Am I alone in thinking the list has been hijacked by dialog that is simply
too repetitive to attend to. If we cannot have a discussion on which there
is agreement on any issue then there is no discussion.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:15 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
> Gary F., List:
>
> Gary, thank you very very much for your transcription of Bedrock text.
>
> When time permits, I may comment in greater detail on the chemical
> aspects, since these aspects play a deep role in the necessity of embedding
> CSP logical style either within the logical style of organic chemistry or
> contiguous to this scientific style of reasoning.
>
> But before the body of this note, a statement is necessary to make clear
> logical distinctions between inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry.
> Note that in the 1870’s, CSP started writing several papers on chemical
> classification following the analytic schema used to separate and
> distinguish *inorganic* chemicals. The deep logical difference between
> inorganic chemicals and organic chemicals is simple enough state. Roughly
> speaking, the *inorganic chemistry of salts* was developed as a series of
> tables which listed the ionic names as pairs of positive and negative
> ions, e.g., Sodium chloride. The proper names were *derived* from the
> names of the chemical elements.
> The classifications were based on the relative ratios of each element
> 1:1, 1:2, 1:3,… , 2:1, 2:2, 2:3… , 3:1, 3:2, 3:3, and so forth.
> A critical predicate of each proper name of the salt was it’s solubility
> in water, or alcohol, or other liquids such as urine or blood. General
> speaking inorganic salts
>
> A new for of representation of things as forms was necessary to identify*
> “organic chemicals” *that, often contained several different atoms and
> remained as a “wholes” under distillation and burned. The term “radical”
> was used to identify the parts of organic matter.
> Linguistically, *the terms, organic, organisms, organs, and organization*
> are based on similar and over-lapping predicates of different classes of
> things.
>
> With that as informational background, on to the basic reasoning of this
> posting concerning the newly transcribed Bedrock manuscript concerning the
> role of subjects and predicates in the Bedrock as contrasted with the
> Artificial Intelligent Interpretations of John Sowa.
>
> On Mar 4, 2019, at 11:21 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> Notice that the Graphs are designed to facilitate logical analysis of the
> reasoning process, not to facilitate reasoning itself — a point Peirce had
> already insisted on in the 1903 Lowell lectures and elsewhere.
>
> [[ To this end, it is requisite that, as in mathematics, and as the deepest
> and most thorough studies of Logic that {35} have hitherto been attained
> show us to be clearly requisite, there should be (1) illustrations of the
> logical procedure that shall represent it, (2) not merely by force of any
> rule or habit of interpretation, and still less by any actual, or
> dynamical,
> connexion between the sign, or representamen, and the object signified,
> but,
> as far as possible, by and in an analogy, or agreement in the very forms
> themselves, between a (3) visual, or optico-muscular, presentment and the
> thought itself. ]]
>
>
> I believe that Gary has “hit the nail on the head” with his introductory
> sentence.
> CSP is attempting to create a way to reason about organic chemistry,
> following the well-establish chemical practice of relating the parts of the
> whole to one another. Chemical elements are NOUNS. Chemical elements have
> unique identities, described by *predicates.*
>
> The parts of the whole is synonymous, in chemical linguistics, with the
> concept of an index. The chemical table of elements is the *universal
> index* for all of the parts of atoms, all of the parts of molecules and
> all the composites composites of the same. The chemical term for the index
> of the atoms in a molecule is the “molecular formula”. The formula is an
> abstraction (corollary evidence, collateral experience?) from the
> qualisigns as analytical measurements. After CSP past, the system of atomic
> numbers was described. In this new system, every elemental name has a
> corresponding elemental number and every molecular formula has a
> corresponding molecular number. The algebra of chemistry is based on the
> perceptions of the numbers.
>
> My belief is that the existential graph is merely a thought about how
> chemical atoms are joined to form an organic chemical. It is a
> representation of perceptions of organic matter. Each “peg” is an
> abstraction for the modern concept of a nuclear atom. The “line of
> identity” is, in modern terms, a chemical bonds, (“glue”), that binds
> atoms to one another, creating the identity of a molecule from the identity
> of the atoms that it is made from. In physical terms, atomic relational
> logics are a consequence of electrical stickiness, that is, attractive and
> repulsive electrical forces associated with the nucleus and electrons. This
> knowledge was not available to CSP.
>
> Example of an existential graph as a consequence of stickiness of atoms.
> Consider three pegs: A, B, C as a collection of atoms.
> Connect the pegs by lines of identity.
> A—B—C
> Now, the collection is a different mathematical object than the three
> independent symbols, A, B, and C.
> Lets give the collection A—B—C a name that distinguishes it from A, B, and
> C.
> How are we going to create a name for the collection?
> The tradition in chemistry is to name A—B—C after its constituents.
> So, the name of the collection A—B—C will be composed from the names of
> precursor atoms, A, B, C.
>
> One possibility is that atom A and atom C have the same identity.
>
> Now, consider A and C to be the same atom and B to be a different atom.
> In one graphic case, let A and C be named “hydrogen” and let B be named
> “oxygen”.
>
> Then, the name of the collection, by tradition, by common practice, is
> “hydrogen oxide” or the common name of “water” !!!
> H-O-H.
>
> This example is overly simplified, but it is substantially faithful to CSP
> thoughts about how perceptions become existential graphs, produced as
> signs/ symbols, on paper by ocular-muscular actions. The argument holds
> for ALL triatomic molecules.
>
> MORE DEEPLY, Gary’s sentence:
>
> Notice that the Graphs are designed to facilitate logical analysis of the
> reasoning process, not to facilitate reasoning itself — a point Peirce had
> already insisted on in the 1903 Lowell lectures and elsewhere.
>
>
> can be interpreted as a simple description of “triadic trinity” where the
> perceptions are thought of in terms of different referential meaning for
> each of the nine terms. These nine terms can be thought of as spanning the
> linguistic domain of discourse such that the argument will be consistent
> with organic chemistry. Mathematical logic (e.g., bastardized to
> mathematical model theory, one of the philosophical justifications of
> Artificial Intelligence) as a domain of discourse, does not correspond with
> triadic trinity terms as used in the Bedrock manuscript (organic
> chemistry). However, Tarski’s meta-languages (meta-logics) fit
> linguistically, very nicely with the sequence of terms formed around
> (organic, organ, organism, and organization) the different scopes of
> meanings derived from the same linguistic “taproot” notion of organic
> chemistry.
>
> What other logical notions will emerge from this “tap-root” or well-spring
> of CSP’s vision of the logic of relatives?
>
> And, what other potential interpretations of CSP’s philosophy will be
> either strengthened or weakened?
>
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
