The age at which one can determine/pick which sports teams they will follow before being considered a bandwagon. There are multiple acceptable reasons to choose a team as long as it is before the age of determination(0-7) 5 being the gold standard
by Ac3B00Gi3 March 23, 2019
Get the Age of determination mug.A theory of anthropology in which disproportionately female-inherited genetic variation causes a culture to adopt a fatalistic (spectralistic) religion; whereas disproportionately male-inherited genetic variation causes a tribe to adopt a deterministic (particularistic) religion.
Generative determinism demonstrates that anti-semitism is ontologistic.
Generative determinism resolves GENETIC determinism.
Genetic determinism furthermore proves that ontologism IS causation.
Generative determinism resolves GENETIC determinism.
Genetic determinism furthermore proves that ontologism IS causation.
by sandraxine August 4, 2019
Get the generative determinism mug.by njplays August 17, 2020
Get the Determinated mug.The red soul, wich is able to reset and load an universe file, basically it is so strong that wont give up when it dies
by the red spy in your base September 8, 2020
Get the determination mug.Some Random Fucking idiot found on youtube.
They often post garbage and although 1 video got a few views
he'll constantly flex his wealth
They often post garbage and although 1 video got a few views
he'll constantly flex his wealth
Guy 1: Have you seen this tosser on youtube? He got 5 views and is bragging about it
Guy 2: Sounds like Determinator
Guy 2: Sounds like Determinator
by JimmyJohnJuniorThe3rd January 25, 2023
Get the Determinator mug.Is how it's supposed existence is demonstrated, right? They usually use this binary prompt-response scenario. Like "Think of a city. Now did you pick the the specific city or was it random?" And I think that's the wrong way to conceptualize it.
Hym "So, my problem with determinism (at least in this example of determinism) is that although I don't choose the specific city, I still activate the 'mode' that searches for city and I can choose not to do it and prevent a city from coming to mind OR I can misfire. It's like a hat with with slips of paper in it and, on the slips of paper, are the names of cities. Now, you can prompt me to think of 'city.' I can choose to reach into the hat. And only then do I get a random city. But what I DON'T get is 'Nissan' or 'helicopter' or 'banana' or 'dog.' I activate the mode that searches for city and I reach into the hat. See, as I have it conceptualized, thought exists in this nebulous, un-articulated format. So, to get language I need to activate some kind of process. And prompt response ISN'T THE SAME as what I'm doing when I'm monologing. I'm running that nebulous, un-articulated thought-matter through a lexicon that corresponds with my native language. But I am that which activates modes. I can can turn it on or off like a switch. It can also misfire while I'm not paying attention. So, yeah... I think it's a failure to properly conceptualize and a failure to compartmentalize."
by Hym Iam December 2, 2023
Get the My problem with determinism mug.I'm glad that you brought that up because it takes me to my second problem with determinism. Let's try and visualize your argument.
D
>ID - ID
R > R
ED
So, and action is either Random (R) or Determined. If it's Determined it's either Internally (ID) or Externally (ED) Determined. If it's Externally Determined, then you have no control. If it's Internally Determined, then the internal determination is either Determined or Random. And I'm guessing that by "Determined" you mean "The necessary byproduct of an antecedent chain in which the actor or mechanism could not have done otherwise," Correct? Is that close? Does that make sense? I feel like there are a lot of presuppositions that need to be unpacked.
Hym "So, how is asking whether or not something is determined or random any different than asking whether or not my bedroom is hot or cold? It's both. And neither. It's, like, luke warm. So, you presuppose the absence of a grey area between determined and random. That random and determine don't exist on a spectrum in the same way hot and cold exist on a spectrum. As though thinks can't be more or less determined or more or less random. Is the outcome of a coin to more or less random than the outcome of rolling a 20 sided dice? You could say that the outcome is determined I guess. By the exact about of force used to roll the dice or flip the coin.
D
>ID - ID
R > R
ED
So, and action is either Random (R) or Determined. If it's Determined it's either Internally (ID) or Externally (ED) Determined. If it's Externally Determined, then you have no control. If it's Internally Determined, then the internal determination is either Determined or Random. And I'm guessing that by "Determined" you mean "The necessary byproduct of an antecedent chain in which the actor or mechanism could not have done otherwise," Correct? Is that close? Does that make sense? I feel like there are a lot of presuppositions that need to be unpacked.
Hym "So, how is asking whether or not something is determined or random any different than asking whether or not my bedroom is hot or cold? It's both. And neither. It's, like, luke warm. So, you presuppose the absence of a grey area between determined and random. That random and determine don't exist on a spectrum in the same way hot and cold exist on a spectrum. As though thinks can't be more or less determined or more or less random. Is the outcome of a coin to more or less random than the outcome of rolling a 20 sided dice? You could say that the outcome is determined I guess. By the exact about of force used to roll the dice or flip the coin.
The relationship between the material of the dice and the material of the surface of the table or the conditions of the air in the room you're flipping the coin. Also, if we accept 'determined' as 'the necessary byproduct of an antecedent chain in which the actor or mechanism could not have done otherwise' you presuppose that what happens in response to a given antecedent chain is what OUGHT to happen in response to said chain. So, Antecedent Chain A -> either Outcome A or Outcome B. If ACA -> OA then you have to presuppose that what ought to happen in response to ACA is OA. If ACA -> OB then, again, you're forced to presuppose that what ought a happen in response to ACA is OB. But if the likelihood of ACA leading to OB is 1% and it HAPPENS ANYWAY... What you have is NOT an outcome that 'couldn't have been otherwise' but, rather, SHOULD have been otherwise and wasn't. Ya feel me? So, I know this doesn't demonstrate free will but I don't think you have been able to successfully demonstrate that there isn't a point at which 'the self' is not the fundamental locus of control in any given choice. It's a good argument though. It's tricky. But it's like a weird semantic blackhole. It's like saying 'Well, if you don't actively control the firing of your neurons, you don't actually control yourself.' Just weird. Determined or random."
by Hym Iam December 5, 2023
Get the Determined or Random mug.