A typical Random dude b often appears in places where he's extremely unwanted and even though the people he tries to integrate with make it very clear that they don't want to spend their precious time with this particular random dude b he either doesn´t realise that or he chooses to completely ignore various signals that explicitly express a high level of antipathy for random dude b. sometimes he even goes as far as taking picture with the goup who's unwillingly hanging out with him and he posts them on different social media websites e.g. Instagram. This certain behavior is caused by his need to prove to people that he has 'friends'.
B:YA:Yo you wanna hang out at Kickz later ?eah man i'd love to but someone told me that random dude b would also be there sol i'll pass on that man !
by Fett/D=Senegal,Fett August 5, 2017
Get the Random dude bmug. 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 Randommug. by rhesa najjuma October 2, 2023
Get the Random glazemug. by slimeyluhdude.shau27 June 11, 2023
Get the national fucc a random daymug. by iwjfwe0fjwe0p November 12, 2020
Get the The Random Brosmug. by Mongasto December 3, 2011
Get the Randomemug. A set of numbers that seem random but actually aren't. They are predetermined by a computer algorithm that is explicitly designed to generate the most random of the random, if that makes any sense.
The problem with true random is that numbers will often repeat themselves, which to our usage is not ideal. Pseudo-random number generators fixes all that.
So ironically, the most random RNG is actually not at all random.
The problem with true random is that numbers will often repeat themselves, which to our usage is not ideal. Pseudo-random number generators fixes all that.
So ironically, the most random RNG is actually not at all random.
by Mary Mary Quite The Contrarian October 1, 2021
Get the Pseudo-randommug.