Thread: Delving pots

Originally Posted by CodeofMisconduct

I affirm that "The conflict of absolutes in the world is derived from the rationalizing human." The latter statement is a suggestion. My position is that each rationalizing human is part of a complex system that transmits signals of absolutes. The subjective reality we perceive determines signal transmission and interpretation.

I enjoy the parallel. This is the first time I have encountered the comparison of impedance matching to human rationale.

Originally Posted by username4114

I hope that all minds are changeable when a proof is perceived to be true. Only through discussion and scrutiny will the veracity of a proof arise.

This is where we reach an impasse. All we can do is provide anecdotes as to why one argument is superior to another as there is not a universal truth that can be defined by proof or evidence. Fortunately we are not a hive mind (by and large) and, while I consider reason to be a hindrance more often than not, we can at least approach these differences in a spirit of mutual curiosity with a desire to expand our base.

Originally Posted by CodeofMisconduct

The subjective reality we perceive determines signal transmission and interpretation.

I may be oversimplifying things but is not the inverse true as well? Our past interpretations and, indeed, our ability to receive and interpret these signals will determine our subjective reality? Does an organism without any recognition of stimuli have its own subjective?

This thread is deep, dude.

Originally Posted by cmal

This is where we reach an impasse. All we can do is provide anecdotes as to why one argument is superior to another as there is not a universal truth that can be defined by proof or evidence. Fortunately we are not a hive mind (by and large) and, while I consider reason to be a hindrance more often than not, we can at least approach these differences in a spirit of mutual curiosity with a desire to expand our base.

My experience has taught me that balancing what one perceives as rational with the irrational is a closer shade to what "is" than other methods. There exist two hemispheres of the fractal antenna we call our brain.

Originally Posted by cmal

I may be oversimplifying things but is not the inverse true as well? Our past interpretations and, indeed, our ability to receive and interpret these signals will determine our subjective reality? Does an organism without any recognition of stimuli have its own subjective?

You provoke more thought. Subjective reality and signal transmission/interpretation complement each other more than one supplements the other. Like a singular point that oscillates between two amplitudes while hurtling ever forward. For me, one important question is 'how does that point handle interference?'

Originally Posted by cmal

This is where we reach an impasse. All we can do is provide anecdotes as to why one argument is superior to another as there is not a universal truth that can be defined by proof or evidence. Fortunately we are not a hive mind (by and large) and, while I consider reason to be a hindrance more often than not, we can at least approach these differences in a spirit of mutual curiosity with a desire to expand our base.

All arguments are based on premises. All premises have the correct and incorrect. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. The truth is achieved through the premise and logic; logic is your universal truth, the absolute. If a premise is accepted, but the conclusion is not derived from logic, then the conclusion is wrong. If some A's are B's, and some B's are C's, then some A's are C's (illogical statement).

This is where the error of understanding occurs. You incorrectly understood my objective of a universal truth. The truth is the means.

A premise formed within a premise is a contradiction, which is illogical.

Reason is not hindrance to a conclusion. A individual reasons when they apply logic after accepting a premise. If they do not utilize logic, they do not reason. If an individual rejects a premise through the use of logic, they apply reason. If they reject a premise without logic, they do not reason. The usage of logic and reason does not indicate a hive mind.

Originally Posted by username4114

all arguments are based on premises. All premises have the correct and incorrect. If a = b, and b = c, then a = c. The truth is achieved through the premise and logic; logic is your universal truth, the absolute. If a premise is accepted, but the conclusion is not derived from logic, then the conclusion is wrong. If some a's are b's, and some b's are c's, then some a's are c's (illogical statement).

This is where the error of understanding occurs. You incorrectly understood my objective of a universal truth. The truth is the means.

A premise formed within a premise is a contradiction, which is illogical.

Reason is not hindrance to a conclusion. A individual reasons when they apply logic after accepting a premise. If they do not utilize logic, they do not reason. If an individual rejects a premise through the use of logic, they apply reason. If they reject a premise without logic, they do not reason. The usage of logic and reason does not indicate a hive mind.

your mom! .... Nerds.....

Originally Posted by Boc3phus

I want to hear the undefeated BA in Keen eye respond to this.

I was caught in the deep posts before me.

As far as delving pots go, I think the evade/armor/resist are fine.

I am guilty of using the 10 sec immunity pot's slow immunity to outrun raids or get a kill in a freep raid.

For 1v1s, I dont think people should pop it and start kiting. If I pop it in a 1v1, its just to avoid those first 10 seconds of CC. I "melee dance" in 1v1s anyways unless its a warden because I like to make them switch between assailment and recklessness.

Originally Posted by username4114

The usage of logic and reason does not indicate a hive mind.

You misunderstand me, I was not equating reason with a lack of individual understanding or clarity (hive mind). I do feel you give far too much credence to logic as informed experience will always provide a more complete understanding than deductive logic. Logic to me has always depended upon inference often following specific and strict guidelines for accepted proof or evidence and often neglects evidence to the contrary. I have always preferred informal logic as it tends to be much more organic and takes into consideration variances that formal logic would reject outright.

However, my propensity to perceive rather than judge has always been a weakness. Logic and reason certainly have their virtues as some sort of accepted standard is necessary for accomplishment and advancement. The sheer volume of exceptions and individual understandings would result in stagnation despite the multitude of beneficial ideas that would occur. Logic provide the opportunity to remove the fallacies that will inherently arise as well as advance understanding within the constructed standards. This is where said hive mind comes into play and serves its purpose as those who obey constructed or formal logic will adhere to a specific standard. The obsession with form, however, simultaneously limits the potential for growth.

It seems safe to assume that you are a student of either mathematical or computer sciences. While most sciences and, indeed, our understanding of form and matter relies on the use of standards in formal logic I fully believe that our understanding of collected data is limited by our observational shortcomings especially when applied to something manufactured within that limited understanding. Yes, standards should and do exist but declaring something truth simply because we have yet to find the exception to the rule seems shortsighted to me. After all, life as we know it is really nothing more than a system determined by formal logic. We are nothing more than moist breadboards if you will allow the simplification. Intellect and learning does play a very important role in our existence but is in no way necessary for life. Unfortunately, this is where discussion often turns to the supernatural which is certainly not my desired result.

Please permit that, in the end, truths are a moving target that cannot be properly defined using formal logic. Think of electron configuration. While quantum mechanics has mostly moved past the Bohr model, it provides a simple approach to determine the general location while Aufbau and Madelung allow us to predict orientation in the shells and subshells established by the Bohr model. However, as our understanding advances and differing forms of ions or, on a more complicated scale, molecules are studied we realize that these "rules" provide nothing more than a base upon which to build more advanced understanding and rules; my point being that what currently is the logically established norm is not necessarily an absolute as much as a new ground floor. To say that something has been proven or completed does nothing but sell intellect short. We should constantly strive for better, cleaner, more efficient and use this pursuit as a motivation to look past what we now call fact. Please excuse and correct any glaring errors as my understanding of chemistry is limited by my education in life sciences.

If nothing else, you have given me plenty to read and reread. Hopefully the digestion of the information will make the workday seem shorter.

Less intellectual discussions, more pew pew!

Originally Posted by cmal

You misunderstand me, I was not equating reason with a lack of individual understanding or clarity (hive mind). I do feel you give far too much credence to logic as informed experience will always provide a more complete understanding than deductive logic. Logic to me has always depended upon inference often following specific and strict guidelines for accepted proof or evidence and often neglects evidence to the contrary. I have always preferred informal logic as it tends to be much more organic and takes into consideration variances that formal logic would reject outright.

However, my propensity to perceive rather than judge has always been a weakness. Logic and reason certainly have their virtues as some sort of accepted standard is necessary for accomplishment and advancement. The sheer volume of exceptions and individual understandings would result in stagnation despite the multitude of beneficial ideas that would occur. Logic provide the opportunity to remove the fallacies that will inherently arise as well as advance understanding within the constructed standards. This is where said hive mind comes into play and serves its purpose as those who obey constructed or formal logic will adhere to a specific standard. The obsession with form, however, simultaneously limits the potential for growth.

It seems safe to assume that you are a student of either mathematical or computer sciences. While most sciences and, indeed, our understanding of form and matter relies on the use of standards in formal logic I fully believe that our understanding of collected data is limited by our observational shortcomings especially when applied to something manufactured within that limited understanding. Yes, standards should and do exist but declaring something truth simply because we have yet to find the exception to the rule seems shortsighted to me. After all, life as we know it is really nothing more than a system determined by formal logic. We are nothing more than moist breadboards if you will allow the simplification. Intellect and learning does play a very important role in our existence but is in no way necessary for life. Unfortunately, this is where discussion often turns to the supernatural which is certainly not my desired result.

Please permit that, in the end, truths are a moving target that cannot be properly defined using formal logic. Think of electron configuration. While quantum mechanics has mostly moved past the Bohr model, it provides a simple approach to determine the general location while Aufbau and Madelung allow us to predict orientation in the shells and subshells established by the Bohr model. However, as our understanding advances and differing forms of ions or, on a more complicated scale, molecules are studied we realize that these "rules" provide nothing more than a base upon which to build more advanced understanding and rules; my point being that what currently is the logically established norm is not necessarily an absolute as much as a new ground floor. To say that something has been proven or completed does nothing but sell intellect short. We should constantly strive for better, cleaner, more efficient and use this pursuit as a motivation to look past what we now call fact. Please excuse and correct any glaring errors as my understanding of chemistry is limited by my education in life sciences.

If nothing else, you have given me plenty to read and reread. Hopefully the digestion of the information will make the workday seem shorter.

Fantastic post. The tragedy of brevity is that it can lead to misunderstanding, which is the source of our miscommunication. In regards to the hive mind, I did not reference that as your original definition. Rather I recognized that for arguments sake, one could stretch the definition of hive mind to logic.

Your position towards logic and reasoning reminds me of a phrase from the show The Boondocks, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Consider the following, albeit simplistic analogy. You have two rocks in each hand. You apply the logic in mathematics to add up the number of rocks in your hands: 2+2 = 4. Repeating the process to ensure validity, the result is constant. According to the premise mentioned in The Boondocks (using this as a demonstration, not direct statement of your claims) the fact that the two rocks has yet to yield a sum other than four is not evidence that the summation will never yielded other than four. There is no evidence to support this claim, but premise does not require evidence.

Suddenly 2 + 2 = another integer other than four. The data invalidates the premise of conservation, proving the original premise illogical. A new premise is formed that operates under the logic of the novel data.

As new data/evidence arises, our understandings may change. If the premise does not adapt to the new evidence, the premise is illogical. The process continues with logic prevailing.

Originally Posted by username4114

Fantastic post. The tragedy of brevity is that it can lead to misunderstanding, which is the source of our miscommunication. In regards to the hive mind, I did not reference that as your original definition. Rather I recognized that for arguments sake, one could stretch the definition of hive mind to logic.

Your position towards logic and reasoning reminds me of a phrase from the show The Boondocks, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Consider the following, albeit simplistic analogy. You have two rocks in each hand. You apply the logic in mathematics to add up the number of rocks in your hands: 2+2 = 4. Repeating the process to ensure validity, the result is constant. According to the premise mentioned in The Boondocks (using this as a demonstration, not direct statement of your claims) the fact that the two rocks has yet to yield a sum other than four is not evidence that the summation will never yielded other than four. There is no evidence to support this claim, but premise does not require evidence.

Suddenly 2 + 2 = another integer other than four. The data invalidates the premise of conservation, proving the original premise illogical. A new premise is formed that operates under the logic of the novel data.

As new data/evidence arises, our understandings may change. If the premise does not adapt to the new evidence, the premise is illogical. The process continues with logic prevailing.

So you're saying is that math is a lie?

Originally Posted by username4114

Fantastic post. The tragedy of brevity is that it can lead to misunderstanding, which is the source of our miscommunication. In regards to the hive mind, I did not reference that as your original definition. Rather I recognized that for arguments sake, one could stretch the definition of hive mind to logic.

Your position towards logic and reasoning reminds me of a phrase from the show The Boondocks, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Consider the following, albeit simplistic analogy. You have two rocks in each hand. You apply the logic in mathematics to add up the number of rocks in your hands: 2+2 = 4. Repeating the process to ensure validity, the result is constant. According to the premise mentioned in The Boondocks (using this as a demonstration, not direct statement of your claims) the fact that the two rocks has yet to yield a sum other than four is not evidence that the summation will never yielded other than four. There is no evidence to support this claim, but premise does not require evidence.

Suddenly 2 + 2 = another integer other than four. The data invalidates the premise of conservation, proving the original premise illogical. A new premise is formed that operates under the logic of the novel data.

As new data/evidence arises, our understandings may change. If the premise does not adapt to the new evidence, the premise is illogical. The process continues with logic prevailing.

Contextual, of course. It would be nothing short of foolish to ignore logic for the sake of being sure to include for all possible outcomes. I knew there had to be something simple I was neglecting.

Originally Posted by username4114

a phrase from the show The Boondocks, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

Gin Rummy FTW. Best part is that he's voiced by Samuel L. Jackson.

And to think....I stopped using those pots way back. Going to definately stock up now. Thanks for the info all!

In game fun > forum PvP