gem_id stringlengths 20 25 | id stringlengths 24 24 | title stringlengths 3 59 | context stringlengths 151 3.71k | question stringlengths 1 270 | target stringlengths 1 270 | references list | answers dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gem-squad_v2-train-14800 | 5ad3cd43604f3c001a3ff18d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | Why did Whitehead think people continued to subscribe to nonmaterialistic thinking? | Why did Whitehead think people continued to subscribe to nonmaterialistic thinking? | [
"Why did Whitehead think people continued to subscribe to nonmaterialistic thinking?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14801 | 5ad3cd43604f3c001a3ff18e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | What did Whitehead believe regarding factors that don't limit people's understanding of his concepts? | What did Whitehead believe regarding factors that don't limit people's understanding of his concepts? | [
"What did Whitehead believe regarding factors that don't limit people's understanding of his concepts?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14802 | 5ad3cd43604f3c001a3ff18f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | What did Whitehead believe was one of the biggest reasons materialistic thinking did not endure? | What did Whitehead believe was one of the biggest reasons materialistic thinking did not endure? | [
"What did Whitehead believe was one of the biggest reasons materialistic thinking did not endure?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14803 | 57309e35069b5314008321c9 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What obscures the importance of relations according to Whitehead? | What obscures the importance of relations according to Whitehead? | [
"What obscures the importance of relations according to Whitehead?"
] | {
"text": [
"materialism"
],
"answer_start": [
22
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14804 | 57309e35069b5314008321ca | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What does Materialism see each object as? | What does Materialism see each object as? | [
"What does Materialism see each object as?"
] | {
"text": [
"distinct and discrete"
],
"answer_start": [
107
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14805 | 57309e35069b5314008321cb | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | How is each object related to other things? | How is each object related to other things? | [
"How is each object related to other things?"
] | {
"text": [
"externally"
],
"answer_start": [
213
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14806 | 573352f9d058e614000b585c | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is another issue that Whitehead had with materialism? | What is another issue that Whitehead had with materialism? | [
"What is another issue that Whitehead had with materialism?"
] | {
"text": [
"it obscures the importance of relations"
],
"answer_start": [
42
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14807 | 573352f9d058e614000b585d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is the general materialistic view of an object? | What is the general materialistic view of an object? | [
"What is the general materialistic view of an object?"
] | {
"text": [
"Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things"
],
"answer_start": [
153
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14808 | 573352f9d058e614000b585e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | How the fundamental concept of matter influence people to view objects? | How the fundamental concept of matter influence people to view objects? | [
"How the fundamental concept of matter influence people to view objects?"
] | {
"text": [
"The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything"
],
"answer_start": [
249
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14809 | 573352f9d058e614000b585f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is Whitehead's belief regarding the importance of relations? | What is Whitehead's belief regarding the importance of relations? | [
"What is Whitehead's belief regarding the importance of relations?"
] | {
"text": [
"in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves"
],
"answer_start": [
405
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14810 | 573352f9d058e614000b5860 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is the materialistic view of matter in relation to other objects? | What is the materialistic view of matter in relation to other objects? | [
"What is the materialistic view of matter in relation to other objects?"
] | {
"text": [
"It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects."
],
"answer_start": [
83
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14811 | 5ad3cd8e604f3c001a3ff193 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | How the fundamental concept of matter influence people to not view objects? | How the fundamental concept of matter influence people to not view objects? | [
"How the fundamental concept of matter influence people to not view objects?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14812 | 5ad3cd8e604f3c001a3ff194 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is another issue that Whitehead had without materialism? | What is another issue that Whitehead had without materialism? | [
" What is another issue that Whitehead had without materialism?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14813 | 5ad3cd8e604f3c001a3ff195 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is the general non-materialistic view of an object? | What is the general non-materialistic view of an object? | [
" What is the general non-materialistic view of an object?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14814 | 5ad3cd8e604f3c001a3ff196 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is Whitehead's non-belief regarding the importance of relations? | What is Whitehead's non-belief regarding the importance of relations? | [
" What is Whitehead's non-belief regarding the importance of relations?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14815 | 5ad3cd8e604f3c001a3ff197 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | A second problem with materialism is that it obscures the importance of relations. It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects. Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things. The idea of matter as primary makes people think of objects as being fundamentally separate in time and space, and not necessarily related to anything. But in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves. A student taking notes in one of Whitehead's fall 1924 classes wrote that: | What is the materialistic view of matter in relation to no ohter objects? | What is the materialistic view of matter in relation to no ohter objects? | [
"What is the materialistic view of matter in relation to no ohter objects?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14816 | 57309ede396df91900096218 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | Whitehead believes any entity is in some sense what? | Whitehead believes any entity is in some sense what? | [
"Whitehead believes any entity is in some sense what?"
] | {
"text": [
"nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities"
],
"answer_start": [
57
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14817 | 57309ede396df91900096219 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | If an object made no difference to any other entity, what could be said about it? | If an object made no difference to any other entity, what could be said about it? | [
"If an object made no difference to any other entity, what could be said about it?"
] | {
"text": [
"not be said to really exist."
],
"answer_start": [
430
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14818 | 57309ede396df9190009621a | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | If relations are not secondary to what a thing is, what is it? | If relations are not secondary to what a thing is, what is it? | [
"If relations are not secondary to what a thing is, what is it?"
] | {
"text": [
"they are what the thing is"
],
"answer_start": [
507
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14819 | 57309ede396df9190009621b | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | What makes up the sum of relations to an entity? | What makes up the sum of relations to an entity? | [
"What makes up the sum of relations to an entity?"
] | {
"text": [
"rld around it"
],
"answer_start": [
176
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14820 | 57309ede396df9190009621c | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | A real object forces the universe to do what? | A real object forces the universe to do what? | [
"A real object forces the universe to do what?"
] | {
"text": [
"in some way conform to it"
],
"answer_start": [
258
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14821 | 5733541ed058e614000b5866 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | How does Whitehead characterize anything that exists? | How does Whitehead characterize anything that exists? | [
"How does Whitehead characterize anything that exists?"
] | {
"text": [
"in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it"
],
"answer_start": [
43
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14822 | 5733541ed058e614000b5867 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | How does he describe what makes something real? | How does he describe what makes something real? | [
"How does he describe what makes something real?"
] | {
"text": [
"A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it"
],
"answer_start": [
191
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14823 | 5733541ed058e614000b5868 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has no effect on any other person or object? | In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has no effect on any other person or object? | [
"In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has no effect on any other person or object?"
] | {
"text": [
"if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist"
],
"answer_start": [
301
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14824 | 5733541ed058e614000b5869 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | What did Whitehead believe about the concept of relations in the context of defining an entity? | What did Whitehead believe about the concept of relations in the context of defining an entity? | [
"What did Whitehead believe about the concept of relations in the context of defining an entity?"
] | {
"text": [
"Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is."
],
"answer_start": [
459
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14825 | 5ad3cdc5604f3c001a3ff19d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | How does Whitehead not characterize anything that exists? | How does Whitehead not characterize anything that exists? | [
"How does Whitehead not characterize anything that exists?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14826 | 5ad3cdc5604f3c001a3ff19e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | How does he describe what makes something fake? | How does he describe what makes something fake? | [
" How does he describe what makes something fake?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14827 | 5ad3cdc5604f3c001a3ff19f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has a lot of effect on any other person or object? | In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has a lot of effect on any other person or object? | [
"In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has a lot of effect on any other person or object?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14828 | 5ad3cdc5604f3c001a3ff1a0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is. | What did Whitehead believe about the concept of relations in the context of not defining an entity? | What did Whitehead believe about the concept of relations in the context of not defining an entity? | [
"What did Whitehead believe about the concept of relations in the context of not defining an entity?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14829 | 57309fa8396df91900096222 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | An entity is a sum of relations, a valuation of them and what else? | An entity is a sum of relations, a valuation of them and what else? | [
"An entity is a sum of relations, a valuation of them and what else?"
] | {
"text": [
"reaction to them."
],
"answer_start": [
118
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14830 | 57309fa8396df91900096223 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | Most entities do not have what? | Most entities do not have what? | [
"Most entities do not have what?"
] | {
"text": [
"consciousness"
],
"answer_start": [
434
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14831 | 57309fa8396df91900096224 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | All entities, being unable to predict behavior, are because of what? | All entities, being unable to predict behavior, are because of what? | [
"All entities, being unable to predict behavior, are because of what?"
] | {
"text": [
"the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities"
],
"answer_start": [
762
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14832 | 57309fa8396df91900096225 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | Not being able to predict what any entity is going to do is what principle b Whitehead? | Not being able to predict what any entity is going to do is what principle b Whitehead? | [
"Not being able to predict what any entity is going to do is what principle b Whitehead?"
] | {
"text": [
"creativity is the absolute principle of existence"
],
"answer_start": [
151
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14833 | 573358f2d058e614000b58a9 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | Other than the combination of its relations, what else defines an entity? | Other than the combination of its relations, what else defines an entity? | [
"Other than the combination of its relations, what else defines an entity?"
] | {
"text": [
"an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them"
],
"answer_start": [
37
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14834 | 573358f2d058e614000b58aa | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | What did Whitehead believe regarding creativity? | What did Whitehead believe regarding creativity? | [
"What did Whitehead believe regarding creativity?"
] | {
"text": [
"creativity is the absolute principle of existence"
],
"answer_start": [
151
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14835 | 573358f2d058e614000b58ab | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | What did Whitehead believe about an entity's relation to other entities? | What did Whitehead believe about an entity's relation to other entities? | [
"What did Whitehead believe about an entity's relation to other entities?"
] | {
"text": [
"has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws"
],
"answer_start": [
273
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14836 | 5ad3ce26604f3c001a3ff1af | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | Other than the combination of its relations, what else does not define an entity? | Other than the combination of its relations, what else does not define an entity? | [
"Other than the combination of its relations, what else does not define an entity?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14837 | 5ad3ce26604f3c001a3ff1b0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | What did Whitehead believe regarding non-creativity? | What did Whitehead believe regarding non-creativity? | [
"What did Whitehead believe regarding non-creativity?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14838 | 5ad3ce26604f3c001a3ff1b1 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It must be emphasized, however, that an entity is not merely a sum of its relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. | An entity is not a sum of relations, a valuation of them and what else? | An entity is not a sum of relations, a valuation of them and what else? | [
" An entity is not a sum of relations, a valuation of them and what else?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14839 | 5730a0a98ab72b1400f9c614 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What term did Whitehead describe that perception is not limited to the living? | What term did Whitehead describe that perception is not limited to the living? | [
"What term did Whitehead describe that perception is not limited to the living?"
] | {
"text": [
"prehension"
],
"answer_start": [
209
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14840 | 5730a0a98ab72b1400f9c615 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What language does the term "prehensio" come from? | What language does the term "prehensio" come from? | [
"What language does the term \"prehensio\" come from?"
] | {
"text": [
"Latin"
],
"answer_start": [
243
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14841 | 5730a0a98ab72b1400f9c616 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What does the word "Prehensio" translate into? | What does the word "Prehensio" translate into? | [
"What does the word \"Prehensio\" translate into?"
] | {
"text": [
"to seize"
],
"answer_start": [
269
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14842 | 5730a0a98ab72b1400f9c617 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What entities does the term prehension apply to? | What entities does the term prehension apply to? | [
"What entities does the term prehension apply to?"
] | {
"text": [
"conscious or unconscious"
],
"answer_start": [
343
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14843 | 5730a0a98ab72b1400f9c618 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | How many modes does perception occur in according to Whitehead? | How many modes does perception occur in according to Whitehead? | [
"How many modes does perception occur in according to Whitehead?"
] | {
"text": [
"two"
],
"answer_start": [
872
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14844 | 57335ac6d058e614000b58ce | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What is the origin of the word "prehension"? | What is the origin of the word "prehension"? | [
"What is the origin of the word \"prehension\"?"
] | {
"text": [
"comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning \"to seize.\""
],
"answer_start": [
228
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14845 | 57335ac6d058e614000b58cf | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What is prehension used to define? | What is prehension used to define? | [
"What is prehension used to define?"
] | {
"text": [
"a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons"
],
"answer_start": [
310
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14846 | 57335ac6d058e614000b58d0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What is a basic description of the theory of representative perception? | What is a basic description of the theory of representative perception? | [
"What is a basic description of the theory of representative perception?"
] | {
"text": [
"the mind only has private ideas about other entities"
],
"answer_start": [
519
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14847 | 57335ac6d058e614000b58d1 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What does the term "prehension" signify regarding an entities perceptions and relations? | What does the term "prehension" signify regarding an entities perceptions and relations? | [
"What does the term \"prehension\" signify regarding an entities perceptions and relations?"
] | {
"text": [
"entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them"
],
"answer_start": [
718
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14848 | 57335ac6d058e614000b58d2 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What did Whitehead state are the two types of perception? | What did Whitehead state are the two types of perception? | [
"What did Whitehead state are the two types of perception?"
] | {
"text": [
"causal efficacy (or \"physical prehension\") and presentational immediacy (or \"conceptual prehension\")"
],
"answer_start": [
883
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14849 | 5ad3ce75604f3c001a3ff1c7 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What does the term "prehension" signify regarding an entities nonperceptions and nonrelations? | What does the term "prehension" signify regarding an entities nonperceptions and nonrelations? | [
"What does the term \"prehension\" signify regarding an entities nonperceptions and nonrelations?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14850 | 5ad3ce75604f3c001a3ff1c8 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What is a basic description of the theory of non-representative perception? | What is a basic description of the theory of non-representative perception? | [
"What is a basic description of the theory of non-representative perception?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14851 | 5ad3ce75604f3c001a3ff1c9 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What is not the origin of the word "prehension"? | What is not the origin of the word "prehension"? | [
" What is not the origin of the word \"prehension\"?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14852 | 5ad3ce75604f3c001a3ff1ca | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Since Whitehead's metaphysics described a universe in which all entities experience, he needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin prehensio, meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of representative perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension"). | What is prehension used to not define? | What is prehension used to not define? | [
"What is prehension used to not define?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14853 | 5730a11b2461fd1900a9cf11 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | What is the term for the experience dominating primitive organisms that have a sense for fate? | What is the term for the experience dominating primitive organisms that have a sense for fate? | [
"What is the term for the experience dominating primitive organisms that have a sense for fate?"
] | {
"text": [
"causal efficacy"
],
"answer_start": [
20
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14854 | 5730a11b2461fd1900a9cf12 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | What is the other term for "pure sense perception"? | What is the other term for "pure sense perception"? | [
"What is the other term for \"pure sense perception\"?"
] | {
"text": [
"Presentational immediacy"
],
"answer_start": [
369
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14855 | 5730a11b2461fd1900a9cf13 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | What is it called if you mistake a reflection in a mirror for the real thing? | What is it called if you mistake a reflection in a mirror for the real thing? | [
"What is it called if you mistake a reflection in a mirror for the real thing?"
] | {
"text": [
"Presentational immediacy"
],
"answer_start": [
369
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14856 | 57335d8dd058e614000b591f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | How does Whitehead define causal efficacy? | How does Whitehead define causal efficacy? | [
"How does Whitehead define causal efficacy?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go.\""
],
"answer_start": [
39
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14857 | 57335d8dd058e614000b5920 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | How do the senses affect causal efficacy? | How do the senses affect causal efficacy? | [
"How do the senses affect causal efficacy?"
] | {
"text": [
"unmediated by the senses"
],
"answer_start": [
343
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14858 | 57335d8dd058e614000b5921 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | How does Whitehead define presentational immediacy? | How does Whitehead define presentational immediacy? | [
"How does Whitehead define presentational immediacy?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"pure sense perception\", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation"
],
"answer_start": [
448
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14859 | 57335d8dd058e614000b5922 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | What can be said about the accuracy of presentational immediacy? | What can be said about the accuracy of presentational immediacy? | [
"What can be said about the accuracy of presentational immediacy?"
] | {
"text": [
"it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive"
],
"answer_start": [
575
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14860 | 5ad3d017604f3c001a3ff1d9 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | What can be said about the inaccuracy of presentational immediacy? | What can be said about the inaccuracy of presentational immediacy? | [
"What can be said about the inaccuracy of presentational immediacy?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14861 | 5ad3d017604f3c001a3ff1da | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | How does Whitehead define noncausal efficacy? | How does Whitehead define noncausal efficacy? | [
" How does Whitehead define noncausal efficacy?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14862 | 5ad3d017604f3c001a3ff1db | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | How do the senses affect non-causal efficacy? | How do the senses affect non-causal efficacy? | [
" How do the senses affect non-causal efficacy?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14863 | 5ad3d017604f3c001a3ff1dc | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). | How does Whitehead define unpresentational immediacy? | How does Whitehead define unpresentational immediacy? | [
" How does Whitehead define unpresentational immediacy?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14864 | 5730a33f8ab72b1400f9c628 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | What is Whitehead's term for the two modes of perceptions combining? | What is Whitehead's term for the two modes of perceptions combining? | [
"What is Whitehead's term for the two modes of perceptions combining?"
] | {
"text": [
"symbolic reference"
],
"answer_start": [
100
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14865 | 5730a33f8ab72b1400f9c629 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | What does symbolic reference link appearance with? | What does symbolic reference link appearance with? | [
"What does symbolic reference link appearance with?"
] | {
"text": [
"causation"
],
"answer_start": [
149
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14866 | 5730a33f8ab72b1400f9c62a | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | What dominates more basic mentality in symbolic reference? | What dominates more basic mentality in symbolic reference? | [
"What dominates more basic mentality in symbolic reference?"
] | {
"text": [
"causal relationships"
],
"answer_start": [
1126
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14867 | 5730a33f8ab72b1400f9c62b | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | What does having sense perceptions conclude about a person? | What does having sense perceptions conclude about a person? | [
"What does having sense perceptions conclude about a person?"
] | {
"text": [
"higher grade mentality"
],
"answer_start": [
1263
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14868 | 57335f23d058e614000b595c | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | What is the purpose of symbolic reference? | What is the purpose of symbolic reference? | [
"What is the purpose of symbolic reference?"
] | {
"text": [
"links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it"
],
"answer_start": [
127
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14869 | 57335f23d058e614000b595d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | How does Whitehead describe the process of a typical person noticing a chair? | How does Whitehead describe the process of a typical person noticing a chair? | [
"How does Whitehead describe the process of a typical person noticing a chair?"
] | {
"text": [
"An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair"
],
"answer_start": [
347
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14870 | 57335f23d058e614000b595e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | How might an artist view a chair differently than a typical person? | How might an artist view a chair differently than a typical person? | [
"How might an artist view a chair differently than a typical person?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape.\""
],
"answer_start": [
543
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14871 | 57335f23d058e614000b595f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | How does Whitehead say a dog may interpret the presence of a chair? | How does Whitehead say a dog may interpret the presence of a chair? | [
"How does Whitehead say a dog may interpret the presence of a chair?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such.\""
],
"answer_start": [
861
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14872 | 57335f23d058e614000b5960 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | Which concept does Whitehead state is more dominant in a lower mentality? | Which concept does Whitehead state is more dominant in a lower mentality? | [
"Which concept does Whitehead state is more dominant in a lower mentality?"
] | {
"text": [
"causal relationships"
],
"answer_start": [
1126
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14873 | 5ad3d14f604f3c001a3ff1f5 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | How does Whitehead describe the process of an atypical person noticing a chair? | How does Whitehead describe the process of an atypical person noticing a chair? | [
"How does Whitehead describe the process of an atypical person noticing a chair?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14874 | 5ad3d14f604f3c001a3ff1f6 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | How might an artist view a chair the same as a typical person? | How might an artist view a chair the same as a typical person? | [
" How might an artist view a chair the same as a typical person?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14875 | 5ad3d14f604f3c001a3ff1f7 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | How does Whitehead say a dog may not interpret the presence of a chair? | How does Whitehead say a dog may not interpret the presence of a chair? | [
" How does Whitehead say a dog may not interpret the presence of a chair?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14876 | 5ad3d14f604f3c001a3ff1f8 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). | Which concept does Whitehead state is less dominant in a lower mentality? | Which concept does Whitehead state is less dominant in a lower mentality? | [
"Which concept does Whitehead state is less dominant in a lower mentality?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14877 | 5730a3b12461fd1900a9cf1f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | Whitehead observes that life is deficient in what? | Whitehead observes that life is deficient in what? | [
"Whitehead observes that life is deficient in what?"
] | {
"text": [
"survival value"
],
"answer_start": [
83
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14878 | 5730a3b12461fd1900a9cf20 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What are higher life forms actively engaged in? | What are higher life forms actively engaged in? | [
"What are higher life forms actively engaged in?"
] | {
"text": [
"modifying their environment"
],
"answer_start": [
491
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14879 | 5730a3b12461fd1900a9cf21 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | How many goals of living is there? | How many goals of living is there? | [
"How many goals of living is there?"
] | {
"text": [
"three"
],
"answer_start": [
574
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14880 | 5730a3b12461fd1900a9cf22 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | Whitehead sees life as directed towards what purpose? | Whitehead sees life as directed towards what purpose? | [
"Whitehead sees life as directed towards what purpose?"
] | {
"text": [
"increasing its own satisfaction"
],
"answer_start": [
703
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14881 | 5730a3b12461fd1900a9cf23 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | Without Whitehead's proposed purpose, life would be what? | Without Whitehead's proposed purpose, life would be what? | [
"Without Whitehead's proposed purpose, life would be what?"
] | {
"text": [
"unintelligible"
],
"answer_start": [
793
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14882 | 573360a4d058e614000b5987 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What observation did Whitehead make about life? | What observation did Whitehead make about life? | [
"What observation did Whitehead make about life?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"life is comparatively deficient in survival value.\""
],
"answer_start": [
47
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14883 | 573360a4d058e614000b5988 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What was Whitehead's response to questions about why complex life evolved? | What was Whitehead's response to questions about why complex life evolved? | [
"What was Whitehead's response to questions about why complex life evolved?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them.\""
],
"answer_start": [
301
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14884 | 573360a4d058e614000b5989 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What did Whitehead state was the biggest indicator of a higher form of life? | What did Whitehead state was the biggest indicator of a higher form of life? | [
"What did Whitehead state was the biggest indicator of a higher form of life?"
] | {
"text": [
"they are actively engaged in modifying their environment"
],
"answer_start": [
462
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14885 | 573360a4d058e614000b598a | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What did Whitehead believe are the goals f life? | What did Whitehead believe are the goals f life? | [
"What did Whitehead believe are the goals f life?"
] | {
"text": [
"living, living well, and living better"
],
"answer_start": [
593
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14886 | 573360a4d058e614000b598b | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What did Whitehead believe was the fundamental purpose of life? | What did Whitehead believe was the fundamental purpose of life? | [
"What did Whitehead believe was the fundamental purpose of life?"
] | {
"text": [
"increasing its own satisfaction"
],
"answer_start": [
703
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14887 | 5ad3ded0604f3c001a3ff487 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What did Whitehead believe are not the goals of life? | What did Whitehead believe are not the goals of life? | [
"What did Whitehead believe are not the goals of life?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14888 | 5ad3ded0604f3c001a3ff488 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | Whitehead observes that life is never deficient in what? | Whitehead observes that life is never deficient in what? | [
" Whitehead observes that life is never deficient in what?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14889 | 5ad3ded0604f3c001a3ff489 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | What are higher life forms never actively engaged in? | What are higher life forms never actively engaged in? | [
" What are higher life forms never actively engaged in?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14890 | 5ad3ded0604f3c001a3ff48a | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. | Whitehead sees life as directed away from what purpose? | Whitehead sees life as directed away from what purpose? | [
" Whitehead sees life as directed away from what purpose?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14891 | 573361a8d058e614000b599e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": | What is Whitehead's most well-known critical statement regarding the Christian notion of God? | What is Whitehead's most well-known critical statement regarding the Christian notion of God? | [
"What is Whitehead's most well-known critical statement regarding the Christian notion of God?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar.\""
],
"answer_start": [
160
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14892 | 573361a8d058e614000b599f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": | What qualities dis Whitehead state that Christians attributed to their version of God? | What qualities dis Whitehead state that Christians attributed to their version of God? | [
"What qualities dis Whitehead state that Christians attributed to their version of God?"
] | {
"text": [
"primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power"
],
"answer_start": [
303
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14893 | 573361a8d058e614000b59a0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": | What was Whitehead's description of God? | What was Whitehead's description of God? | [
"What was Whitehead's description of God?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"the brief Galilean vision of humility\""
],
"answer_start": [
520
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14894 | 5ad3d1bc604f3c001a3ff211 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": | What was Whitehead's description of The Devil? | What was Whitehead's description of The Devil? | [
"What was Whitehead's description of The Devil?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14895 | 5ad3d1bc604f3c001a3ff212 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": | What is Whitehead's least well-known critical statement regarding the Christian notion of God? | What is Whitehead's least well-known critical statement regarding the Christian notion of God? | [
"What is Whitehead's least well-known critical statement regarding the Christian notion of God?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14896 | 5ad3d1bc604f3c001a3ff213 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": | What qualities dis Whitehead not state that Christians attributed to their version of God? | What qualities dis Whitehead not state that Christians attributed to their version of God? | [
" What qualities dis Whitehead not state that Christians attributed to their version of God?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14897 | 573363194776f41900660987 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It should be emphasized, however, that for Whitehead God is not necessarily tied to religion. Rather than springing primarily from religious faith, Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the primordial nature of God. However, Whitehead was also interested in religious experience. This led him to reflect more intensively on what he saw as the second nature of God, the consequent nature. Whitehead's conception of God as a "dipolar" entity has called for fresh theological thinking. | What was Whitehead's belief about God in relation to religion? | What was Whitehead's belief about God in relation to religion? | [
"What was Whitehead's belief about God in relation to religion?"
] | {
"text": [
"God is not necessarily tied to religion"
],
"answer_start": [
53
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14898 | 573363194776f41900660988 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It should be emphasized, however, that for Whitehead God is not necessarily tied to religion. Rather than springing primarily from religious faith, Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the primordial nature of God. However, Whitehead was also interested in religious experience. This led him to reflect more intensively on what he saw as the second nature of God, the consequent nature. Whitehead's conception of God as a "dipolar" entity has called for fresh theological thinking. | Why did Whitehead view the existence of God as a necessity for his metaphysical system? | Why did Whitehead view the existence of God as a necessity for his metaphysical system? | [
"Why did Whitehead view the existence of God as a necessity for his metaphysical system?"
] | {
"text": [
"His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities."
],
"answer_start": [
208
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14899 | 573363194776f41900660989 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | It should be emphasized, however, that for Whitehead God is not necessarily tied to religion. Rather than springing primarily from religious faith, Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the primordial nature of God. However, Whitehead was also interested in religious experience. This led him to reflect more intensively on what he saw as the second nature of God, the consequent nature. Whitehead's conception of God as a "dipolar" entity has called for fresh theological thinking. | In what did Whitehead believe that those concepts existed? | In what did Whitehead believe that those concepts existed? | [
"In what did Whitehead believe that those concepts existed?"
] | {
"text": [
"primordial nature of God"
],
"answer_start": [
429
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.