Sentences with phrase «as conscious thought»

Its workings are within our conscious awareness — we perceive them as conscious thought.

With regard to the mind or mentality, however, the «observable properties,» such as conscious thoughts, images, and decisions, are not outwardly observable through our physical senses.

Not exact matches

As an ecommerce startup — selling a socially conscious jewelry line from Kenya — and a business with a limited marketing budget, we devote a lot of energy to thinking up ways to creatively (i.e., cheaply) yet effectively market our company and expand our customer base.

Telling quote: «I think what we made the mistake of doing early on was taking every opportunity alone to talk about the business, at dinner, driving the car, you know at home brushing your teeth, as you're getting into bed, as you're waking up, and I think we made a conscious effort to not do that because I think it was just, you know, it would burn us out,» Kate told CNN in 2002.

It arguably is, but in fact the benefits of conscious consumerism are not as obvious as many would have you think.

It appears that Palihapitiya made the comments just a day or two after Parker broadcast his own warnings in an interview with Axios, telling interviewer Mike Allen that the thought process behind building the social media giant was: «How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?»

There is still no explanation for the spontaneous origin of the universe, as well as the advanced cognition of the brain (chemicals and genetics reveal general trends, but no one knows how complete thoughts are actually formed, nor emotions or personalities); creation and the human conscious, the two fundamental focuses of religion.

A popular one these days is to treat conscious will as an illusion — we think that we have acted deliberately toward some end, but in fact our brain acted on its own and then deceived us into thinking that we acted deliberately.

The important point for Schwartz here is not simply that modified thoughts and behaviors permanently altered patterns of brain activity, but that such modifications resulted from, as he calls it, «mindful attention» — conscious and purposive thoughts or actions in which the agent adopts the stance of a detached observer.

Are we so unreasonable as to place our lives, our conscious thought bearing selves, into the ever - present yet never seen?

And it is conscious: that is, it does not stay below the threshold of consciousness and work there unknown to the soul (as, for instance, infant baptism is thought by some to do), but comes within the field of awareness where the man can «know» it as he knows any other fact of experience.

As I became conscious my first thought was, «God hasn't finished with me yet.»

Further, as I have said before, if this little precarious foothold upon earth is all that we are ever to know of conscious living, if in fact there is no life except the material and physical, those of us who are not particularly altruistic by nature would hardly think our labors and struggles worth while.

1James does indicate at times in «The Stream of Thought» his belief that the flow of conscious life indicates the features of reality as a whole.

In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itself).

Though it has been done, it is philosophical stupidity to deny either that we experience spatially extended objects or that we experience ourselves as active conscious centers of feeling, experience, thought, intention, attention, volition, desire, emotion, satisfaction, etc..

The stream of human conscious experience and creative activity (the human mind or soul) has one vitally important property in process thought that it does not have in Cartesian metaphysics: it is spatially (as well as temporally) extended.

Plus, eugenics has gotten personal and highly self - conscious, being driven by individuals who want to stay around forever, resist mindless contentment, and refuse to be suckered by thinking of themselves as parts of wholes greater than themselves.

When we take conscious experience as our basis for understanding what experience is, we think of receiving and responding to stimuli from the body and the environment, of emotion, purpose, and thought, of the significant organization of data and the influencing of action.

So bountiful hath been the earth and so securely have we drawn from it our substance, that we have taken it all for granted as if it were only a gift, and with little care or conscious thought of the consequences of our [ab] use of it; nor have we very much considered the essential relation that we bear to it as living parts in the vast creation.159

Without listening to the sermon, it was easy to read this thought as a suggestion that God sending people to eternal conscious torment somehow demonstrates God's love.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 says: «For the living are conscious that they will die; * + but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all» Can't really be in a place being tortured for eternity if a.) souls die b.) thoughts die and c.) you are conscious of nothing at all.

Revolutionary as much of this was in the history of human thinking, yet, in surveying it, one is conscious of a certain impatience to get on to the basic problem that confronts us in this discussion: What were the processes of thought by which Israel came to such views?

By the notion of «interpretation» I mean that everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or thought, shall have the character of a particular instance of the general scheme.

And just as significant, I think, he nowhere seems to explain, as he clearly has to explain if «conscious» and «knowing» are analogical, how not only the greatest but even the least possible individual must in some sense be said to be conscious and to know, as well as to be aware and to feel.

Lower creatures feel but scarcely know or think, and if we speak of them as conscious,... we stretch the sense of the word.

I'm inclined to think that the intermediate state will be conscious to some extent, but perhaps somewhat dreamlike — not as solid and real as our physical existence.

On the one hand, he claims that our concept of «know» comes partly from «some dim but direct awareness of deity,» which may often be driven below the level of conscious thought, even if it is never wholly absent there; in a word, we have a feeling of God as distinct from thinking or knowing God (1970a, 155; cf. 1962, 110).

The distinction Hartshorne insists on making here as applied to our present question can be expressed by saying that, whereas mere experience or feeling of God can be not only direct but immediate, high - level thought or cognition of God, being mediated, as it is, by the conscious judgment or interpretation of such feeling, is of necessity mediate.

As a thinking, self - conscious being, indeed, he may be said, by his very nature, to live in the atmosphere of the Universal Life.

This he saw as the thin sphere of creative and self - conscious human thought within the biosphere.

Can we think of the longer potentials as representing single conscious occasions?

Lower creatures feel but scarcely know or think, and if we speak of them as conscious, as Wright does, we stretch the sense of the word.

I can not but think that the most important step forward that has occurred in psychology since I have been a student of that science is the discovery, first made in 1886, that, in certain subjects at least, there is not only the consciousness of the ordinary field, with its usual centre and margin, but an addition thereto in the shape of a set of memories, thoughts, and feelings which are extra-marginal and outside of the primary consciousness altogether, but yet must be classed as conscious facts of some sort, able to reveal their presence by unmistakable signs.

Nevertheless, despite the wonder of this prophetic vision, as we read the New Testament we may sometimes be conscious of a vast and timeless energy confined within the thought - forms and restricted knowledge of the first century A.D. Today the experience, knowledge and responsibility of every thinking man is very much greater than that of most of the men of New Testament days.

I explained the phenomena as partly due to explicitly conscious processes of thought and will, but as due largely also to the subconscious incubation and maturing of motives deposited by the experiences of life.

To be sure, this need not mean conscious dependence on special sources, such as Philo of Alexandria, as has been commonly thought, nor need it reveal any thoroughgoing knowledge of NeoPlatonic philosophy.

Monad's were for Leibniz just as real on the subhuman, even subanimal, levels, as on the human level; they were merely much less capable of thought and definite conscious recollections and perceptions, more limited to simple feeling and extremely short - run memory of what has just happened.

At a human level, creativity is the «prius» of all our feeling, acting, thinking, and hoping, of our reality as language - speakers and as conscious deciders.

After all, people think of rifles and shotguns as hunting weapons, the tools of a game - and sport - conscious society.

The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them... was all about: «How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?»

Or perhaps the latter: given the total qualitative difference between the active, directed mental «intentionality» exhibited in conscious cognition (that is to say, the «aboutness» of thought and perception, the «meaningfulness» of reality as apprehended under finite phenomenal, conceptual, and semiotic aspects) and the passive, undirected indeterminacy of any reality that might exist independent of mental acts.

When an interval elapses between sense - impression and exertion, filled by cerebral activity marking the revival and combination of past sense impressions stored as impressions, we are said to think or to be conscious....

Thus, when we think of reality as consisting of moments of experience, we are conscious that reality is always becoming.

By this notion of «interpretation» I mean that everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or thought, shall have the character of a particular instance of the general scheme.

A word about the context of my present work: I still read British and German New Testament scholars and learn from them, but, without having made a conscious choice about it, I do not think that I read them as much as I used to, and except for people like Erhardt Güttgemanns, who also does New Testament theology from a foundation in literary criticism and linguistics, I am not sure that they are moving me in really new directions.

If a man in despair is as he thinks conscious of his despair, does not talk about it meaninglessly as of something which befell him (pretty much as when a man who suffers from vertigo talks with nervous self - deception about a weight upon his head or about its being like something falling upon him, etc., this weight and this pressure being in fact not something external but an inverse reflection from an inward experience), and if by himself and by himself only he would abolish the despair, then by all the labor he expends he is only laboring himself deeper into a deeper despair.

A conscious field plus its object as felt or thought of plus an attitude towards the object plus the sense of a self to whom the attitude belongs — such a concrete bit of personal experience may be a small bit, but it is a solid bit as long as it lasts; not hollow, not a mere abstract element of experience, such as the «object» is when taken all alone.

Although it includes feeling, it also accents high grade aspects of conscious life such as thinking, recalling, and anticipating the remote future.

But as I've become more health conscious over the years, the thought of having lots of sugar and milk with a little cocoa powder is no longer as appealing.