Sentences with phrase «of object in view»

While it consistently landed on the correct type of object in view, the feature tosses up words that indicate what AI Cam is guessing at before it arrives on its final answer.

Even at such low magnification, the images were fuzzy, and sometimes a bit of imagination was required to reconstruct the structure of the object in view.

Not exact matches

Go Fast reveals a previously undisclosed Navy encounter that occurred off the East Coast of the United States in 2015 and the object in view remains unidentified.

The human mind, in Whitehead's view, is an example of the latter: «There is also an enduring object formed by the inheritance from presiding occasion to presiding occasion» (PR 167).

too true; you're right, we are holistic people in a holistic world living holistic lives and political theory, religion, ethics, behavior, psychology, these and many others are all so inextricably intertwined with each other that it may be better to think of them as different views of the same object rather than distinct objects that are inter-related (using «object» here, of course, metaphorically)

Since there are no eternal objects or pre-existing forms in Hartshorne's view, the function of the abstract pole of God can not be solely one of the valuation of such entities as it is for Whitehead.

If it is rebutted that we need not speak of the experience as the object of knowledge of this reflexive awareness, then this view boils down to a recommendation for a radical shift in our understanding of what we mean when we speak of an «awareness of» or «knowledge of» something, a shift which is unwarranted.

In the same spirit Santayana and Whitehead agree in objecting, like Nietzsche, to the idea that change in the natural world is controlled by «laws of nature,» viewing the laws rather as simply descriptions of what each unit to which they apply «decides» to do itself (RB 301 - 302In the same spirit Santayana and Whitehead agree in objecting, like Nietzsche, to the idea that change in the natural world is controlled by «laws of nature,» viewing the laws rather as simply descriptions of what each unit to which they apply «decides» to do itself (RB 301 - 302in objecting, like Nietzsche, to the idea that change in the natural world is controlled by «laws of nature,» viewing the laws rather as simply descriptions of what each unit to which they apply «decides» to do itself (RB 301 - 302in the natural world is controlled by «laws of nature,» viewing the laws rather as simply descriptions of what each unit to which they apply «decides» to do itself (RB 301 - 302).

Cf. D. Emmet: «But the doctrine of the objective immortality of actual entities... in the constitution of other actual entities is, as Miss Stebbing points out, a departure from the earlier view of events as particular and transient, and objects alone as able to «be again».

In the earlier views this was a cognitive relation of a conscious mind to objects known.

(a) Hartshorne's objection to my position on truth would be that I assume that there are truths about the past and that truth is real now as involving a relation of correspondence with an object, the past; however, the past on my view is not real now, is not preserved in its full subjective immediacy in the consequent nature of God.

In this view all individual entities from protons to people are centers of experience and are not simply objects for the experience of others.

Although I objected to the formulation of my view of immanence and transcendence by Stackhouse and McCann, they rightly begin there in explaining our differences.

What is necessary is a philosophical analysis of nature in which the very existence of equational fields of force in the material universe is linked to a metaphysical view of what an object is and how it is related to other objects.

This passage certainly seems to indicate that eternal objects («universals») are directly involved in the process of objectification, and it is precisely passages such as this one which lend support to the view of Christian and Leclerc.9

It requires a theological fascism to justify this kind of arbitrary use of power by God; for the view to which Khayyám and Hartshorne object, in the divine case, at least, might makes right.

The Enlightenment is white, male, European and rationalist, and is regarded as a key agent in perpetrating imperialism, colonialism, racism and the exploitation of the natural environment, The Enlightenment view assumes that we can possess knowledge based on publicly recognized fundamental principles that enable us to engage the world as an object of investigation.

5 This is a remarkable anticipation of Whitehead's view in Process and Reality that God's primordial ordering of the world's possibilities (the eternal objects) is the ultimate source of novelty in an emergent universe, except that Thornton understands these possibilities to be everlasting rather than timeless.6 This reification of what for Whitehead is purely possible, needing concrete embodiment in the actual world, leads Thornton to conceive of the eternal order as absolutely actual in its unchangeableness, identical with God.

We raise these limitations because they bear directly on Charles Hartshorne's question of the reconciliation of special relativity's denial of absolute simultaneity with the process view of God.15 How indeed can God participate both as possible subject and object in every actual occasion in a universe subject to a principle of locality?

In our general view of process thought we follow Charles Hartshorne's interpretations and revisions of Whitehead, especially on the issue of the nature of eternal objects.

Consequently as regards the fundamental contention we are examining, it is not appropriate, in view of the historical associations that burden the word «material» to subsume under the term «matter» the subjectivity which is also met with within the primordial unity we have described, because to do so would at least obscure the equally fundamental difference encountered in that unity between the knowing subject and the object which is merely met with.

We must therefore, from the experiential point of view, call these godless or quasi-godless creeds «religions»; and accordingly when in our definition of religion we speak of the individual's relation to «what he considers the divine,» we must interpret the term «divine» very broadly, as denoting any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not.

«The pictures in which we view God, the thoughts in which we think Him, the words with which we can define Him, are in themselves unfitted to this object and thus inappropriate to express and affirm the knowledge of Him.»

The Service of the Lord was the object in view.

«The best view is by no means the closest view... we consciously stand back and create distance in order to look at the world, i.e., at objects as parts of the world: and also to be unembarrassed by the closeness of that which we wish only to see; to have the full liberty of our scanning attention.»

According to the ethics report, physicians objecting to abortion or contraception must refer patients desiring such services to other providers (recommendation # 4); may not argue or advocate their views on these matters though they are required to provide prior notice to their patients of their moral commitments (recommendation # 3); and, in emergency cases or in situations that might negatively affect patient physical or mental health, they must actually provide contraception and / or perform abortions (recommendation # 5, emphasis added).

(The following statements are somewhat characteristic of such schools: Bethany Theological Seminary affirms that its object is «to promote the spread and deepen the influence of Christianity by the thorough training of men and women for the various forms of Christian service, in harmony with the principles and practices of the Church of the Brethren»; Augustana Theological Seminary «prepares students for the ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church with the special needs of the Augustana Church in view»; the charter of Berkeley Divinity School begins, «Whereas sundry inhabitants of this state of the denomination of Christians called the Protestant Episcopal Church have represented by their petition addressed to the General Assembly, that great advantages would accrue to said Church, and they hope and believe to the interests of religion and morals in general, by the incorporation of a Divinity School for the training and instructions of students for the sacred ministry in the Church aforementioned.»)

Hartshorne intrepidly draws numerous conclusions of this sort, stoutly maintaining that his theory makes for more comprehensive sense than the traditional view that holds that, when one sees an external object, he really sees the object and not just a certain shape in his own brain.

He can also proceed with a determination maximizing his chances for political success; for he will find it hard to convince himself that, in view of the difference in moral qualities between himself and the object of his power, he has not only a moral right but also a moral duty to rule.

(d) As we saw from the quotation from Bachofen, mythical symbolism differs from other forms of speech in that it offers an all - embracing view of its object.

On the other hand eternal objects, viewed in their individual multiplicity, are by definition bound to be connected with other eternal objects, 26 just as, analogously, an occasion has to be viewed as a concrete relation to other occasions and nexuses of occasions.

In an extensive investigation of Gregory's views on gender, marriage, exegesis, death, virtue and the church, he concludes that Gregory's «anagogical or upward transposition leaves behind the objects of earthly, embodied existence.»

This limitation of objects to what functions in human sense - experience has rendered the reality of God highly problematic, and in late modernism, belief in the objective reality of God has been viewed as somewhat eccentric.

This principle, which views the real subject of the self - experience as standing in real relationships to a real object world, emphasizes again that the self - experience as experience of interaction is correct.

Nor would it be difficult to show that the mainline churches, Protestant and Catholic, that have provided the religious framework for the traditional morality, are in disarray, have declining income and attendance, and themselves are the objects of the same suspicion with which all established institutions are viewed.

Our faith that these unintelligible objects actually exist proves thus to be a full equivalent in praktischer Hinsicht, as Kant calls it, or from the point of view of our action, for a knowledge of what they might be, in case we were permitted positively to conceive them.

Although Schmidt derives his view from the SMW chapter «Abstraction,» he evidently finds the basis for his observation in statements Whitehead made about the relational essence of eternal objects, and this buttresses my own conclusions.

Indeed, if all the passages in which God is presented as the conceptual valuation of eternal objects have been inserted in an already existing text where God is always described in much more general terms, the logical conclusion is that the views expressed in the insertions must be conceptually later than those expressed in the text where they have been inserted.

In a sense it represents a «fusing of horizons» (Gadamer); that is, the text's horizon or view of life and that of the interpreter merge and overcome their subject - object separation.

On the one hand the world is to be viewed from the point of view of the subject and conceived objectively, and, on the other hand, it has to be maintained in its integrity, viewed from a perspective which precedes the subject - object distinction.

«Scientific objects» are theoretical entities, in that the abstract mathematical picture they present is very different from anything which could be given in sense perception; hence the plausibility of views which only give them meaning within the context of a scientific theory.

They could not be objects of our knowledge, and even worse, from Plato's point of view, the gods who knew them would not know its, or anything in the world below.

Then when a particular situation occurs, God simply does what he had from all eternity decided that he would do in such a situation, which he had eternally contemplated as possible.1 This view has important similarities to John Cobb's exposition of Whitehead's view of God's knowledge of eternal objects, though Cobb might not wish to claim that the primordial orderings of eternal objects are conscious, as Creel claims about God's knowledge of possibilities.2

This view was given a great deal of support through the use of the lens, which provides in principle (as shown in Fig. 2) a point - to - point correspondence between object, O, and Image, I. By creating such a correspondence, the

In a few thousand years of recorded history, we went from dwelling in caves and mud huts and tee - pees, not understanding the natural world around us, or the broader universe, to being able to travel through space, using reason to ferret out the hidden secrets of how the world works, from physics to chemistry to biology, we worked out the tools and rules underpinning it all, mathematics, and now we can see objects that are almost impossibly small, the very tiniest building blocks of matter, (or at least we can examine them, even if you can't «see» them because you're using something other than your eyes and photons to view them) to the very farthest objects, the planets circling other, distant stars, that are in their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERIn a few thousand years of recorded history, we went from dwelling in caves and mud huts and tee - pees, not understanding the natural world around us, or the broader universe, to being able to travel through space, using reason to ferret out the hidden secrets of how the world works, from physics to chemistry to biology, we worked out the tools and rules underpinning it all, mathematics, and now we can see objects that are almost impossibly small, the very tiniest building blocks of matter, (or at least we can examine them, even if you can't «see» them because you're using something other than your eyes and photons to view them) to the very farthest objects, the planets circling other, distant stars, that are in their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERin caves and mud huts and tee - pees, not understanding the natural world around us, or the broader universe, to being able to travel through space, using reason to ferret out the hidden secrets of how the world works, from physics to chemistry to biology, we worked out the tools and rules underpinning it all, mathematics, and now we can see objects that are almost impossibly small, the very tiniest building blocks of matter, (or at least we can examine them, even if you can't «see» them because you're using something other than your eyes and photons to view them) to the very farthest objects, the planets circling other, distant stars, that are in their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERin their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERE.

The correctness of the epistemological analysis of experience according to the subject - object schema must not be allowed to lead to an ontological view of objects as different in kind from subjects in any way other than the difference between past and present.

If I were to conceive of both myself and the object as world - lines in space - time that intersect on the occasions when the object reacts against me, I would view myself as an object in the world of existents and there would be nothing external to me in the epistemological sense of an external world.

Nevertheless, the layman's common - sense view of reality is baffled by such conundrums as the nature of time and space, the reality of human freedom, quantum jumps in physics, or the claim of modern science that colors are not really present in the objects of perception but only in the mind of the beholder.

He did not merely copy Democritus» physics, as was commonly thought, but introduced the idea of spontaneity into the movement of the atoms, and to the Democritus world of inanimate nature ruled by mechanical laws he added a world of animate nature in which the human will operated.9 Marx thus favours the views of Epicurus for two reasons: firstly, his emphasis on absolute autonomy of the human spirit has freed human beings from all superstitions of transcendent objects; secondly, the emphasis on «free individual self - consciousness» shows one way of going beyond the system of a «total philosophy».

And Duméry concludes, in a passage which so well betrays his thought, «In order for the affirmed object to be valued from a rational point of view, it would have to harmonize with such a viein a passage which so well betrays his thought, «In order for the affirmed object to be valued from a rational point of view, it would have to harmonize with such a vieIn order for the affirmed object to be valued from a rational point of view, it would have to harmonize with such a view.