yz2022/T2P-DownstreamNLP huggingface dataset:
Alfred_North_Whitehead

Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher. In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter." Ironically, in later life Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians.

Question: What is the highest Whitehead was trained in philosophy? 
Answer: undergraduate
2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay

In response to the demonstrations, the Chinese government attempted to calm the situation, possibly fearing the protests may spiral out of control as has happened in recent years, including the anti-Japanese protests in 2005. State media and commentaries began to call for calm, such as an editorial in the People's Daily which urged Chinese people to "express [their] patriotic enthusiasm calmly and rationally, and express patriotic aspiration in an orderly and legal manner". The government also began to patrol and censor the internet forums such as Sohu.com, with comments related to the Carrefour boycott removed. In the days prior to the planned boycott, evidence of efforts by Chinese authorities to choke the mass boycott's efforts online became even more evident, including barring searches of words related to the French protests, but protests broke out nonetheless in front of Carrefour's stores at Beijing, Changsha, Fuzhou and Shenyang on May 1.

Question: Which newspaper urged citizens to protest peacefully?
Answer: People's Daily
Alfred_North_Whitehead

Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher. In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter." Ironically, in later life Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians.

Question: What did Whitehead consider himself as a philosopher? 
Answer: rank amateur

Question: What is the relationship between Whitehead and Russell?
Answer: friend and former student
2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay

In Japan, the Mayor of Nagano, Shoichi Washizawa said that it has become a "great nuisance" for the city to host the torch relay prior to the Nagano leg. Washizawa's aides said the mayor's remark was not criticism about the relay itself but about the potential disruptions and confusion surrounding it.　A city employee of the Nagano City Office ridiculed the protests in Europe, he said "They are doing something foolish", in a televised interview. Nagano City officially apologized later and explained what he had wanted to say was "Such violent protests were not easy to accept". Also citing concerns about protests as well as the recent violence in Tibet, a major Buddhist temple in Nagano cancelled its plans to host the opening stage of the Olympic torch relay, this temple was vandalised by an un-identified person the day after in apparent revenge,

Question: Where was the inital opening ceremony to be held in Nagano?
Answer: a major Buddhist temple
Alfred_North_Whitehead

Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher. In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter." Ironically, in later life Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians.

Question: What was Whitehead considered as a metaphysician?
Answer: one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians.
2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay

In response to the demonstrations, the Chinese government attempted to calm the situation, possibly fearing the protests may spiral out of control as has happened in recent years, including the anti-Japanese protests in 2005. State media and commentaries began to call for calm, such as an editorial in the People's Daily which urged Chinese people to "express [their] patriotic enthusiasm calmly and rationally, and express patriotic aspiration in an orderly and legal manner". The government also began to patrol and censor the internet forums such as Sohu.com, with comments related to the Carrefour boycott removed. In the days prior to the planned boycott, evidence of efforts by Chinese authorities to choke the mass boycott's efforts online became even more evident, including barring searches of words related to the French protests, but protests broke out nonetheless in front of Carrefour's stores at Beijing, Changsha, Fuzhou and Shenyang on May 1.

Question: Which website had mentions of the Carrefour boycott removed by the government?
Answer: Sohu.com

Question: When did protests in front of Carrefour's stores occur in China?
Answer: May 1

Question: The Chinese government did not want a repeat of what protests?
Answer: the anti-Japanese protests in 2005.

Question: What day did protests occur in front of Carrefour stores?
Answer: May 1.
Alfred_North_Whitehead

To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking.

Question: Regarding the idea that individuals or objects don't fundamentally change, what terms can be used to describe what an object or individual actually is?
Answer: "defining essence" or a "core identity"

Question: What did Whitehead believe were essentially the only things that truly exist?
Answer: discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing

Question: In Whitehead's cosmology, what are the only things that fundamentally exist?
Answer: occasions of experience

Question: Where do occasions of experience overlap?
Answer: time and space
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.

Question: How does Whitehead characterize anything that exists?
Answer: 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
Alfred_North_Whitehead

To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking.

Question: Instead of having an enduring essence, what does Whitehead believe?
Answer: all things flow"

Question: In Whitehead's view, identities do not define people, but what?
Answer: people define identities
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.

Question: How does he describe what makes something real?
Answer: A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it

Question: In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has no effect on any other person or object?
Answer: 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
Alfred_North_Whitehead

To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking.

Question: In that line of thinking, how are changes described?
Answer: qualitative and secondary to their core identity
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:

Question: How the fundamental concept of matter influence people to view objects?
Answer: 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

Question: What is Whitehead's belief regarding the importance of relations?
Answer: in Whitehead's view, relations take a primary role, perhaps even more important than the relata themselves
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.

Question: What did Whitehead believe about the concept of relations in the context of defining an entity?
Answer: Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is.

Question: Whitehead believes any entity is in some sense what?
Answer: nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities
Alfred_North_Whitehead

To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking.

Question: The idea that people are unchanging and stay the same even through changes is considered what?
Answer: defining essence
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:

Question: What is another issue that Whitehead had with materialism?
Answer: it obscures the importance of relations

Question: What obscures the importance of relations according to Whitehead?
Answer: materialism
Alfred_North_Whitehead

Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy."

Question: How did whitehead define "experience"?
Answer: He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience
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:

Question: How is each object related to other things?
Answer: externally
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.

Question: If an object made no difference to any other entity, what could be said about it?
Answer: not be said to really exist.
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.

Question: Why did Whitehead think people continued to subscribe to materialistic thinking?
Answer: it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things

Question: What did Whitehead believe regarding factors that limit people's understanding of his concepts?
Answer: should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum

Question: What did Whitehead believe was one of the biggest reasons materialistic thinking endured?
Answer: limitations of language
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.

Question: If relations are not secondary to what a thing is, what is it?
Answer: they are what the thing is

Question: What makes up the sum of relations to an entity?
Answer: rld around it

Question: A real object forces the universe to do what?
Answer: in some way conform to it
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.

Question: What did Whitehead state about the belief that a person is exactly the same from moment to moment?
Answer: it is not philosophically or ontologically sound

Question: What did Whitehead believe was a culprit in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking?
Answer: limitations of language

Question: Why couldn't each moment of each person's life be given a different proper name?
Answer: limitations of language

Question: Whitehead's main philosophy on humans changing is what?
Answer: each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago
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:

Question: What is the general materialistic view of an object?
Answer: Each object is simply an inert clump of matter that is only externally related to other things

Question: What is the materialistic view of matter in relation to other objects?
Answer: It sees every object as distinct and discrete from all other objects.

Question: What does Materialism see each object as?
Answer: distinct and discrete