To what extent is the neural organization of language dependent on factors specific to the modalities in which language is perceived and through which it is produced? That is, is the left-hemisphere dominance for language a function of a linguistic specialization or a function of some domain-general specialization(s), such as temporal processing or motor planning? Investigations of the neurobiology of signed language can help answer these questions. As with spoken languages, signed languages of the deaf display complex grammatical structure but (...) are perceived and produced via radically different modalities. Thus, by mapping out the neurological similarities and differences between signed and spoken language, it is possible to identify modality-specific contributions to brain organization for language. Research to date has shown a significant degree of similarity in the neurobiology of signed and spoken languages, suggesting that the neural organization of language is largely modality-independent. (shrink)

To what extent is the neural organization of language dependent on factors specific to the modalities in which language is perceived and through which it is produced? That is, is the left-hemisphere dominance for language a function of a linguistic specialization or a function of some domain-general specialization, such as temporal processing or motor planning? Investigations of the neurobiology of signed language can help answer these questions. As with spoken languages, signed languages of the deaf display complex grammatical structure but (...) are perceived and produced via radically different modalities. Thus, by mapping out the neurological similarities and differences between signed and spoken language, it is possible to identify modality-specific contributions to brain organization for language. Research to date has shown a significant degree of similarity in the neurobiology of signed and spoken languages, suggesting that the neural organization of language is largely modality-independent. (shrink)

다산 역학의 성립과 정수, 그리고 그 경학적.사상사적의의를 논구한 저술.

현대철학의 핵심문제로 제시되어온 주체의 개념을 유 럽철학사의 맥락으로 논한 저서.

Ingolf U. Dalferth studies the complexity of this procedure in three thought processes which deal with the central concepts in the Christian understanding of malum as privation (a lack of good), as evil-doing and as a lack of faith.

Quasi-Nelson logic (QNL) was recently introduced as a common generalisation of intuitionistic logic and Nelson's constructive logic with strong negation. Viewed as a substructural logic, QNL is the axiomatic extension of the Full Lambek Calculus with Exchange and Weakening by the Nelson axiom, and its algebraic counterpart is a variety of residuated lattices called quasi-Nelson algebras. Nelson's logic, in turn, may be obtained as the axiomatic extension of QNL by the double negation (or involutivity) axiom, and intuitionistic logic as the (...) extension of QNL by the contraction axiom. A recent series of papers by the author and collaborators initiated the study of fragments of QNL, which correspond to subreducts of quasi-Nelson algebras. In the present paper we focus on fragments that contain the connectives forming a residuated pair (the monoid conjunction and the so-called strong Nelson implication), these being the most interesting ones from a substructural logic perspective. We provide quasi-equational (whenever possible, equational) axiomatisations for the corresponding classes of algebras, obtain twist representations for them, study their congruence properties and take a look at a few notable subvarieties. Our results specialise to the involutive case, yielding characterisations of the corresponding fragments of Nelson's logic and their algebraic counterparts. (shrink)

It is shown that the boolean prime ideal theorem BPIT: every boolean algebra has a prime ideal, does not follow from the order-extension principle OE: every partial ordering can be extended to a linear ordering. The proof uses a Fraenkel-Mostowski model, where the family of atoms is indexed by a countable universal-homogeneous boolean algebra whose boolean partial ordering has a `generic' extension to a linear ordering. To illustrate the technique for proving that the order-extension principle holds in the model we (...) also study Mostowski's ordered model, and give a direct verification of OE there. The key technical point needed to verify OE in each case is the existence of a support structure. (shrink)

This paper puts forward an ontology that is indebted to QBism, Kant, Bohr, Schrödinger, the philosophy of the Upanishads, and the evolutionary philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. Central to it is that reality is relative to consciousness or experience. Instead of a single mind-independent reality, there are different poises of consciousness, including a consciousness to which “we are all really only various aspects of the One”. This ontology helps clear up unresolved issues in the philosophy of science, such as arise from (...) the reification of quantum states or from disregard of the universal context of science, which is human experience. It further helps clear up unresolved issues in the philosophy of mind, in particular the problem of intentionality and the dilemma posed by the mutual inclusion of self and world. (shrink)

Avery’s et al. ’s 1944 paper provides the first direct evidence of DNA having gene-like properties and marks the beginning of a new phase in early molecular genetics (with a strong focus on chemistry and DNA). The study of its reception shows that on the whole, Avery’s results were immediately appreciated and motivated new research on transformation, the chemical nature of DNA’s biological specificity and bacteria genetics. It shows, too, that initial problems of transferring transformation to other systems and prominent (...) criticism of its results nurtured skepticism. Avery’s experiment was downplayed and neglected particularly by many of those scientists who worked in the new fields of biochemical and biophysical genetics, genetic phage, and TMV research. This was not due to the fact that the implications of the paper could not be connected to generally accepted knowledge. Contrary to a widespread belief, the assumed uniformity of DNA as opposed to proteins was not used as an argument against the validity of Avery’s et al.’s finding. The indifference rather reflected, among other things, the disciplinary gap between the chemically oriented microbiologists and the old and new geneticists who remained committed to genetic and physical methods (in particular x-ray studies) and clung to the assumption that proteins were the sole carriers of biological specificity. The responses to Avery’s et al.’s paper show how different research interests in the areas between microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry interacted with the prejudices, dogmas, individual farsightedness or short-sightedness, and scientific authority during a pivotal period of early molecular biology. (shrink)