Sentences with phrase «what objects would»

I'm trying hard to think of what objects would sum us up!

I'm going to have a good think about what objects I would choose.

And that something — let's say it loud — is imagining what objects would look like if they were rotated.»

Walking round her recent exhibition at the Serpentine show, I was struck by what the objects have been put through — they are nailed, piled, folded, hooked, strung, pegged, pierced, slung, plaited, laced, zipped and dangled.

What object would be placed in the main gallery of the 18th - century museum without purporting to be a commodity object, declaring its own importance?

What object has been sitting on a surface so long that is covered in dust?

Not exact matches

«Companies like Rubikloud are trying to figure out, now that we have all of these devices and objects connected to the Internet, what does this mean in terms of the data points that are being collected, and what can we bring to a shopper's experience to help optimize it,» explains McGill.

«What the environmental movement has determined is it's nearly impossible to object to a single oilsands project because there's so many of them and none of them have monopoly power.

What I object to is the notion that you can or should get people to do what they otherwise wouldn't do by paying them more if they doWhat I object to is the notion that you can or should get people to do what they otherwise wouldn't do by paying them more if they dowhat they otherwise wouldn't do by paying them more if they do it.

In addition, his curated collections of what he calls viral objects have been featured multiple times on MBI's Thingiverse site.

What was once an object with a determined function has now morphed into a world of possibilities.

Wait, you object, what if I have something really important or complicated to explain?

«I realized,» he says in an interview, «that if you generalized what a public intellectual does to [creating] media objects» — i.e., not just books and essays — «then one could possibly create software companies that had public intellectual impact.»

«Everyone's still in the mode of copying what Apple did largely, and the 3 - D does have the effect of wiping out simple spoofs — you can't hold up a picture anymore and expect it to do anything,» says Kevin Bowyer, a University of Notre Dame professor who studies biometrics and object recognition.

A person involved in the investigation said, however, that experts from Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board who had seen the object, a piece of what is known as a flaperon, were not yet fully satisfied, and called for further analysis.

In the European Union another twist to this story is that Facebook's data transfers between WhatsApp and Facebook for ads / product purposes were quickly suspended — the CNIL confirms in its notice that Facebook told it the data of its 10M French users have never been processed for targeted advertising purposes — after local regulators intervened, and objected publicly that Facebook had not provided users with enough information about what it planned to do with their data, nor secured «valid consent» to share their information.

Of course once everything is paid off a business is not entirely in the clear: physical objects like shelves or refrigeration units or lights break and wear out, and need to be replaced; until that happens, though, money can be made by utilizing what has already been paid for.

They all have lots of objectives, but it's about helping them measuring back to that object, not just awareness but what kind of awareness, not just impressions but what are they actually going to do for you or for the brand, the business, are you changing the hearts and minds of the customer?

He objected that the issue of contraception was «superfluous» compared to others; he asked what right the priest had to tell him what to do («judge not lest you be judged,» Hannity instructed); and he expressed shock at the thought that anyone might deprive him of taking Communion just because he was deciding for himself what it means to be Catholic.

Without consent, there's no practical yardstick for what is right or wrong, so all we have left is a set of tangled - up beliefs about women being sex objects who are wholly responsible for what happens to them.

And this is what the Catechism teaches: The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life - forms and the appearance of man.

But this past week I was talking to someone about grace, and they objected with the grace litmus test, and I don't know what happened, but I sighed out of exasperation and decided to give a different answer than the one I had always given before.

Why would you object to me calling it the real truth, to me that's what it is, why would that bother you, It wouldn't bother me as to what you called it, that's up to you, who cares, it doesn't offend me what you believe, why should it bother you what I believe.

There can be no doubt that God makes decisions a propos of the disjunctive multiplicity of eternal objects; the difficulty is to establish in precisely what sense these divine decisions are distinguishable from the choices and calculations made by the Leibnizian deity Whitehead's dilemma seems to be this: on the one hand, the principle of classification is to be challenged by positing the primordiality of a world of eternal objects that knows «no exclusions, expressive in logical terms»; on the other hand, positing pure potentiality as a «boundless and unstructured infinity» (IWM 252) lacking all logical order would seem to be precisely that conceptual move which renders it «inefficacious» or «irrelevant.»

But here let me emphasize that, while it may bear upon other (i.e., not specifically Christian) objects, have other parameters, use other methods, this Christian revolutionary attitude does not necessarily correspond (though it may do so) to what is called revolution in society.

Eternal objects are, in Whitehead's terminology, what had been called universals, but as he himself is quick to point out (SMW 169), the conception is quite different.

Whanger's analysis of high - resolution photographs of the shroud has revealed what appear to be other objects, such as burial instruments around the body.

What status have the eternal objects in relation to God's envisagement?

From the aisle seat where I was sitting I could have stuck out my foot and tripped him up, and might easily have done so, had my attention not been arrested by a still, small voice, as it were, asking, «Coffin, what part of that sentence are you objecting to?»

What is chosen therefore is one of those types of act which «in the Church's moral tradition have been termed «intrinsically evil» (intrinsice malum): they are such always and per se, in other words on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.»

Here's an observation, too: if these people are debating over what the best objects are to strike children with, they've gone beyond violent discipline into an area of seriously evil pathology.

This is the sense in which «a fact can harbor potentiality» (Adventures 138): All objects that exist are actual either (1) as determinate, satisfied processes physically felt, or (2) as indeterminate objects created in the present and conceptually felt in the present — by what Whitehead would call Valuation (also Reproduction and Conformity) and Reversion — as the present whole weighs somewhat general and indeterminate alternatives for its satisfaction.

It was evidently being objected that the appearances may have been hallucinations, or that what the disciples saw was merely a ghost.

Yet the Christians involved have attempted to bury the truth and that is what I am objecting to.

From other passages where Whitehead discusses the principle of relativity, we can safely infer that what all entities have in common — and thus what «entity», «being», «object», and «thing» connote in common — is their capacity to contribute determination to every actuality whose becoming finds those entities already existing (PR 366, 371, 392).

People have emphasized the three dimensionality of the object, but that is not what I will emphasize here.

While strongly objecting to what has until recently been the dominant tradition in theology, I am the grateful heir of another tradition going back to Socinus, sometimes called «the first Unitarian.»

We have not provided satisfactory answers to question such as: 1) What caused tons of steel used in WTC buildings to literary turn into dust 2) Why WTC 7, after all it was not hit by any planes 3) what did hit pentagon 4) Why Cheney was commanding NORAD on 911 5) What did hit pentagon 6) Why did cheney ordered complete stand by as the object was approaching pentagonWhat caused tons of steel used in WTC buildings to literary turn into dust 2) Why WTC 7, after all it was not hit by any planes 3) what did hit pentagon 4) Why Cheney was commanding NORAD on 911 5) What did hit pentagon 6) Why did cheney ordered complete stand by as the object was approaching pentagonwhat did hit pentagon 4) Why Cheney was commanding NORAD on 911 5) What did hit pentagon 6) Why did cheney ordered complete stand by as the object was approaching pentagonWhat did hit pentagon 6) Why did cheney ordered complete stand by as the object was approaching pentagon....

And once a male starts producing objects for that purpose, he has to have a capacity to appreciate beauty in order to judge what will work.

Of course the object — what we have seen / what we know / what we have done — makes an enormous difference.

As we have seen, what the examination of perception brings to light for Whitehead is an occasion of experience which is a self - creative process, a subject synthesizing past objects into a novel unity.

Now Cobb might object that the earphone - screen example is not what he has in mind — rather, he might say, he has in mind the sort of situation where we go to listen to a lecture but obviously watch the speaker while we listen to his words.

What Buber's critics on this point overlook is that the reason that objects are It to us and not Thou is that they have already been enregistered in the subject - object world of the past.

Let us say that God would not be exactly what He is if the objects of His awareness were different.

Get any boy vitally to recognize that he is the object of sacrifice and what you have done is to lift his own opinion of his worth.

An abstract or ideal thing that has no reference to «particular feelings, or emotions, or sensations» is what Whitehead later would define as an eternal object (see PR 44).

The objects of our ordinary experience, things such as rocks, trees, animals and persons are composites or groupings of what we have been calling occasions of experience.

At this point Cobb might be tempted to make one last ditch stand, arguing that I have begged the question by merely assuming that a structured society can not be an enduring object, whereas what he is saying, when he says that one regional standpoint can include another, is that one enduring entity, one nonspatial, serially ordered society, can still be a structured society in that its temporally successive occasions can include the regional standpoints of the «narrower» actual entities which make up its subordinate societies and / or nexus.

On reflection we can see that the above argument for the internal relatedness of God as cognitive subject presupposes that there are alternative possibilities for God, at least with respect to what creatures, or what states of creatures, He has as objects of knowledge.

Others would refuse it the name because they regard as realistic only a theory of perception which asserts that what we perceive exists just as we perceive it independently of its being perceived, whereas I, like Whitehead, think that the object of perception really is what we perceive it to be only as what Whitehead calls an element in an actual situation that includes as other constituents not only the context but also the perceiver.