Sentences with phrase «of objects viewed»

For example, when we learn about making inferences, I bring in an assortment of strange looking objects or pictures of objects viewed from strange angles.

Not exact matches

Courts take a dim view of businesses that go for years without ever objecting to another business going by the same name, then suddenly sue for trademark infringement.

But Google makes up for jettisoning some of the traditional car essentials by adding lasers, radar, and sensors that give the vehicle's brains a 360 - degree view of its environment to the point that it can recognize objects up to two football fields away.

Likewise, even if people are not fond of a particular post, object, person or view, the simple act of clicking like, even when done with no profound intention or conviction, can lead to a rationalization process that will subconsciously make them feel positively about that post, object, person, etc..

A head - mounted computer that inserts interactive objects and holograms into your field of view, it could transform the world of work, pave the way for screenless computers, and create radical new entertainment mediums.

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.

I worked at Finance Canada and object to the way Stanford and the rest of you are implying to the media that Department supports your general view.

They may be viewed as an object lesson for a dystopian future of debt peonage.

The consequence of this medieval view is that objects of knowledge seem simultaneously real and unreal.

It depends on a certain theory of how an experience is related to its objects; on the view that if two temporal events are nontemporally experienced, they must be simultaneous; on the contention that the possibility of alternatives and of freedom is inseparable from temporal transition; and on a peculiar theory of meaning as requiring contrast.

At Bryan College — a school named for a man who is best known for opposing evolution — some members of the faculty objected to a statement of faith that outlined a literal view of creation.

He pointed out how, because of the dominant reductionist view of human nature, scientists are increasingly tempted to treat the human individual as «an object to be investigated, measured and experimented upon» rather than as an «irreducible subject».

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).

Certain objects of inquiry, such as sermons and histories, will probably yield a higher proportion of world view data, but important insights may also be gained from other elements.

Given the standard Enlightenment view of the world as composed of human subjects and nonhuman objects, this dualism of humans and commodities seems appropriate.

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)

Otherwise we shall, from the Christian point of view, remain obstinate egoists who fundamentally fight for themselves rather than for their object.

For Neville, therefore, to dismiss apparently out - of - hand the view that God is significantly to be described as individual, actual, and knowledgeable is for him to show that when he is talking about «God» he is not talking about the object of theistic faith and worship.

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.

This view leads to difficulty, for awareness or knowledge is always awareness or knowledge of some object.

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.

Stark also dissents from the views of two giants of sociology: Max Weber, who regarded religious consciousness as nonrational, and Èmile Durkheim, who contended that ritual, not belief, is the core of religion and that society itself, not God or the gods, is the real object of worship.

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 - 302).

Whitehead came to his view about the nature of eternal objects from his study of logic and mathematics.

One of these foundations is the view that when we see a table, hear a trumpet, taste sugar, etc., what we really see, hear, or taste are not ordinary objects, but instead our own ideas or images — the colored shape directly apparent to us, the loud blare, the sugary taste.

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».

Each actual entity is, viewed from this perspective, a process of emerging definiteness where the process is the decision whereby the essence of each and every eternal object is either included or excluded from positive aesthetic feeling — is either positively or negatively prehended, to use the terminology of Process and Reality.

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.

It also says that electrons and protons are societies, but it gives no indication as to whether they are spatially thick, structured societies (my view) or enduring objects (Cobb's view) except where Whitehead speculates about the dimly discerned «yet more ultimate actual entities — this could be taken to imply that electrons and protons are complex, made up of distinct types of subordinate entities, and this would support my claim that electrons and protons are structured societies.

«14 Following the assumption of simple location, 15 the cosmology derived from Galileo, Newton and Descartes persistently views the objects isolated by scientific method as though they were the fundamental units of the physical world itself.

Quite to the contrary, this view alone allows to non-human existing beings their true «otherness» as something more than the passive objects of our thought categories and the passive tools of our will to use.

Given the standard Enlightenment view of the world as composed of human subjects and non-human objects, this dualism of humans and commodities seems appropriate.

But taken at face value, they are alienating insofar as they betray us into placing our own possibilities outside of us as attributes of God and not of humanity, viewing ourselves as unworthy objects of a projected image of our own essential nature.

Secondly, we discover a sense of newness with which the world of objects is viewed a sense of having discovered reality.

«A complete elucidation of one and the same object», he writes, «may require diverse points of view which defy a unique description.»

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.

Objects may have originally been conceived of as events, and our view may be a much later way of looking at them.

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.

The ontological principle, the concepts of the essential relatedness and separateness of reality, and numerous other Whiteheadian concepts help pave the way for a truly holistic view of health and healing while moving beyond mind - body and subject - object splits.

Our Constitution, on this view, promotes an individualism that is ultimately indifferent to the object of choice because it is choice alone, and the dignity of making choices, that separates man from other forms of existence.

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?

It is better to leave out of account the views of theologians behind the various «Iron curtains», because if they were counted towards a majority, their testimony could be objected to as not entirely freely given.

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.