Sentences with phrase «between human thought»

A second problem for a realistic substantialism has been that it has difficulty accounting either for human thought or for the relation between human thought and the material substances.

Indeed, he thought of the latter as engaged in a religious revolt against logic because, according to Nash, Van Till did not believe there was a correspondence between human thought and divine thought.

Not exact matches

The results of the experiment would suggest that bird flu could potentially mutate to become transmittable between humans like the flu, a scary thought considering the human fatality rate from bird flu when contracted from birds was recorded as 60 percent in 2010.

Trump told the New York Times in an interview that he thinks there is «some connectivity» between human activity and global warming, despite previously describing climate change as a hoax.

«Over time I think we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence,» said Musk according to a CNBC report, adding that «some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem.»

The race between automation and human work is won by automation, and as long as we need fiat currency to pay the rent / mortgage, humans will fall out of the system in droves as this shift takes place... The safe zones are services that require local human effort (gardening, painting, babysitting), distant human effort (editing, coaching, coordinating), and high - level thinking / relationship building.

On the most granular level, the stock market is just a medium used for human beings to trade ownership in companies with one another, and you would think that interactions between just two people would have at least some human element in it.

We may very well begin to see a narrowing gap between the business experience and the human experience happen sooner than we think.

Nick, arrogance in the extreme is claiming to understand God's motives, reasons & justifications or personifying him with human emotions like jealousy, vanity & vengance... Between athiests & believers, who do you think does this?

We are in the midst of a Copernican shift in human consciousness [thought patterns] which is why there is so much conflict between people of good will.

They are found to be a very Rich & Powerful Groups and Mother of Groups that control lives of Millions... Now Finding Peace means that we should think on how to get those Master Keys or Super Master Keys of Super Powerful Groups that are to be gathered all in one Ring lock that works to getting them to work towards One Purpose only and that is on how to make Human Life better Globally and that by investing in them human populations worldwide not minding their Race or Faith or Political interests such will work towards Building Bridges between all Nations holding and calling one Message of Love and Sharing in some form of Brotherhood that works towards a Greener Planet EaHuman Life better Globally and that by investing in them human populations worldwide not minding their Race or Faith or Political interests such will work towards Building Bridges between all Nations holding and calling one Message of Love and Sharing in some form of Brotherhood that works towards a Greener Planet Eahuman populations worldwide not minding their Race or Faith or Political interests such will work towards Building Bridges between all Nations holding and calling one Message of Love and Sharing in some form of Brotherhood that works towards a Greener Planet Earth!?

I noticed you didn't tell Marcel, There is a difference between humans and all other living creatures on this planet... we think — in his point.

Process thought does not make a distinction between suffering endemic to the entire human race and suffering which is meted out by one ethnic group to another.

There is a difference between humans and all other living creatures on this planet... we think.

If Christians must choose between thinking clearly and relating rightly to human suffering, they must choose the latter.

In becoming a model, it has engendered wide - ranging interpretation of the relationship between God and human beings; if God is seen as father, human beings become children, sin can be seen as rebellious behavior, and redemption can be thought of as restoration to the status of favored offspring.

I believe it is authentically Christian thinking to single this out for special focus and to imply it in the fresh application of the relations between God and the world, among human beings, and between human beings and other creatures.

This, so it is thought, will preserve us from Catholic Pelagian or semi-Pelagian leanings in which there is a synergistic cooperation between the divine and human wills.

Geneticist Svante Paabo told Science, in an article entitled «Relative Differences: The Myth of the 1 Percent,» «I don't think there's any way to calculate a number,» or at least a precise percentage, of differences between chimpanzees and humans.

«Speech in its embryonic stages as exemplified in animal and human behavior,» he says in Modes of Thought, «varies between emotional expression and signaling» (MT 52).

We say we know the difference between questionable human life and undeniable human life, while it is evident to all but the willfully blind that lives once thought to be undeniably human are now thrown into question.

Hence, a distinction must be made between cosmology (i.e., the study of material changes) and history proper (i.e., the study of human thinking).

The split between rational and mythic discourse which has characterized our recent cultural history is very dangerous for it impoverishes both modes of thought.13 It is one of the possible benefits of the current new appreciation of the meaning and function of myth that we may be able to rescue it from the realm of unconscious fantasy where it always continues to operate, often in dark and devious ways, and restore it once again to its creative role in human consciousness.

In these quite different ways, something is being said about a refreshment or enablement which is provided for human existence; and something is also being said, even in a fashion which sometimes seems curiously negative (as in Indian religious thought and observance), about a relationship with a more ultimate and all - inclusive reality that establishes a kind of companionship between our own little life and the greater circumambient divine being.

Myth is not a human narrative of a one - sided divine manifestation, as Buber once thought, but a «mythization» of the memory of the meeting between God and man.

There is even a debate between those who think the devotee depends entirely on God's grace, like a kitten picked up by its mother, and those who think some human effort is also required like a baby monkey who has to cling on to its mother.

Because of this divergent process of actualization — the material past is dead, the mental past is alive — a distinction must be made between cosmology or pseudo-history and history proper (i.e., the study of human thought).

«I think the Indian personality is a very fine balance between the aggressive component of human endeavour and the more feminine, soft and cultured conception which tends to integrate various dimensions rather than push along one dimension.

Perhaps the best description of my reaction is from Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield: «There is no other such gulf in the history of human thought as that which is cleft between the apostolic and the immediately succeeding ages.

He provides the balanced picture again between knower and known, without an a priori, in going on to say: «The key to development is a mind capable of thinking in technological terms and grasping the fully human meaning of human activities, within the context of the holistic meaning of the individual's being.»

It is therefore important to distinguish between those theologians who are interested in post-modern culture because they want to better understand its effects upon the human person's openness to evangelisation, and those theologians who think that Christ should be just another option at the market of meaningful symbols, no more or less significant than Buddha or Krishna.

Speaking to popular culture blog Assignment X, the author said this as he again described the difference between his work and Tolkien's: «I think ultimately the battle between good and evil is weighed within the individual human heart, not necessarily between an army of people dressed in white and an army of people dressed in black.

The «fence - sitting» is often just evidence that people are ACTIVELY thinking about the inherent conflict of the human experience, between the human and the divine, rather than completely committing oneself to an all - encompassing concept beforehand.

«Love» exists and has been studied by scientists, but there is a huge difference between actually having a relationship with another human being, or even an animal that you can characterize as «loving» and thinking there is some all - powerful unseen being out there that loves you.

That thought was essentially moral, grounded in a thick understanding of the relationship between human nature, tradition, and transcendent being.

The fact that a crucial discontinuity exists between the purely animated envelope of the Earth and its thinking envelope (i.e. between the Biosphere and the Noosphere), which is manifest in the fundamentally different proceedings of Life on either side of this gap between the two layers, naturally does not mean that the Human sprang into existence among the Living in an immediate state of completeness.

While Paul's thought is by no means always clear, and perhaps from letter to letter not always exactly the same, it is nevertheless certain that his concept of resurrection can be clearly distinguished from that of the traditional «bodily resurrection».27 Paul does not speak in terms of the «same body» but rather in terms of a new body, whether it be a «spiritual body», 28 «the likeness of the heavenly man», 29 «a house not made by human hands, eternal and in heaven», 30 or, a «new body put on» over the old.31 In using various figures of speech to distinguish between the present body of flesh and blood and the future resurrection body, he seems to be thinking of both bodies as the externals which clothe the spirit and without which we should «find ourselves naked».32 But he freely confesses that the «earthly frame that houses us today ’33 may, like the seed, and man of dust, be destroyed, but the «heavenly habitation», which the believer longs to put on, is already waiting in the heavenly realm, for it is eternal by nature.

But, he said, «the latter history of this culture is not so much a debate between these two schools of thought as a rebellion of romanticism, materialism and psychoanalytic psychology against the errors of rationalism, whether idealistic or naturalistic, in its interpretation of human nature.

Or, to put it in other terms, the boundary between the ancient world and the modern is to be traced, not in the Aegean or the middle Mediterranean, but in the pages of the Old Testament, where we find revealed attainments in the realms of thought, facility in literary expression, profound religious insights, and standards of individual and social ethics, all of which are intimately of the modern world because, indeed, they have been of the vital motivating forces which made our world of the human spirit.

Consider this one: Christians might think that the dynamics of grace and faith in human salvation could only be worked out in Christianity — until they learn, for example, about the intricate, debates between the «cat doctrine» and the «monkey doctrine» in Bhakti Hinduism.

The link between justice and ecological issues becomes especially evident in light of the dualistic, hierarchical mode of Western thought in which a superior and an inferior are correlated: male - female, white people — people of color, heterosexual - homosexual, able - bodied — physically challenged, culture - nature, mind - body, human - nonhuman.

Such initiatives transcend the divide that has existed since the «60s between human service advocates who focus on people, and community development professionals who think about neighborhoods.

It's a neat way to think about it, and also points to a collective - personality with a memory and an interaction that takes place between individuals, almost a meta - observation on what it means to be human, if you will.

Think about this: what is one of the main differences between humans and animals?

In political and social thought, no Christian has ever written a more profound defense of the democratic idea and its component parts, such as the dignity of the person, the sharp distinction between society and the state, the role of practical wisdom, the common good, the transcendent anchoring of human rights, transcendent judgment upon societies, and the interplay of goodness and evil in human individuals and institutions.

But he thinks that the Christian and the philosophical understanding of human life are so close to one another in their conception of sin that he refuses to distinguish between them at this point.

Since I really can't see much difference between any other god and God, including his tendency to have very human emotions, I'm inclined to think that even he is an invented deity.

Well, I guess leaving out soul from an (artificial) system, the main things which would seem that are different (aside from biochemical construction) between humans and computers are feelings and emotions, and thought, or consciousness.

The heart of the problem, I think, lies in grounding the possibility of trust between human beings over chasms between cultures and divergent interests.

I hope most of you realize that their is very little difference between Muslim's who believe in 89 Virgins and Christians who think humans can walk on water and Mormons who toss water on dead people...