Hello Socratus... I am very ignorant when it comes to science areas... but your Commandment "§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness." piques my interest....can you say what you understand by this and what your preferences are... perhaps in terms of established schools of thought ... in any sense?... I like to say that I prefer "nominalism" which I define as a Subjective-Concept combined with an Objective Reference (along the lines roughly set forth by William of Ockham... note especially First Intention distinguished from Second Intention).... that's my preference as to the mind / body dualism of consciousness.... I think this whole Intuitive /abstractive separation is a good basis for the bent toward "empirical" examination of ... exiting "things"....Depending on how one makes this split at this point....some notions of the mind / body dualism proposed by other (non-nominalist) bents or directions can be ... at odds with, shall we say....intuition or abstraction.. as understood at this "Ockham" level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#6.2 6.2 Intuitive and Abstractive Cognition
One of the more intriguing features of late medieval epistemology in general, and of Ockham's view in particular, is the development of a theory known as “intuitive and abstractive cognition.” The theory is found in authors as diverse as Duns Scotus, Peter Auriol, Walter Chatton, and Ockham. But their theories of intuitive and abstractive cognition are so different that it is hard to see any one thing they are all supposed to be theories of. Nevertheless, to a first approximation, intuitive cognition can be thought of as perception, whereas abstractive cognition is closer to imagination or remembering. The fit is not exact, however, since authors who had a theory of intuitive and abstractive cognition usually also allowed the distinction at the *intellectual* level as well. It is important to note that abstractive cognition, in the sense of this theory, has nothing necessarily to do with “abstraction” in the sense of producing universal concepts from cognitive encounters with individuals. Instead, what abstractive cognition “abstracts” from is the question of the *existence or non-existence* of the object. By contrast, intuitive cognition is very much tied up with the existence or non-existence of the object. Here is how Ockham distinguishes them:[45<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/notes.html#45> ] For intuitive cognition of a thing is a cognition such that by virtue of it it can be known whether the thing exists or not, in such a way that if the thing does exist, the intellect at once judges it to exist and evidently knows it to exist … Likewise, intuitive cognition is such that when some things are known, one of which inheres in the other or the one is distant in place from the other or is related in another way to the other, it is at once known by virtue of the incomplex cognitions of those things whether the thing inheres or does not inhere, whether it is distant or not distant, and so on for other contingent truths … Abstractive cognition, however, is that by virtue of which it cannot be evidently known of the thing whether it exists or does not exist. And in this way abstractive cognition, as opposed to intuitive cognition, “abstracts” from existence and non-existence, because by it neither can it be evidently known of an existing thing that it exists, nor of a non-existent one that it does not exist. Ockham's main point here is that an intuitive cognition *naturally* causes in the mind a number of true *contingent* judgements about the external thing(s) that caused this intuitive cognition; for example, that this thing exists, or that it is white, and so on. This does not prevent God from deceiving any particular creature if He wants to, even when an intuitive cognition is present, but in such a case, God would have to neutralize the natural causal effect of this intuitive cognition (this is something He can always do, according to Ockham) and directly cause instead a false judgement. Intuitive cognitions, on the other hand, can sometimes induce false beliefs, too, if the circumstances are abnormal (in cases of perceptual illusions in particular), but even then, they would still cause some true contingent judgements. The latter at any rate is their distinctive feature. Abstractive cognitions, by contrast, are not such as to naturally cause true judgements about contingent matters.[46<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/notes.html#46> ] On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:43:03 AM UTC-5, socratus wrote: > > Science is a religion by itself. > Why? > Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe > only using physical laws, formulas, equations. > Here is the scheme of His plane. > =. > God : Ten Scientific Commandments. > § 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ . > § 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1. > § 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. > § 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . > § 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H -- > > . . . > § 6. Proton: (p). > § 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: > a) electromagnetic, > b) nuclear, > c) biological. > § 8. The Physical Laws: > a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass, > b) Pauli Exclusion Law, > c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. > § 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. > § 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. > ===. > Best wishes. > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/ewxLD6PZEA0J. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
