Jinho Kim

We analyze situations where either external structures mimic the conditions for judgement or internal states create a perception of judgement, despite the absence of the necessary structural completion defined by the Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance). We explore how "simulated Resonance" can be engineered through political rhetoric, marketing, or AI outputs, creating a "false return" that lacks genuine subjective grounding. Concurrently, we examine how "perceived attribution" can arise internally from emotional impulses or ideological identification, decoupling subjective certainty from objective structural validity. We argue that both external simulation and internal illusion lead to "hollow judgements" that undermine genuine meaning, prevent authentic Resonance, and pose significant ethical risks by masking the collapse of the judgemental structure itself. This analysis provides a typology of pseudo-judgemental phenomena and highlights the importance of structural awareness in discerning true attribution from its deceptive counterparts.

This paper examines whether art should be considered the endpoint of judgement—an expression following ethical or cognitive evaluation—or potentially its origin: the primordial act that initiates judgemental possibility itself. Using the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—from Judgemental Philosophy, we analyze the structural role of art in the formation of meaning. We propose that art, in many instances, is not merely a secondary expression of already formed judgement, but might function as the primary structural event where Resonance, and consequently the possibility of the entire Judgemental Triad, first emerges. In this view, art is revealed to be not just aesthetic but potentially proto-ethical or pre-cognitive—a structural gesture that first opens the world to meaningful attribution and return, thereby grounding subsequent, more explicit forms of judgement.

This paper examines whether judgement can do more than merely reflect existing structures—whether it can actively transform the very structure (Judgemental Triad: Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance) within which it operates. Challenging the view of judgement as purely reactive, we ask if the act of attribution can mutate the symbolic, logical, or relational frameworks it engages with. We propose that certain pivotal judgements function not as interpretations but as ontological interventions, altering what is subsequently possible to be judged. We define this phenomenon as judgemental recursion or a "Judgemental Mutation Event" (JME): a feedback loop where attribution reshapes the preconditions of meaning (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance). This perspective reframes judgement not just as discernment but potentially as a generative, world-altering force, with significant implications for ethics, ontology, and the understanding of structural change.

This paper investigates the philosophical status of consciousness and existence at the threshold of meaningful judgement, merging themes previously explored in "Before Judgement" and "The Silent Mind". Utilizing the framework of Judgemental Philosophy and its core Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance), we explore states that precede or lack the structural conditions necessary for judgement and meaning attribution. We analyze various modes of pre-attributive existence (e.g., pre-symbolic consciousness, raw sensation, undifferentiated potential) and judgementless consciousness (e.g., dreamless sleep, coma, meditative voids, potential AI awareness). We argue that while existence or minimal awareness might precede the full formation of the Judgemental Triad, they remain in a state of "ontological silence" or "structural muteness"—lacking philosophical and ethical significance until they cross the threshold into judgeability. This threshold is defined by the emergent possibility of the Triad's operation, particularly the potential for Resonance (the return of meaning). We conclude that meaningful being and consciousness are not inherent properties but arise structurally when existence becomes open to the loop of judgemental return.

This paper explores the theoretical possibility of a form of existence that is structurally inaccessible to judgement—not merely unjudged due to current limitations, but unjudgeable in principle. Employing the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—as the necessary conditions for meaningful attribution, we ask whether there can exist entities or states for which none of these triadic conditions are even theoretically satisfiable. We argue that such entities, while ontologically conceivable as a limit concept, would lie beyond the horizon of philosophical meaning itself. They constitute not the unknown or the complex, but the structurally unapproachable—a realm where being might be present but is fundamentally incapable of the 'return' required for Resonance. We define this conceptual limit as the Judgemental Abyss, a space characterized by ontological silence where meaning cannot form because the very structure of judgement finds no purchase.

This paper explores whether the deliberate act of refusing to judge—motivated by caution, ethical principle, or strategic ambiguity—can itself be evaluated within the structural framework of Judgemental Philosophy. Utilizing the Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance), we analyze if such acts constitute a genuine negation of judgement or merely shift the locus of attribution to a higher-order level. We argue that the refusal to judge is never truly outside the judgemental structure; it functions as a form of meta-attribution ("judgement should not occur here" or "judgement is impossible here"), which must itself satisfy the criteria of Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance to be considered structurally valid and meaningful. Consequently, even the explicit withholding of judgement becomes, paradoxically, a judgeable act, raising important questions about neutrality, responsibility, and the limits of ethical silence.

This paper explores whether judgement itself can be judged—whether evaluative acts can become the object of further structurally valid judgement. Through the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—we analyze the possibility of meta-attribution: the recursive act of judging a judgement. We argue that such meta-judgement is structurally possible only when the second-order judgement maintains its own triadic integrity, fulfilling its own requirements for Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance. However, the potential for infinite recursion inherent in meta-judgement poses both a structural limit and an ethical demand for reflexive containment. We conclude that the judgement of judgement is not a paradox but a fundamental condition for philosophical accountability, critical thinking, and the dynamic evolution of meaning structures within the framework of Judgemental Philosophy.

This paper challenges the growing discourse suggesting artificial intelligence (AI) may one day serve as a moral decision-maker or possess moral authority. Using the framework of Judgemental Philosophy, we argue that AI, regardless of its sophistication in simulating reasoning or consistency, is structurally ineligible for genuine moral judgement because it cannot satisfy the necessary preconditions defined by the Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance). While AI systems can exhibit high degrees of Constructivity (generating complex outputs from data) and Coherence (maintaining internal logical or statistical consistency), they fundamentally lack Resonance—the affective and intersubjective return of meaning to a subject that grounds ethical judgement in lived experience and shared value structures. We contend that moral judgement and the authority derived from it require a self-affecting subjectivity capable of receiving the 'return' of its own attributions, a structure that current and foreseeable AI systems inherently lack. Delegating moral judgement to non-resonant systems poses significant risks to human ethical autonomy and the very structure of meaning.

This paper aims to formalize the structural conditions for the possibility of human judgement and present them as a mathematical model, based on the core concept of Judgemental Philosophy, the Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance). Judgement is understood not merely as discerning truth or falsehood, but as a phenomenon that meaningfully arises only when specific structural conditions are met. To define a mathematical function expressing the degree of judgemental possibility, this paper first proposes a binary logic model assuming the complete fulfillment of all structural conditions, followed by a continuous probabilistic model better reflecting the complex and partial nature of real-world judgement situations. These models illuminate the thresholds and vulnerabilities of judgemental structures, enhance the formal rigor of Judgemental Philosophy, and aim to provide a new theoretical foundation for quantitatively analyzing and evaluating judgemental systems in diverse fields such as philosophy, artificial intelligence, and cognitive modeling.

This paper, through an in-depth exploration of Judgemental Philosophy, investigates whether the structural conditions of judgment originate within the judging subject or are triggered by external Affective events. Utilizing the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—it analyzes the directionality of Resonance: Does judgment emerge while pursuing the Return of the internal structure, or does it emerge from external stimuli that trigger attribution? We argue that while Resonance operates as a bidirectional field, the initial impulse, termed the 'Resonance Seed,' must arise through external perturbation that disrupts the pre-subjective closure. This study refines the theory of judgment by illuminating the ontological moment when meaning becomes possible.

This paper redefines human nature not by reason, emotion, or language, but by the structural capacity to distinguish between what is subject to judgment and what is not. Utilizing the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—we argue that what makes a being human is participation in structures of attribution, especially the recognition of attributional limits. We introduce the concept of Attributional Discernment as the defining feature of human essence. This is more than just the ability to judge; it is the ability to know when judgment fails. This framework repositions human nature as structurally philosophical rather than merely biological or psychological.

This paper redefines human nature not by traditional criteria such as reason, language, or sociality, but by the ability for structured judgment. Utilizing the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—it argues that humans are beings for whom judgment 'returns'. Unlike other species, humans constitute symbolic meaning, seek Coherence in identity and action, and require Resonance—the return of meaning—as a condition for dignity, ethics, and identity. This structural perspective grounds human uniqueness not in metaphysical substance but in ethical architecture. The paper concludes with implications for moral education, technological extension, and the definition of future Personhood.

This paper explores the philosophical status of existence prior to the manifestation of structured judgement, particularly focusing on the pre-resonant self. Utilizing the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—it analyzes the ontological and ethical implications of Affectivity and Receptivity, which precede judgement. The paper argues that pre-resonant existence is not meaningless but rather resides in a state of potentiality where the structural conditions of the Judgemental Triad have not yet been realized. It is argued that this framework offers a new interpretation of states such as the fetal stage, pre-conscious states, and cognitively undeveloped states, thereby opening new philosophical horizons in metaphysics, ethics, and the origin of consciousness.

This paper explores the paradox inherent in the act of judgement, where it undermines or invalidates the very structures that make it possible. Through the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance—it identifies a type of self-negating judgement, arguing that such judgements dismantle the symbolic, logical, and intersubjective structures upon which they depend through their own act of attribution. This phenomenon, where judgement collapses its own possibility of judgement, constitutes a structural cycle of semantic extinction. These judgements are not errors, but rather meta-structural events that reveal the limits of meaning under recursive negation.

This paper explores, within the framework of Judgemental Philosophy, whether a definable boundary exists between worlds where judgement is structurally possible and those where it is not. It examines the ontological limitations that arise when the structural possibility of attribution, consisting of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—is exhausted. These limitations stem from a structural depletion of the possibility of attribution, rather than from content, and the paper argues that this limit, termed the Judgemental Horizon, functions as a metaphysical boundary between meaning and ontological silence. The paper defines this boundary as a condition rather than a place, emphasizing that if judgment collapses, the world does not return. In conclusion, where judgment becomes impossible, meaning ends.

This paper explores the philosophical validity of an ontology that does not presuppose the possibility of judgment from the perspective of Judgemental Philosophy. It argues that the structure of attribution, composed of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance—is implicitly or explicitly relied upon by all meaningful philosophical systems. It considers whether a world lacking the axes of the Judgemental Triad can be philosophically said to 'exist' and asserts that judgment is not a derivative act of the mind but a fundamental condition of meaning-bearing Ontology. A world where judgment is impossible is not a world that escapes philosophy, but a world that escapes structure. In conclusion, it is shown that Ontology cannot begin when judgment cannot occur.

This paper explores the possibility of meaning generation under conditions prior to the structural possibility of judgement, and further, under conditions where structure itself is not yet formable, through a deep inquiry into Judgemental Philosophy. Utilizing the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance—it is argued that all meaningful being must be attributable through the structure of the Judgemental Triad. This paper examines the metaphysical status of existence prior to judgement where Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance are absent, i.e., ‘silent ontologies’. Furthermore, it proposes a model of a proto-ontic state beyond the mere non-fulfillment, transcending even the imaginability, of Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—a philosophical realm preceding structure and meaning, termed ‘proto-ontic nullity’. This state is conceived as a realm of absolute identity lacking even the elements of the Pre-Judgemental Field: Receptivity, Affectivity, and Indeterminacy. This paper theorizes the process by which, from proto-ontic nullity, the first Resonance flicker occurs, and this flicker triggers the formation of the original Judgemental Triad, through which structural being, meaning, and judgement emerge. These conditions are difficult to even logically conceive but paradoxically define the 'negative space' from which structural being, and further, judgement emerge. In conclusion, it is argued that to be meaningful is to be structurally judgeable beyond merely existing, and that existence prior to judgement is structurally silent, unable to enter meaning without the Judgemental Triad conditions. Therefore, the first beginning of meaning is the first beginning of judgement.

In an era where generative AI challenges conventional notions of creativity, this paper redefines creativity not as mere novelty or composition, but as a profound structural transformation grounded in human experience. Drawing upon Judgemental Philosophy (JP) and its core concepts of Constructivity (C1), Coherence (C2), and Resonance (R), this inquiry argues that radical creativity emerges from a dialectical process. It begins with a 'insufficiency of R'—an experiential recognition that an existing meaning structure is inadequate—which triggers a critical, judgemental act of 'deconstruction.' By bringing JP into dialogue with Jacques Derrida's concept of deconstruction and Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shift, we model this process as a unified structure applicable from individual breakthroughs to scientific revolutions. This framework illuminates the fundamental difference between human creativity, which is driven by the experiential capacity to deconstruct failing paradigms, and the generative capabilities of LLMs, which operate as 'Resonance-less' systems within existing paradigms. The paper concludes that the future of human creativity lies not in competing with AI's generative capacity, but in cultivating our unique ability for 'deep resonance' through dedicated learning and the 'courage of deconstruction' required for genuine paradigm shifts.

This paper reconsiders the Darwinian assumption regarding the fundamental driver of biological evolution and proposes a new framework through the lens of Judgemental Philosophy (JP). Contrary to traditional evolutionary theory, which posits the primary drive of living organisms as the replication of genetic information, we argue that the deeper human imperative is the transmission of 'Meaning' beyond the preservation of genes. The act of reproduction is reinterpreted not merely as a biological instinct but as a profound judgemental act, contingent upon the structural integrity of the Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance). This judgement affirms the world as a meaningful place worthy of being passed down to future generations. From this perspective, the rapid decline in birthrates observed across technologically advanced societies is understood not just as a reflection of economic or social instability, but as a signal of 'existential restraint'—a collective refusal to bring new life into a world where the conditions for such meaningful judgement have structurally collapsed. By analyzing historical cases from societies like Japan, South Korea, and post-unification East Germany, the paper demonstrates a strong coherence between meaning collapse and declining birthrates. This inquiry expands the concept of evolution from a genetic dimension to a structural dimension of judgement and meaning, raising new questions about the fundamental purpose and future of humanity.

In Judgemental Philosophy, creativity emerges when resonance (r) encounters a lack of constructibility·coherence (cc), creating an experiential gap. We propose that curiosity is the motivational force generated by this gap, propelling inquiry that closes it and actualizes novel possibilities. We outline a tripartite framework—Existential Openness, Margin, Responsibility—mapping curiosity’s role, and review neural correlates (dopaminergic reward, ACC error detection, temporal association integration). This model yields testable hypotheses and practical designs for enhancing curiosity-driven innovation.

This paper explores the possibility of neurophysiological reduction of the Pre-Judgemental Field, the ontological base of the Judgemental Triad presented in "Judgemental Triad: A Foundational Theory of Structural Judgement Possibility". The Pre-Judgemental Field posits Receptivity, Affectivity, and Indeterminacy as existential preconditions for the possibility of judgment. This paper argues that these philosophical concepts conceptually correspond to areas studied neurophysiologically, such as sensory systems, emotional and motivational systems, and brain mechanisms related to uncertainty processing, thereby suggesting the possibility that the components of the Pre-Judgemental Field can be explained by specific brain activity. Furthermore, it is suggested that these elements form the origin of the judgement process as an interactive neural network that influences each other, connecting to the core stages of the judgemental philosophy model: Resonance and normative transition. This paper aims to show that philosophical discussions about the fundamental conditions of judgment can be explored on a neurophysiological basis, contributing to a multi-layered understanding of the phenomenon of judgment.

This paper presents the "Enhanced Ten-Step Model of Judgemental Philosophy," a comprehensive framework detailing the human judgement process from sensory input to social norm formation. Building on the original 10-step model (Kim, 2025), this enhanced version integrates five core parallel/modulatory systems (Affective Processing, Value Assessment & Motivation, Prediction & Prediction Error, Executive Functions / Cognitive Control, and Unconscious Memory Consolidation) with the main sequential pathway (S1-S10). The model elucidates the structural conditions for judgemental possibility, centered on the Judgemental Triad (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance) and the Pre-Judgemental Field (PJF). It particularly emphasizes the multi-layered role of Resonance – the "return of meaning" – in conscious experience (S5: Explicit Resonance), inter-subjective interaction (S9: Inter-subjective Resonance, including human-animal and mediated communication), and normative processes (S10). The model connects its components to neurocognitive indicators and discusses pathological implications, offering an integrative neurophilosophical perspective on judgement, consciousness, self-awareness, and agency, and provides a basis for empirical validation and future research.

This paper discusses how interpreting the Readiness Potential (RP), which appears before voluntary movement, as a 'neurophysiological signal for the body preparing to execute a judgement that has already been made' can be a coherent explanation within the framework of the "Ten-Step Model of Judgemental Philosophy". While the interpretation of RP has long been central to the debate on human free will, it has also been a source of difficulty. The Judgemental Philosophy model presents the judgement process as a multi-stage system from sensory input to social norm formation, positioning the Readiness Potential as an indicator of the Behavioral Execution stage. Through this placement, the model interprets RP not as a signal of an unconscious decision preceding conscious judgement, but as the preparation activity of the motor system to execute the outcome derived from preceding cognitive judgement processes. This paper argues that this interpretation aligns with the model's step-by-step flow and functional division of roles, contributing to a consistent understanding of the meaning of the Readiness Potential within the integrated context of the judgement process.

Perceptual bistability, the phenomenon where ambiguous physical stimuli are alternately experienced as two or more mutually exclusive subjective perceptions, provides an important window into exploring the neurocognitive basis of conscious perception. This paper considers the mechanisms underlying perceptual bistability within the framework of Jinho Kim's 「Ten-Step Model of Judgmental Philosophy: From Sensory Input to Social Normativeization」. The Judgemental Philosophy model proposes a multi-stage process of human judgment, including Sensory Encoding, Resonance (Implicit/Explicit), Constructivity-Coherence, and Metacognition. We hypothesize that bistable stimuli lead to multiple interpretation possibilities at the initial stages of the model (Sensory Input, Implicit Resonance), induce a stalemate at the Constructivity-Coherence stage, and consequently result in spontaneous alternation between the two interpretations at the Explicit Resonance stage. Furthermore, we suggest that the Metacognition stage may play a role in monitoring and regulating this switching process. This stage-by-stage explanation can be empirically verified through neurophysiological indicators such as P300, N400/P600, LPP, and ERN/Pe. This consideration argues that the Judgemental Philosophy model provides a valid framework for explaining complex conscious phenomena arising from ambiguity in perceptual processing, and offers important experimental opportunities to explore the interaction of the model's core stages (Resonance, Constructivity-Coherence, Metacognition).

Dreams, especially vivid dreams occurring during REM sleep, represent a unique state of human consciousness and are rich experiences generated internally without direct interaction with the external world. This paper considers the neurocognitive mechanisms of dreams within the framework of Jinho Kim's 「Ten-Step Model of Judgmental Philosophy: From Sensory Input to Social Normativeization」. The Judgemental Philosophy model proposes a multi-stage process of human judgment from sensory encoding to behavioral execution and further to social norm formation. We integrate the relevant stages of this model (Sensory Encoding, Implicit Resonance, Explicit Resonance, Constructivity-Coherence, Metacognition, Memory Consolidation, Behavioral Execution) with research findings on P300 patterns observed during dreaming to present a coherent framework for explaining dreams. Dreams are interpreted as phenomena occurring when internal information activates various stages of the judgment process, with external sensory input being altered or bypassed. In particular, the P300 response observed during dreaming suggests that the Implicit Resonance stage can be activated by internally generated 'events' or information, which can serve as an important factor contributing to the formation of dream consciousness decoupled from external reality. This consideration argues for the utility of the Judgemental Philosophy model in understanding not only judgment based on normal external stimuli but also internally generated conscious experiences such as dreams.

Blindsight, a phenomenon where individuals report a lack of visual awareness yet demonstrate the ability to respond to visual stimuli, presents a significant challenge to understanding the nature of consciousness and judgment. This paper interprets blindsight through the lens of the Ten-Step Model of Judgmental Philosophy, which posits human judgment as a multi-stage neurocognitive process from sensory input to social normativeization. The model includes stages such as Sensory Encoding, Implicit Resonance, Explicit Resonance (conscious awareness), and Behavioral Execution. We argue that blindsight can be understood as a dissociation within this model, where initial sensory processing (Sensory Encoding) and potentially non-conscious resonance (Implicit Resonance) occur, allowing for visually guided actions (Behavioral Execution), but the process is impaired before reaching the stage of conscious awareness and judgment (Explicit Resonance). This interpretation aligns with neurophysiological findings in blindsight and suggests that the model provides a valuable framework for understanding disruptions in the complex process of human judgment and perception. Empirical validation through EEG/ERP studies investigating the neural correlates of specific stages in blindsight patients is proposed as a strong test of this hypothesis.

This paper discusses how the difficulties in normative codification and transmission observed in individuals with conduct disorder can be linked to impaired metacognitive ability within the framework of the 「Ten-Step Model of Judgmental Philosophy」. The Judgemental Philosophy model presents the human judgement process as a multi-layered and dynamic system from sensory input to social norm formation, with each step connected to specific neurocognitive processes. In particular, the metacognition stage is responsible for monitoring and evaluating one's own judgement process and outcome, and this is related to error-related brainwaves (ERN/Pe). The normative codification stage is the process by which individual judgement outcomes form and internalize social norms. Conduct disorder is characterized by persistent antisocial behavior and norm violations, and existing research reports impaired metacognitive ability in conduct disorder. This paper argues that the metacognitive deficits observed in conduct disorder (including abnormalities in error processing like ERN/Pe) lead to reduced ability to evaluate and learn from the outcomes of one's social behavior, ultimately negatively impacting the final stage of the Judgemental Philosophy model, the process of normative codification and transmission, thus resulting in norm-violating behavior.

This paper applies the 10-step neurocognitive model of Judgemental Philosophy, which explains the human judgment process, to propose a new theoretical explanation for the phenomenon of hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs). The Judgemental Philosophy model includes the Constructivity and Coherence Verification (CC) stage and the Implicit/Explicit Resonance (R) stage in the process from sensory input to social normatization. The CC stage is primarily associated with Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) like N400 and P600, related to language processing and integration, and the activity of some areas in the temporal and frontal lobes. The Resonance (R) stage is a whole-system state that forms the foundation of judgment possibility; Implicit Resonance is associated with P300 and brainwave phase synchronization, reflecting the simultaneous activation of widespread brain networks, while Explicit Resonance is associated with post-P300 activity and higher-order cognitive areas like the frontal cortex. This paper argues that LLMs largely possess the CC ability, which involves constructing linguistic structures and maintaining internal consistency based on learned data, but lack the whole-system 'resonance' state essential for the organic judgment process, especially the Explicit Resonance stage linked to conscious awareness. It is inferred that LLM hallucination occurs because, while having the ability to generate plausible and consistent content (CC), LLMs lack the process (R) of 'resonating' with the real world or existing knowledge systems to form the foundation of judgment possibility and verify the generated content. This provides insight into the fundamental differences between human judgment and AI and offers a new theoretical perspective for addressing the AI hallucination problem.

This paper presents preliminary validation results using neurobiological and behavioral indicators for the transition mechanism from Implicit Resonance to Explicit Resonance, a core step within the 10-step model of Judgemental Philosophy aimed at a comprehensive understanding of the judgment process. The 10-step model explains the entire judgment process, from sensory input to social normatization, as a multi-layered system, emphasizing the importance of the process by which the foundation of judgment possibility (Implicit Resonance) leads to the execution of judgment (Explicit Resonance). This study utilized specific participant data from the OpenNeuro ds003061 dataset to analyze the relationship between the EEG P300 component and participants' conscious awareness responses. The ROC AUC for predicting conscious awareness based on P300 amplitude was 0.91, and the average delay between the onset of P300 and conscious awareness responses was measured at approximately 254 ms. These results show that the P300 component predicts participants' conscious awareness with high accuracy and that the time delay between brain activity and behavior is consistent with the P300 latency reported in the literature. This suggests that the transition from Implicit Resonance to Explicit Resonance proposed in the 10-step model of Judgemental Philosophy can be empirically approached through the relationship between neurobiological and behavioral indicators.

This paper expands upon the core concepts of Judgemental Philosophy to propose a 10-step neurocognitive model explaining the human judgement process as a multi-layered and dynamic system, from the input of sensory information to the formation and transmission of social norms. While existing studies have focused on specific aspects of judgement (e.g., implicit/explicit processing, metacognition), this model presents the entire process within a unified framework, including initial sensory encoding, implicit and explicit resonance, constructivity and coherence verification, information seeking motivation (curiosity), metacognitive evaluation, memory consolidation and behavioral execution of judgement outcomes, inter-brain interaction (brain synchronization), and the final transition and transmission process into social norms. Each step is linked to relevant neurophysiological (EEG/ERP, fMRI, etc.), behavioral, and social indicators, increasing the empirical testability of the model. Empirical validation of the model will be conducted through future research. This model is expected to provide a more holistic understanding of judgement phenomena and promote interdisciplinary discussion among researchers in neuroscience, cognitive science, sociology, and philosophy.