Jerry -I’m not talking about ‘chemical representations’ or ‘symbols’ of 
chemical molecules. And I don’t see why Peirce’s semiotic framework can’t apply 
to ‘chemical entities’. After all - the semiotic process DOES apply to 
‘matter’, and to my knowledge, ‘matter’ is a ‘chemical entity’.

Second - I’ve no idea what ‘ontological status within natural philosophy’ means.

Edwina

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> List:
> 
>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>> This analytic framework, I suggest, can be used to describe and analyze 
>>>> all  complex adaptive systems. For one example - take speciation of the 
>>>> progressive movement to diversity and complexity -- for example, plant 
>>>> speciation where plants evolve barriers to genetic exchange  between 
>>>> previously interbreeding populations. That is, informational stimuli from 
>>>> such external agents as changes in an external pollinator and/or habitat 
>>>> [[a semiosic interaction] promotes adaptive divergence in local areas. 
>>>> That is, 'small networks' or local semiosic networks' can promote rapid 
>>>> adaptive and evolutionary changes that are confined to a local area.
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> Unfortunately, CSP’s analytical framework, while he viewed it from a chemical 
> bedrock perspective, does not represent chemical entities.
> 
> The necessities for chemical representations include symbols for the identity 
> of each atomic number and the associated electrical graphs representing 
> part-whole bindings to create the unity of chemical sentence.  In addition, 
> one of the bedrocks of modern chemical logic is the requirement that a 
> sentence describing the facts of the synthesis of molecules from atoms 
> associate copulative conjunctions with emergent predicates. 
> 
> Of course, the claim that CSP’s framework represents "complex adaptive 
> systems" is unchallenged because this claim is merely philosophical musings, 
> lacking any ontological status within natural philosophy.
> 
> JMHO.
> 
> 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 [email protected] . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to