The distinction between "direct" and "conceived" signified supports a distinction between sense and reference.
Any causal statement about the universe would have to be expressed atemporally, but for the theist this presents no problem provided that God is conceived atemporally and sense can be made of atemporal causation.
(Theodicy §7: G VI 106 07/H 127–28) Naturally, if one were deny the existence of possible worlds in the sense conceived by Leibniz or deny PSR (by, say, admitting "brute facts"), then one would hardly be moved by this kind of argument.
If one considers the polymodal receptors as an entity, they can be conceived as a sense organ that, relentlessly, "sounds out" our whole body.
Whereas Wolff had conceived of the senses merely as providing the raw material for processing, a task performed by understanding and governed by the rules of logic, Baumgarten thought that the senses had their own rules and their own perfection, rules and perfection that differ from logical rules and the knowledge generated by logical processing.
Sense-perception, conceived of simply as the reception of sense-impressions by the nonrational soul, does not involve memory (cf. L&S 16B1).
Knowledge is usually conceived in a broad sense in this context, e.g. besides scientific and technological findings it also includes works of art, design and cultural expressions.
This outcome also explains why God cannot be conceived in any literal sense as the Creator of the universe or humankind through some act of will meant to realize a divine intention.
Most biological tissues may, in an abstract sense, be conceived as a fully-saturated two-phase (i.e. liquid and solid phases) porous media.
Moreover, the senses are conceived as receptacles of experience (indriyādhiṣṭhāna) rather than physical organs interacting with empirical objects.
