Jerry - thanks for your very interesting and insightful outline.
Edwina
On Tue 05/03/19 4:15 PM , Jerry LR Chandler
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com sent:
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 [1] 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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'g...@gnusystems.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
