determinism

(redirected from Causal determinism)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Encyclopedia.
Related to Causal determinism: determinist

determinism

 [de-ter´mĭ-nizm]
the theory that all phenomena are the result of antecedent conditions, nothing occurs by chance, and there is no free will.

de·ter·mi·nism

(dē-ter'mi-nizm),
The proposition that all behavior is caused exclusively by genetic and environmental influences with no random components, and independent of free will.
[L. determino, to limit, fr. terminus, boundary + -ism]

de·ter·mi·nism

(dē-tĕr'mi-nizm)
The proposition that all behavior is caused exclusively by genetic and environmental influences with no random components, and independent of free will.
[L. determino, to limit, fr. terminus, boundary + -ism]

Patient discussion about determinism

Q. Is it effective to determine the problem? How is the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy done and is it effective to determine the problem?

A. actually it will come with three common symptoms such as : positive pregnancy, abdominal pain or cramp, and bleeding. if you're happened to feel one of those symptoms, i'll suggest you to go see your ob-gyn specialist, then the doctor will do the physical examination on you, and will confirm the diagnosis with ultrasound.

Q. In which month of pregnancy it's possible to determine gender of the fetus?

A. following marin's question - is there a difference when it comes to twins?

Q. how do i determine what is the right weight i need to be? i know there is a way to calculate it, an equation , what are the parameters in it ?

A. I don't mean to burst any bubbles, but BMI is definitely not a good way to determine what weight you should be. If you considered that a body builder or a professional athlete is considered obese under BMI standards then you would know what I mean. Here is an article about it I found on Medical News Today: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/49991.php

More discussions about determinism
References in periodicals archive ?
Notice that whether the person acts freely or unfreely in Watson's account, as in Frankfurt's account, is completely independent of causal determinism. Given a complete statement of the facts about the world at time x, and a complete statement of the laws of nature, it might be that at time x it was already determined that C would, or would not, have sex.
Rather, Jones's responsibility depends upon whether or not causal determinism is true.
Essentially, the main reasons come down to: (1) Science shows that causal determinism is true, and (2) Reflective common sense shows that causal determinism is true.
The reactive attitudes are what anchor moral responsibility; since we have these attitudes, and since they cannot be threatened by causal determinism, causal determinism makes no difference one way or another to our status as responsible creatures.
Chapter 6, "The Direct Argument for Incompatibilism," appeals to examples of preemptive and simultaneous overdetermination (which resemble Frankfurt examples in some respects) to undermine Peter van Inwagen's direct argument for the incompatibility of moral responsibility and causal determinism. There is a wealth of detailed argument in each of these chapters.
Most of the traditional defenses for compatibilism center on the claim that free will (or autonomy) and causal determinism in the explanation of human behavior or choices are logically or metaphysically compatible.
The fourth section of the book concentrates on the Stoic view on causal determinism or fate.
given that we cannot be certain that causal determinism is false and
Finally, it deserves remark that the account of emergence presented here in no way presupposes general causal determinism or its denial, and it thus implies the falsity of Karl Popper's contention that "the emergence of hierarchical levels or layers, and of an interaction between them, depends upon a fundamental indeterminism of the physical universe."(30) Believing that unpredictability is the principle criterion of emergence, Popper notes that a sufficient degree of physical indeterminacy could make certain actual evolutionary developments involving the appearance of complex biological systems exceedingly improbable on remote prior conditions, and so unpredictable in principle.
This omission is particularly surprising since Schleiermacher sketches an outline, at least implicitly, for a rather creative alternative to eighteenth-century causal determinism.
The first is his handling of Kant's solution to the tension between the freedom of practical reasoning with the causal determinism of the world in which human action occurs.
Given the compatibilist's intuition, the possible existence of breaks in causal determinism is strictly beside the point.