock is not a holon (mind-body) to which the principles of semiotics and pragmatism can apply. The notion is credible within localized contexts, such as crystal formation, chemical bonds, or other structural interfacing reactions (such as your reference to diamond-hydrogen bonding). It is also credible within a QM context. But a rock... from a grain of sand to a massive boulder... is not a holon, and talk of consciousness in rocks (as opposed to the localized structures that might constitute them) is a category error for this reason. There is no context in which a rock makes choices and infers meaning. Exactly the same with a chair or a hat... there might be localized relational aspects (glues, organic molecules, micro-crystals, etc), but no chair or hat... or rock... is a holon to which choices matter. Hatness does not aid a hat's survival. Chairness does not aid a chair's survival. Rockness does not aid a rock's survival. Rocks are not conscious. How could this even be in question? -Original Message- From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:36 AM To: Peirce List Cc: John F Sowa; Stephen Jarosek Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction List, John, Stephen: A few technical comment from a chemist may be helpful here because the semiotics of chemical sciences developed a forma logic for relationships among all chemical elements. The logical formalism is virtually complete but minor enhancements are necessary from time to time as the fruits of inquiry into the nature of matter continue to generate exact knowledge about the nature of quantum chemistry, chemistry, and biochemistry. > On Feb 18, 2018, at 9:24 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: >> As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context that >> is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the stone as to >> what its properties should be. This sentence is not true. Any stone that contains the element silicon with have the property that chemical and mass spectral analysis will show the presence of the element of silicon. This is positive evidence, far greater than merely a clue. > > That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in > different molecules. This sentence is also not exactly true. But very nearly so. A molecule that contains the element silicon must also contain relations between the parts of the molecule - chemical relations that conjoin the parts into a whole, such that a formal name exists for the whole. > In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as silicon dioxide. But > SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules, such as aluminum silicate. > And those molecules are affected by the crystals, glasses, and surface > interactions that affect the rock as a whole. Heat, pressure, > tension, torsion, and chemical processes are transmitted to, from, and > through every molecule in the rock. > >> The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected minerals. The word “system” can be interpreted in many, many ways. At one extreme, a stone may be a very loose collection of many mineral of similar composite or diverse composition. At the other extreme, a stone may be a crystal composed from two elements, such as a diamond. (Before anyone sends me a email saying that diamond in pure carbon, I would point out the the diamond-iod structural surface includes hydrogen bonded to the exterior carbon atoms.) > > For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized than > any human can conceive. I think this is a bit of an rhetorical exaggeration. More than 100,000,000 organic compounds have been indexed by the American Chemical Society. > > And there is a continuum: This phrase is rather misleading in its meaning in this context. Each chemical nuclei is an individual mass and electrical unit. It is a discrete count that associates a specific member of the table of elements with its logical predicates - its physical properties. The concept of a continuum, both in Peircian terms and traditional mathematics) is a mathematical term that relates to certain predicates of atoms with geometric lines but not to the names of the atoms themselves. > Some inorganic processes somehow evolved into those organic > processes. The genesis of organic matter as molecules from inorganic matter as atoms is very well known in chemistry and molecular biology. This usage is confusing to me. The central issues to be explained are the spontaneity of the dynamics of life and the spontaneity of reproduction. These two issues necessary involve both quantum chemistry (Penrose t
Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction
List, John, Stephen: A few technical comment from a chemist may be helpful here because the semiotics of chemical sciences developed a forma logic for relationships among all chemical elements. The logical formalism is virtually complete but minor enhancements are necessary from time to time as the fruits of inquiry into the nature of matter continue to generate exact knowledge about the nature of quantum chemistry, chemistry, and biochemistry. > On Feb 18, 2018, at 9:24 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: >> As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context that >> is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the stone as to >> what its properties should be. This sentence is not true. Any stone that contains the element silicon with have the property that chemical and mass spectral analysis will show the presence of the element of silicon. This is positive evidence, far greater than merely a clue. > > That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in > different molecules. This sentence is also not exactly true. But very nearly so. A molecule that contains the element silicon must also contain relations between the parts of the molecule - chemical relations that conjoin the parts into a whole, such that a formal name exists for the whole. > In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as > silicon dioxide. But SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules, > such as aluminum silicate. And those molecules are affected by the > crystals, glasses, and surface interactions that affect the rock as > a whole. Heat, pressure, tension, torsion, and chemical processes > are transmitted to, from, and through every molecule in the rock. > >> The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected minerals. The word “system” can be interpreted in many, many ways. At one extreme, a stone may be a very loose collection of many mineral of similar composite or diverse composition. At the other extreme, a stone may be a crystal composed from two elements, such as a diamond. (Before anyone sends me a email saying that diamond in pure carbon, I would point out the the diamond-iod structural surface includes hydrogen bonded to the exterior carbon atoms.) > > For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized than > any human can conceive. I think this is a bit of an rhetorical exaggeration. More than 100,000,000 organic compounds have been indexed by the American Chemical Society. > > And there is a continuum: This phrase is rather misleading in its meaning in this context. Each chemical nuclei is an individual mass and electrical unit. It is a discrete count that associates a specific member of the table of elements with its logical predicates - its physical properties. The concept of a continuum, both in Peircian terms and traditional mathematics) is a mathematical term that relates to certain predicates of atoms with geometric lines but not to the names of the atoms themselves. > Some inorganic processes somehow evolved > into those organic processes. The genesis of organic matter as molecules from inorganic matter as atoms is very well known in chemistry and molecular biology. This usage is confusing to me. The central issues to be explained are the spontaneity of the dynamics of life and the spontaneity of reproduction. These two issues necessary involve both quantum chemistry (Penrose twistors for optical isomers) and the semiotics of genetic symbols as perplex generating functions for the organization of life from small inorganic and organic precursors. > The inorganic processes that generate > the earth's weather are extremely complex. And the weather affects > and is affected by all the organic processes on earth. And the earth > is just one insignificant rocky planet in a run-of-the-mill galaxy > in one corner of an immensely complex cosmos. Fine. I concur. Jerry > > John > > - > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction
I think that anywhere that choice can be said to exist there freedom also exists and from our point of view and perhaps all others chance as well. I think we are on the threshold of learning more and more about the reality of which we are all part. In the song "Idiot Wind" Dylan says 'it's a wonder we can even feed ourselves'. I think by the end of the century we will have evolved more than in the last 2000 years as to how we see reality. Peirce seems to me the fount of wisdom here having, virtually insisted on the foundational truths of that movement. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > John, Edwina > > Even though I am not a chemist, I chose my words very carefully! My choice > of the two words "silicon molecule" specifically precludes the word "atom". > What you are saying, with regards to how a silicon atom combines with other > atoms into molecules is fine. > > And then there is the question of the role of silicon-based molecules in > forming into crystals... or glass (which strictly speaking is a liquid)… or > mica. Looked at in this way, I definitely see your point. For example, > silicon-based crystals forming in a lump of granite. I just find talk of > consciousness in rocks kinda cringey, prone to category errors, and am > inclined to keep my distance from it. > > As for other complex systems, like weather patterns, tornadoes and such... > little evidence of holon behavior... a tornado is not a holon (mind-body) > making choices from its Umwelt, and so the Peircean categories cannot > apply. They can only apply to the individual molecules that comprise the > tornado. > > If I read you correctly, I interpret what you’re saying in the context of > emergence theory (along the lines of complex adaptive systems, mathematical > order from material chaos). It's a materialist position that I am no longer > comfortable with. At issue for me, wrt emergence theory, is the apparent > absence of holonic (mind-body) behavior, choice-making and Umwelts that can > be expressed in a semiotic narrative. > > Regards > > > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca ] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 4:32 PM > *To:* Peirce-L; John F Sowa > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human > abstraction > > > > > John - exactly, I fully agree - and nicely said. AND in addition, all > these processes are semiosic and involve Mind. > > Edwina > > > *On Sun 18/02/18 10:24 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net > sent:* > > On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > > As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context > > that is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the > > stone as to what its properties should be. > > That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in > different molecules. In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as > silicon dioxide. But SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules, > such as aluminum silicate. And those molecules are affected by the > crystals, glasses, and surface interactions that affect the rock as > a whole. Heat, pressure, tension, torsion, and chemical processes > are transmitted to, from, and through every molecule in the rock. > > > The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected > minerals. > > No!!! The concept of a system is just an abstraction from artifacts > that humans design. For inorganic matter, even a single rock is a > complex system. Weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stars, galaxies, > supernovas, black holes, and the Big Bang are far more complex. > For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized than > any human can conceive. > > And there is a continuum: Some inorganic processes somehow evolved > into those organic processes. The inorganic processes that generate > the earth's weather are extremely complex. And the weather affects > and is affected by all the organic processes on earth. And the earth > is just one insignificant rocky planet in a run-of-the-mill galaxy > in one corner of an immensely complex cosmos. > > John > > > > > - > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
RE: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction
John, Edwina Even though I am not a chemist, I chose my words very carefully! My choice of the two words "silicon molecule" specifically precludes the word "atom". What you are saying, with regards to how a silicon atom combines with other atoms into molecules is fine. And then there is the question of the role of silicon-based molecules in forming into crystals... or glass (which strictly speaking is a liquid)… or mica. Looked at in this way, I definitely see your point. For example, silicon-based crystals forming in a lump of granite. I just find talk of consciousness in rocks kinda cringey, prone to category errors, and am inclined to keep my distance from it. As for other complex systems, like weather patterns, tornadoes and such... little evidence of holon behavior... a tornado is not a holon (mind-body) making choices from its Umwelt, and so the Peircean categories cannot apply. They can only apply to the individual molecules that comprise the tornado. If I read you correctly, I interpret what you’re saying in the context of emergence theory (along the lines of complex adaptive systems, mathematical order from material chaos). It's a materialist position that I am no longer comfortable with. At issue for me, wrt emergence theory, is the apparent absence of holonic (mind-body) behavior, choice-making and Umwelts that can be expressed in a semiotic narrative. Regards From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 4:32 PM To: Peirce-L; John F Sowa Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction John - exactly, I fully agree - and nicely said. AND in addition, all these processes are semiosic and involve Mind. Edwina On Sun 18/02/18 10:24 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context > that is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the > stone as to what its properties should be. That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in different molecules. In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as silicon dioxide. But SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules, such as aluminum silicate. And those molecules are affected by the crystals, glasses, and surface interactions that affect the rock as a whole. Heat, pressure, tension, torsion, and chemical processes are transmitted to, from, and through every molecule in the rock. > The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected minerals. No!!! The concept of a system is just an abstraction from artifacts that humans design. For inorganic matter, even a single rock is a complex system. Weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stars, galaxies, supernovas, black holes, and the Big Bang are far more complex. For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized than any human can conceive. And there is a continuum: Some inorganic processes somehow evolved into those organic processes. The inorganic processes that generate the earth's weather are extremely complex. And the weather affects and is affected by all the organic processes on earth. And the earth is just one insignificant rocky planet in a run-of-the-mill galaxy in one corner of an immensely complex cosmos. John - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John - exactly, I fully agree - and nicely said. AND in addition,
all these processes are semiosic and involve Mind.
Edwina
On Sun 18/02/18 10:24 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no
context
> that is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from
the
> stone as to what its properties should be.
That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in
different molecules. In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as
silicon dioxide. But SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules,
such as aluminum silicate. And those molecules are affected by the
crystals, glasses, and surface interactions that affect the rock as
a whole. Heat, pressure, tension, torsion, and chemical processes
are transmitted to, from, and through every molecule in the rock.
> The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected
minerals.
No!!! The concept of a system is just an abstraction from artifacts
that humans design. For inorganic matter, even a single rock is a
complex system. Weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stars, galaxies,
supernovas, black holes, and the Big Bang are far more complex.
For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized
than
any human can conceive.
And there is a continuum: Some inorganic processes somehow evolved
into those organic processes. The inorganic processes that generate
the earth's weather are extremely complex. And the weather affects
and is affected by all the organic processes on earth. And the
earth
is just one insignificant rocky planet in a run-of-the-mill galaxy
in one corner of an immensely complex cosmos.
John
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
