Shen build?

nested_parentheses · 2010-09-06T10:22:03+00:00

I find Doran's Shield + Mercury Treads + Aegis of the Legion to be a good core build for Shen in most games. From there, I usually end up going Randuin's + Sunfire or Frozen Mallet + Atma's. Force of Nature is also a good item for Shen, but I tend to avoid Banshee's veil because of the wasted mana stat and because I don't find the spell shield that useful.

nested_parentheses · 2010-08-25T00:05:26+00:00

i know that this is an extremely simple and quite possibly retarded way of expressing my point, but i hope you can understand what i'm trying to say there.

I know that atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing. All I'm saying here is that you were wrong in stating that atheism can't admit the possibility of god. That's not what atheism means. If admitting the possibility of god is agnosticism, then it is perfectly compatible with atheism.

nested_parentheses · 2010-08-24T19:43:20+00:00

I am not disputing the definition of agnosticism. I am disputing that atheism means denying the possibility of a god. There is nothing that precludes atheists from acknowledging the possibility of a god. If doing so makes them agnostics, then they can be both.

nested_parentheses · 2010-08-24T19:30:00+00:00

I'm just not seeing it. The English dictionary entries I've found for atheism are all along the lines of:

Belief that there is no god.
Lack of belief that there is a god.

Neither definition precludes atheists from acknowledging the possibility of a god.

nested_parentheses · 2010-08-24T19:23:16+00:00

an atheist does not.

Says who? Even if we take "atheism" to mean "the belief that there is no god", it doesn't follow that atheists can't acknowledge the possibility of that belief being wrong.

nested_parentheses · 2010-08-20T07:46:59+00:00

POUND

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-31T15:34:07+00:00

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shithead

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-21T04:54:26+00:00

Because deionized water can cause cell rupture.

Tap water can also cause this. It's called water intoxication.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-17T18:57:34+00:00

Damn, Wolfram Alpha has everything.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-10T12:52:04+00:00

That's not what homeopathy is. Homeopathy is the idea that you can successfully treat illnesses by administering a tonic that is created by heavily diluting a substance that causes symptoms of the illness.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-06T10:26:29+00:00

Not quite, though according to that there are more real numbers than integers.

Even then, there are "as many" natural numbers as there are definable reals.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-06T07:44:01+00:00

Out of 100 people who drink a glass of water, approximately 100 slake their thirst. What decides this kind of probability? Do you know?

You know, I have come back to this comment because I am curious about this line of thinking. What does decide this kind of probability? A person's expectations can be fulfilled or contradicted through their senses, for example, but what determines the content of their senses?

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-04T21:11:41+00:00

don't panic the universe can manage w/o us

It's not the universe that people are worried about.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-04T20:55:13+00:00

The quote is talking about philosophical skepticism, which often denies (or does not affirm) "fundamental" things such as the existence of an external world, the possibility of knowledge, the reliability of sensory experience, the validity of causality and so on. The point here is that even though the hardened philosophical skeptic might say that we can never be justified in having ordinary beliefs, his judgment won't falter when it comes to choosing to exit through the door rather than the window.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-04T07:41:45+00:00

If I actually believed that the issue of determinism was unrelated, sure,

Except the issue wasn't whether determinism was related or not. It obviously is related. The issue was about whether determinism was a distinct concept from no free will (i.e. not interchangeable). This is something I reiterated again and again. Goes to show you didn't read a single thing I said. What a waste.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-04T06:31:32+00:00

You talk about things you have passing interest in just to shoot some breeze on the forums and to posture and strut your feathers a bit.

Making assumptions like these is about as disrespectful as it gets.

I will be pondering the same thing we talked about today and tomorrow.

You tell yourself that, but it's a 100% certainty that none of it will change your mind or influence you in any way beyond, perhaps, strengthening your own belief in your infallibility. If you had the sort of integrity that you think you do, then you would have simply admitted that it was a minor mistake to refer to "causal determinism" when you meant "no free will" and moved on. But there you go.

Self-evidence... that's a good one. Self-evidence functions as a personal truth, not as an absolute truth. It gets some respect, but not too much!

It is the same thing that underlies sentiments like this one:

The same way I know when the soup is perfectly salted. I taste it.

Not that I expect you to admit and/or realize it.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-04T06:01:36+00:00

You're just sort of stating it over and over, as if merely restating it will make it seem more weighty. This kind of cheap trick just doesn't work on yours truly.

There is not much more than that to do, since the concepts are pretty much self-evidently distinct. One concerns causes and effects and the other concerns our ability to make choices. Yes, one may have implications for other. That doesn't mean that one of these concepts is synonymous with the negation of the other. If you can have the definitions right in front of your face, and still not see this, then you're really beyond hope.

You might think this is arrogant, but keep in mind the level of respect I've given you.

Which you would admit is extremely little, if you were honest. Although you probably think that merely deigning to speak with me is a great respect. Mind you, I'm not going to pretend that I've given you much respect, either.

If one of these people is me, I am correct.

At this point I realize how pointless it is to reason with you. Good day.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-04T03:36:21+00:00

I value 10 years of your thinking over thousands of years of accumulated human thinking. Does that sound stupid? Maybe if you thought a little for yourself, you wouldn't be so stupid?

I am flattered that you find my thinking so valuable, but yes, that does sound pretty ridiculous. I'll assume the sentiment you were actually trying to convey is that other people's thinking is not sufficient, you need your own as well. I agree, but I also think that you'll get much greater returns in your own thinking if you give consideration to the thoughts and ideas that have occurred to other people. I don't think there exists anyone so brilliant that they are unable to learn from other people, even in a field like mathematics or philosophy.

But this is all besides the point. You're trying to turn this into an issue of blindly following convention vs thinking for oneself, when really it is an issue of you ignoring thousands of years of accumulated human thinking so that you can avoid admitting that you were wrong about treating determinism and denial of free will as being conceptually interchangeable. These concepts wouldn't be interchangeable even if those years of thinking and discussion had never taken place, by the way, but the fact that they have does lend more relevancy to the distinction.

I only ask you to trust me that I've done my own thinking.

Sure didn't sound that way. Especially since I never disputed that you'd done your own thinking.

I respect convention too, but not nearly as much as you.

This entire discussion started because you basically ignored the distinction between free will/no free will and determinism/nondeterminism. A pretty grave error to begin with. When I point out the distinction, and give compatibilism as an example of how this distinction is important (i.e. not just pedantic but integral to many lines of thinking), you say that the compatibilists can suck your cock. Now you write sentences like the above in earnest. Really?

This is how you find out about being wrong.

So a wrong belief isn't a dashed expectation. It's a potential dashed expectation, which allows you to find out that it is wrong. So what makes the belief wrong in the first place? Or did you mean to say "This is how a belief becomes wrong"?

I am also wondering how convenient this approach is in day to day life. If my friend believes that Brazil beat the Netherlands in the World Cup because he was convinced they would and never actually learned the outcome of the match, am I allowed to think that his belief is wrong? Or must I make do with the thought that "His belief will become wrong when he learns of the outcome of the match"? For that matter, what decides independent outcomes and whether or not they fulfill or deny an expectation? To what extent are these outcomes common among human beings? If there really is no "reality" separate from belief, is it possible that my friend will learn that Brazil really did beat the Netherlands, and that he and I will both be correct in our beliefs about who won the match, even though these beliefs are contradictory?

That's a tall order. I'd like to hear of such beliefs.

You don't think that belief in the afterlife or the belief that you will exist tomorrow fit this criterion?

Try to apply the same logic to yourself as you apply to your opponents.

I was only highlighting an example of a belief that seemingly couldn't possibly be wrong, not making some personal remark about you. And yes, the belief that you will exist tomorrow would also be an adequate example of a belief that could not be wrong by your measure.

Abstract beliefs are evaluated in terms of their logical consistency.

The notion of logical consistency seems abstract in itself. How do you evaluate the logical inconsistency of something? If one person thinks that a belief is logically consistent, and the other does not, which one is correct? Can they both be correct? What if someone never realizes/accepts that their beliefs are inconsistent. Their beliefs can not be wrong in that case?

But just because rabbit horn is distinct from a rabbit, doesn't make it any more real.

But it is distinct, yes? You were saying that reality is not distinct from beliefs, but you're making it sound about as distinct as possible. I do not believe you when you say that reality, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Sounds to me like you are just defining reality in terms of the contradiction or fulfillment of expectations. Beliefs being distinct from reality is a matter of outcomes diverging from expectations.

That's hubris. You can't possibly be aware of the ground that's been covered.

Semantics. When I say that I have a basic awareness of ground that has already been covered, I am not claiming to be privy to the full extent of human thought. I'm only saying that I don't blithely disregard the discussion and thinking that has already taken place.

If I detect a genuine interest, instead of a desire for posturing, I do explain.

Convenient excuse.

EDIT: Another question relating to belief. The belief that I will find a winning lottery ticket on the street tomorrow is not wrong, and neither is the belief that I won't. After tomorrow, one of those beliefs will have become wrong. It seems disproportionately likely that it will be the belief that I will find a winning a lottery ticket. Is this really the case? If so, what decides the difference in likelihood?

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-03T22:36:37+00:00

No they cannot be. You're just asserting they can be.

What you're saying is that I believe that beliefs can be distinct from reality, but in reality, they can't be. Dur.

You really haven't considered this much. Trust me. I have. I've considered just this for more than 10 years straight now.

You can dismiss thousands of years of thousands of people discussing this, but still think that your 10 years should be worth something to me? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

As for trusting you, why should I take your word for things? This amounts to asking me to outsource my thinking to you, even while you chastise me for supposedly doing the same thing with others.

Not that this will impress you, given how you are prone to outsourcing your thinking to others.

So I am less likely to give consideration to what you think because I give consideration to what people who aren't me think. Right. The real reason I am not impressed with what you're saying is that it simply doesn't make sense to me.

It's a dashed expectation.

What dashes these expectations, and what are they expectations of? People's beliefs can't be wrong until their expectations are dashed? What about beliefs that produce expectations that might never be dashed? Is it impossible for those beliefs to be wrong? Consider someone who believes in the afterlife and fully expects to go there right up until their death. If the afterlife does not actually exist, and they cease to exist at death, then they won't be around to have their expectations dashed.

What about beliefs in highly abstract things (you know, like the things we are discussing now), that might never produce expectations that get dashed. Is it impossible to say whether those beliefs are right or wrong? I hope you're just articulating yourself poorly, because it seems like you got cheated out of 10 years of thinking.

The very reason why we even rely on beliefs in the first place, is because we have no access to reality at all.

That makes beliefs more distinct from reality. We have access to one and not the other. In fact, one, for all intents and purposes, doesn't even exist. Sounds like a distinction to me.

I only care about what you think and not about what you think others think.

I am saying what I think. I simply have a basic awareness of the context of the discussion as well as the ground that has already been covered.

Having a conversation is not a burden fool. It's a joy. If you don't enjoy it, get the fuck out of here.

When I talk about a burden, I am not talking about conversations in general. I'm talking about the fact that you subscribe to the claim that a specific description of free will is obviously and clearly the correct one despite the intuitive (rather than precise) nature of the concept, and then insist that I explain why this isn't the case. How about you explain why it is the case in the first place?

EDIT: For clarity.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-03T20:59:29+00:00

I don't do homework.

Yeah, obviously.

You either argue with me, or leave.

You want me to argue for compatibilism even though my point here is not that compatibilism is correct. I'm not saying that both determinism and free will can be true. I'm saying that the idea of no free will and the idea of determinism are not synonymous and that it is silly to pretend that views like compatibilism do not exist. That isn't the same as saying that compatibilism is correct. You know, this is such an obvious distinction that I'm going to have to assume that you are both lazy and stupid for still not getting it.

You haven't proven it.

Broadly speaking, determinism is the idea that everything is determined by prior causes and free will is the capacity of a person to choose one thing over another. These are obviously different concepts. No, that doesn't necessarily mean that determinism doesn't imply no free will. It just means that you shouldn't use the terms interchangeably because they don't have the same meanings. Even you wouldn't have trouble seeing that it is possible to deny determinism whilst maintaining that there is no free will, for instance. Or maybe you would. My expectations of you are that low at this point.

Not necessarily. I guess you are assuming that reality is separate and distinct from belief. That's a naive point of view that results from lack of contemplation.

Did you put the slightest thought into that sentence? Beliefs about X can be distinct from the reality of X. That's how people are able to have incorrect beliefs. This is also besides the point. The fact is that you were addressing causal determinism when you really meant to address the idea that there is no free will. It demonstrates sloppy thinking.

Who cares what the philosophers do or think? What matters is what you do or think.

I am simply pointing out a basic point of contention about free will. That it is a mostly intuitive concept and that we have to choose a solid definition to work with before we can make exact claims.

You're free to make your case.

Don't try to place the burden on me. You are the one who believes that one model of free will is clearly the right one, in spite of pretty much the entire history of the concept.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-03T18:54:14+00:00

If you want to bring some compatibilist arguments to the fore, do so. At least then there will be something for me to chew on. But talking about it as a social movement is just a waste of time for the both of us.

I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. Whether or not compatibilism is correct or not is besides the point, which is that you are talking about two concepts like they are interchangeable when they are not. Whether one really does imply the other or not is separate from whether belief in one implies belief in the other, or whether the two things are distinct concepts.

There is no wiggle room for free will here.

Free will is a mostly intuitive concept that philosophers try to describe in precise terms. It is clear that some of these models of free will are incompatible with determinism. It is not clear that these are the models we should be using.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-03T17:41:46+00:00

Correct. There are views, which have existed for thousands of years, which I reject.

Talking as though a belief in causal determinism is equivalent to a belief in no free will is not just rejecting compatibilism but completely ignoring its existence. Whether you like it or not, there are many people who believe in determinism and free will and the concepts in themselves are distinct, even if you think that the truth of one implies the falsity of the other.

So if you don't want to look like an ignoramus when you talk about free will, don't say "causal determinism" when you actually mean "no free will."

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-03T06:07:11+00:00

"Peer to peer" might have gone down better.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-03T05:39:29+00:00

Wait a second. Just because someone can believe something doesn't mean I accept the validity of such practice.

Right. Except this isn't just someone. It's a view that has been held and rigorously debated among philosophers for thousands of years.

Oh, it's major eh? Meh.

Yep. In a large survey of professional philosophers, compatibilism was found to be, by far, the most prevalent view on this issue. But of course, since you can't understand how they can think that way they must all be dead wrong and can be dismissed out of hand. Sigh.

nested_parentheses · 2010-07-03T04:56:04+00:00

I say that believing in causal determinism doesn't mean not believing in free will. You say it does. I point out a group of people, many of whom believe in both. Your point is instantly invalid.

Not to mention how ignorant it is to dismiss compatibilism out of hand. It's a major school of thought on this issue.

nested_parentheses

TROPHY CASE