List, Jon: > On Oct 21, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > JC: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings > relate to scientific causality? > > By "scientific causality," do you mean efficient causality (i.e., brute > reactions), final causality (i.e., laws of nature), both, or something else > altogether?
Scientific causality is not so constrained as your question suggests. Both chemical engr. and bio-engr. are primarily concerned with establishing initial material conditions such that the internally generated dynamics of matter led to a reproducible “product” (that meets specifications, etc.). That is, material causality takes precedence. “Scaling up” demands finding initial conditions that “work”, that is , pragmatic dynamic conditions for parameters and variables. (BTW, I worked as an engr. tech. while putting myself through school. After that experience, I switched to science. Rather different perspectives, to be sure.) > > JC: I think it is fair to ask if Jon’s views on engineering wrt CSP writings > are typical of modern engineering disciplines, such as chemical engineering > and molecular-biological engineering in which specific causal processes must > be arranged from the body of scientific information (chemical / biological) > available. > > My discipline is structural engineering, in which most of the relevant causal > processes and corresponding diagrammatic representational system rules are > quite well-established. I would welcome feedback on whether and how my > "logic of ingenuity" thesis is applicable to other fields of engineering, > especially those in which this is not (yet) the case. > My comment would be that you should note that you are constraining your logical case to your profession. And, I would recommend further reading on the concept of “creativity” and the interrelationships among the disciplines such that your profession is placed in perspective. Generally, CSP sought to speak in great generality without noting the natural limitations of science. Yet, he also sought to relate to the uniqueness of “sin-sign”. This tension appears to lead to loss of credibility among many philosophical and scientific “non-believers”. Cheers Jerry > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Soren: > > Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings relate > to scientific causality? > > I think it is fair to ask if Jon’s views on engineering wrt CSP writings are > typical of modern engineering disciplines, such as chemical engineering and > molecular-biological engineering in which specific causal processes must be > arranged from the body of scientific information (chemical / biological) > available. Within the professions, these are referred to a “scale-up” > problems. Or, otherwise as “from the lab-bench to production”. > > BTW, Soren, on a personal note and in reference to an earlier exchange here > (2014?) on the role of electricity in bio-cybernetics / biosemiotics, I have > just finished writing a paper -An Introduction to the Foundations of Chemical > Information Theory. Tarski – Lesniewski Logical Structures and the > Organization of Natural Sorts and Kinds. > > Indirectly, it draws on certain aspects of CSP logic, as well as the views of > M. Malatesta’s on meta-languages. But, it focuses the meaning of quanta of > electricity and the relations to symmetry. It will be submitted for > publication after colleagues have provided comments. > > 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 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 .
