I think that I just said that same thing, although with the exception of expressing that it is irrelevant.
The US Constitution is merely chemicals. If you change the chemicals, you change the laws for millions of people. So the government is merely chemicals.
That is what you are saying. And in a short-sighted materialistic sense, that is right. But some would rightfully say that the Constitution is far more than merely a bunch of chemicals, even though by changing the chemicals, one could change what the Constitution says. Likewise, a human brain is far more than merely the chemicals by which it functions.
It is not the composite chemicals that makes the US Constitution what it is, despite the physical dependency. And it is not the composite chemicals of the brain that make the mind what it is, regardless of the physical dependency.
I am not seeing the relevance of your question, so I am probably not going to give the answer that you are looking for. And I am having to guess at exactly what you mean by “on what logical basis…”
Electrons are called “negative” somewhat arbitrarily. They could have been called “positive”, in which case we would be thinking in terms of positrons flowing to make electric current and negatons being at the center of atoms. Very technically, the words “positive and negative” have a little more specific meaning, but they are somewhat arbitrarily assigned.
Similarly, “a positive influence on a child” currently has a specific meaning, but if the language was different, the words “a negative influence on a child” could mean that same thing. It is merely lexicon assignment.
Similar holds true for economics. Positive refers to stronger economy and to more money while negative refers to weaker economy and to lesser money. But the words could have been reversed.
In general “positive” implies something lending toward greater; e.g. more helpful, larger, higher, stronger, brighter. And “negative” implies the opposite, lending to being more destructive, lesser, lower, weaker, or darker. And in view of desires, “positive” implies something favoring, increasing the hope of a goal whereas “negative” implies disfavoring, decreasing the hope of gaining a goal, or threatening the goal.
But as every philosopher knows, what is positive toward one thing is negative toward something else. A positively charged economy might mean the loss of your individual money if you “sold short” your stock. Positive and negative are RELATIVE to a neutral balance reference. Negative things can be used for a positive goal and vsvrsa, depending on the preferred balance at the time. What are positive influences at one time might be negative at a different time, depending on the preferred balance.
In physics the same is true - above the ambient normal, neutral balance is called “positive” and below is called “negative”. But the ambient normal, neutral balance of what? Without the concept of Affectance, physics is stuck without an answer and concluding that it is entirely arbitrary and that there is no up or down except in the relative sense and that positive is merely different than negative although magically related somehow. The topic of Affectance Ontology explains precisely how and why they are related. And the relation is that which lends toward an increase in affectance from the ambient is what physicists have always been calling “positive charge potential”. And that lends toward a decrease in ambient affectance is what they have always been calling “negative charge potential”. Electrons are a tiny bundles of the taking away of the ambient normal, neutral balance of space while positrons (or protons) are bundles of increasing the ambient normal, neutral balance of space.
Thusly are assigned positive and negative “particles”. And once such vernacular is assigned, it is maintained throughout the construction rhetoric of more complex structures, such as molecules and ions.
To your specific question concerning an ion, although still not seeing the relevance, an atom that loses one of its negative particles is inherently more positively charged (ie has more increasing of the ambient neutral balance). And an atom that gains more negative particles is inherently more negatively charged, having more decreasing of the ambient neutral balance. Thusly are assigned “positive and negative ions”.
I suspect that you want to know what all of that has to do with positive and negative affectance upon mind, ie hope and threat.
Conscious mind’s function entirely by virtue of their perception of hope and/or threat toward instinctive goals, “PHT”. Anything that lends toward a goal is called a “hope” and in common vernacular is referred to as “positive … toward that goal”, a “positive hope potential”. And of course the reverse, detracting away from a goal is called a “negative” and in common vernacular, “a threat … to that goal”, a “negative hope potential”.
The common thread in concept between the use in physics and the mind is merely the increasing of status quo or decreasing of status quo, positive or negative. But in more complex situations, as we all know, what is increasing for one, is a decreasing for another. So it all depends upon a reference - the ambient normal, neutral balance.