Sentences with phrase «from human language»

It taps into the common science - fiction theme of alien tongues; not only the communication barrier they might present, but the unusual ways they could differ from human language.

What is sometimes called the «language» of birds, or bees, or monkeys is a very different thing from any human language.

In order to compare them, you would have to begin by eliminating from human language everything that goes beyond visual information, everything that is inaccessible to the code.

Not exact matches

I don't mean this literally: The «from» line might still be your company's name, but the content should feel as if it comes from a human being, speaking in the first person (using «I» or «we» and addressing the recipient as «you»), with natural - sounding language.

Though these results are far from conclusive (for instance, they can't explain why humans alone seem to have language), the evidence leans towards the cognitive account.

If a Martian landed from outer space and spoke a language that violated universal grammar, we simply would not be able to learn that language the way that we learn a human language like English or Swahili... We're designed by nature for English, Chinese, and every other possible human language.

God using evolution to create shows way more time and dedication to the emergence of humans, but of course the fundamentalists know best and claim to KNOW that genesis was meant to be 100 % literal despite gaps and missing pieces translating from a very simplistic language into English.

To eliminate from human society generalized distastes and preferences» including those that engage ethnicity, religion, nation, language, and race» is neither possible nor desirable, although there is a style of liberalism that erroneously insists that it is both.

Whereas in earlier years God to me was the unknown God who came close only in Jesus Christ and could be approached only in him, «from below,» but could not be adequately characterized in human language, I increasingly realized that there is other than conceptual language which nevertheless is not noncognitive.

Today I think that the religious dimension of human life is one of the irreducible roots of language, and I suspect that quite a few of our words developed from religious origins.

In very personal language, I believe that all things are progressing from the same divine source; that that source is the ground of all being and its essence is love and interdependence; that all human beings (all of life, really) are equal and beloved in its sight; that in response to that overarching, boundless love which ensures that no one is ever truly alone, I have a responsibility to assist in the creation of just and loving community here on Earth.

If so, we must listen appreciatively, remembering that, because all human language is relative and limited, we must not let any one word or group of words assume the qualities of an absolute, for that would be a return to the idolatry from which the faith of our fathers sought to deliver us.

In mythological language, this means that he stems from eternity, his origin is not a human and natural one.

In the course of time he receives from them the language and the heritage of culture which enable him to develop his human potential.

If I were to guess — and that is all any outsider can do at this point — I would say that the language of intrinsic value still in the Charter, granting nature some immunity from human need, language which, as noted, the Earth Charter Commission regards as essential and nonnegotiable, will prove the final stumbling block to official acceptance.

Humans from Adam + Eve (and incest), really old people, parting oceans, languages from fallen towers, feeding thousands from few bread loafs, virgins giving birth, rising from the dead.

When I reflect on the infinite pains to which the human mind and heart will go in order to protect itself from the full impact of reality, when I recall the mordant analyses of religious belief which stem from the works of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and, furthermore, recognize the truth of so much of what these critics of religion have had to say, when I engage in a philosophical critique of the language of theology and am constrained to admit that it is a continual attempt to say what can not properly be said and am thereby led to wonder whether its claim to cognition can possibly be valid — when I ask these questions of myself and others like them (as I can not help asking and, what is more, feel obliged to ask), is not the conclusion forced upon me that my faith is a delusion?

Our calling is to invite all to turn from gods which are even less than human, and from idols like power, profit, property, creed, class, caste, language, race, success, technocratic progress, managerial efficiency and the ego, and thus experience the fulfilling realization of God's Reign which consists in justice, freedom and fellowship, tender love, universal compassion and equitable sharing of resources.

But because the early church inherited from Hellenistic culture the love of penetrating into the truth by intellectual enquiry, the Christian thinkers of the West have too commonly concluded that they could define and delineate the being of God in the forms of human language with some confidence.

In our generation there is danger and hope — danger that these noncognitive accouterments will lose their aesthetic harmony and hypnotic power when integrated with the basic prehensions of science, and be reverted into impotent and empty symbols, jarring, ugly, and without force in final satisfactions: hope that the power of Jesus as lure will reassert itself in an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfaction.

On the human side, it is the always potential and often the actually realized sense of dependence upon the divine reality that sustains and (as traditional language would phrase it) «saves» such existence from triviality, meaninglessness, and extinction.

There are four affirmations about Jesus Christ that historically have been stressed in Christian faith: (1) Jesus is truly human, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, living a human life under the same human conditions any one of us faces — thus Christology, statement of the significance of Jesus, must start «from below,» as many contemporary theologians are insisting; (2) Jesus is that one in whom God energizes in a supreme degree, with a decisive intensity; in traditional language he has been styled «the Incarnate Word of God»; (3) for our sake, to secure human wholeness of life as it moves onward toward fulfillment, Jesus not only lived among us but also was crucified for us — this is the point of talk about atonement wrought in and by him; (4) death was not the end for him, so it is not as if he never existed at all; in some way he triumphed over death, or was given victory over it, so that now and forever he is a reality in the life of God and effective among humankind.

Before the word is spoken to man in human language, it is spoken to him in another language, from which he has to translate it into human language.

We have observed that all human language draws its nature and value from the fact that it both comes from the Word of God and is chosen by God to manifest himself.

Human language draws its function from this efficacy and power of the Word of God, except that human language does not have the same degree of efficacy and power: it can convey falsehood as well as tHuman language draws its function from this efficacy and power of the Word of God, except that human language does not have the same degree of efficacy and power: it can convey falsehood as well as thuman language does not have the same degree of efficacy and power: it can convey falsehood as well as truth.

It is after all rather important to emphasize that in a seventh - century text, predating all reflection on language, wherever that reflection may have occurred, we find this clear statement: the fact of human speech comes from God; but language is made up by the human race, which decides for itself — arbitrarily — the words, the rules, and the syntax.

But it is only from the semantic and communicational structures of language that we can get an argument to demonstrate human transcendence philosophically.

Henceforth human language has an eternal reference from which it can not escape without destroying itself or without stripping itself of all meaning.

The local church is, further, because it speaks an idiom of human language, an instance of human society that distinguishes itself from many other kinds of societies by the high proportion of language it spends on struggle and grace.

Rather, what the human soul possesses by virtue of its rich inheritance from the body is the potentiality for learning and using language.

It is said that, if it would reach men, then it must first be transformed into a human word, translated as it were from God's language into man's language — a process in which, as in every process of translation, we have naturally to reckon with certain foreshortenings and distortions.

John Maynard Smith and Eörs Sazthmáry considered five major evolutionary transitions, ranging from the origin of life to the beginnings of human language, using an approach somewhat similar to that of Dawkins.10

It seems to me that both Bergson and Peirce had the insight that the cosmos, including human languages, does involve evolution from past to future that expands reality.

In this context, the question of the metaphysical reality of God, that is, of God's existence prior to, and apart from, human language can not even arise.

Men will come to see, as they are now beginning to see with the critical examination of language, that every conceivable structure of meaning carried by language is necessarily based on the selections of data and the forms of thought derived from the ruling interests of human life....

I mean, communicated from a divine source by Jesus Christ as God, through inspired prophets and wise men, apostles, teachers, the writers of the books of the Bible, councils of church leaders, popes, and so on, in such a way that the message has been transmitted in human language, clothed in the external forms of human thought, given, indeed, in the characteristic language and thought - forms of particular nations and cultures, but at the same time in such a way that its essential content has been unaffected by the human mind's fallibility, ignorance and feebleness of apprehension.

We have heedlessly capitulated to the allure of images, and thus language has been dethroned from its proper preeminence in human affairs.

Such language makes sense only if we assume that «the original principles in human nature» are seen to be good, that traces of a «common humanity» remain, that humans have genuine free will, and that intentional deviation by individuals from what is natural is culpable.

Derrida's project questions the order of both language and rationality by denying the philosophical presumption that language reflects and conforms to the rational order of some external reality apart from human interpretive activity According to Derrida, Rousseau's condemnation of writing as the destruction of presence reveals language's inability to seize presence (OG 141).

Inadequate as they are, subject to modification from time to time, needing correction and supplementation, our various human languages (verbal and pictorial, aural or graphic) are both necessary for us and useful to us; they help to make sense of, and they help to give sense to, the richness of experience and the given - ness of the world as we observe and grasp it.

In turning men away from the mythological concepts of the gods to the YHWH who was known through His Word, Israel seized upon the most important phenomenon in the human scene — language — to become the metaphor for faith «The Word became flesh.»

Whether they believe it was written by God / god or a human author (let alone translated from one language to another over many years and the interpretations of those words taught / passed down over many years with many different understandings which formed with even the best intentions by men and women who were products of their time and place?)

When, in speaking of God, we use language which derives from human experience, it is not univocal.

Cardinal O'Brien made exactly the same point, and it's worth considering why he argued that gay marriage would be «a grotesque subversion of a universal human right»; note exactly where the language of human rights comes from here:

While gesture may be the first step in language evolution, the psychologists also found evidence that the evolutionary pathway from gesture to human language included the «co-evolution of gestural and vocal communication.»

And, the GDELT project, which monitors the world's broadcast, print, and web news from every country in over 100 languages, can show when human - rights related events are being reported well before the news makes its way through mainstream, Western channels.

«Lexigrams were learned, as human language is, during meaningful social interactions, not from behavioral training,» said the study's lead author, Kristen Gillespie - Lynch, an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the City University of New York and a former UCLA graduate student in Greenfield's laboratory.

The child's transition from gesture to symbol could be a developmental model of the evolutionary pathway to human language and thus evidence for the «gestural origins of human language,» Greenfield said.

From an early age, human infants are able to produce vocalisations in a wide range of emotional states and situations — an ability felt to be one of the factors required for the development of language.

The team used natural language generation — a process used to replicate human language patterns — to create fake phishing emails from real emails.