This paper examines Ockham's development of the formal distinction, especially in contrast to Scotus's presentation of the formal distinction. The claim is that the major differences between the two presentations can be accounted for largely from the different uses to which Scotus and Ockhan employ the distinction. Whereas Scotus develops the distinction in an attempt to make comprehensible what appears to be incomprehensible (e.g. the Trinity), Ockham uses the distinction to establish the fundamental incomprehensibility of the same issues (e.g. the (...) Trinity). (shrink)

Face recognition is impaired in patients with prosopagnosia, which may occur as a side effect of neurosurgical procedures. Face selective regions on the ventral temporal cortex have been localized with electrical cortical stimulation, electrocorticography, and functional magnetic resonance imagining. This is the first group study using within-patient comparisons to validate face selective regions mapping, utilizing the aforementioned modalities. Five patients underwent surgical treatment of intractable epilepsy and joined the study. Subdural grid electrodes were implanted on their ventral temporal cortices to (...) localize seizure foci and face selective regions as part of the functional mapping protocol. Face selective regions were identified in all patients with fMRI, four patients with ECoG, and two patients with ECS. From 177 tested electrode locations in the region of interest, which is defined by the fusiform gyrus and the inferior temporal gyrus, 54 face locations were identified by at least one modality in all patients. fMRI mapping showed the highest detection rate, revealing 70.4% for face selective locations, whereas ECoG and ECS identified 64.8 and 31.5%, respectively. Thus, 28 face locations were co-localized by at least two modalities, with detection rates of 89.3% for fMRI, 85.7% for ECoG and 53.6 % for ECS. All five patients had no face recognition deficits after surgery, even though five of the face selective locations, one obtained by ECoG and the other four by fMRI, were within 10 mm to the resected volumes. Moreover, fMRI included a quite large volume artifact on the ventral temporal cortex in the ROI from the anatomical structures of the temporal base. In conclusion, ECS was not sensitive in several patients, whereas ECoG and fMRI even showed activation within 10 mm to the resected volumes. Considering the potential signal drop-out in fMRI makes ECoG the most reliable tool to identify face selective locations in this study. A multimodal approach can improve the specificity of ECoG and fMRI, while simultaneously minimizing the number of required ECS sessions. Hence, all modalities should be considered in a clinical mapping protocol entailing combined results of co-localized face selective locations. (shrink)