Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 1363
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Oh, you shouldn't have done that, Maxim. It's going to be a flurry...
We are sitting, you know, not touching anyone, fixing our primus...
Oh, you shouldn't have done that, Maxim. It's going to be a flurry...
I'm done, I'll wash my hands of it... By the way, I found the quote.
The new psychology did not assimilate the concept of the soul into its scientific apparatus. It excluded it from its subject matter. Historian V.O. Kluchevsky (19th century) aptly noted: "Before psychology was a science of the soul, but now it is a science of its absence. His famous "they steal".
What the fuck is neuropsychology, did you watch the video? )) was that word even once mentioned there? please don't put pseudoscience here, I hate it when people get their asses... with my finger.
So this fact surprises - there is neurophysiology - and here he is talking about brain tissue structures, well, and when he is trying to connect manifestation of higher human functions with brain structure, this is already neuropsychology. So his phi in relation to psychology looks more like a marketing ploy to expand the audience of readers.
Sigmund Freud is not meant to be mentioned, but he was a physiologist, and he based his ideas confirmation and presentation on his knowledge of physiology, and you won't believe - he criticized psychologists of his time.
I will not mention Sigmund Freud at this time, but he was a physiologist, and he based his ideas on his knowledge of physiology, and you will not believe what he said about the psychologists of his time.
Read about this freak, or listen to what Mr. Saveliev says about this miserable freak, who betrayed science for the sake of popularity among windy ladies
So this fact surprises - there is neurophysiology - and here he talks about brain tissue structures, well, and when he tries to connect manifestation of higher human functions with the brain structure, it is already neuropsychology. So his phi in relation to psychology looks more like a marketing ploy to expand the audience of readers.
Sigmund Freud will not be mentioned by night, but he is a physiologist, and he based his ideas confirmation and presentation on his knowledge of physiology, and you will not believe, he scolded psychologists of his time.
Actually doubts in scientific validity of Psychology are partly justified by too wide range of hypotheses and views of different psychologists, which so far can't be brought together into a coherent picture of work of the human psyche. This is what prevents psychology from being considered a Science, in the classical sense. But personally I think that Psychology as a Science is too young, and everything is ahead of it.
Thanks for the good lecture by Anokhin. It is a pity that so far there are no connections between neuroscience and the philosophical "hard problem of consciousness", although Chalmers and Bloch were mentioned by him.
Thanks for the good lecture by Anokhin. Too bad there are no connections between neuroscience and the philosophical "hard problem of consciousness" yet, although Chalmers and Block were mentioned by him.
please, I haven't even finished watching it yet)
Read about this freak, or listen to what Mr. Saveliev says about this miserable kraut, who betrayed science for the sake of popularity among windy ladies.
I am acquainted with his works, with the opinions of opponents and supporters. I did not know that Savelyev has such an attitude to Freud, when he himself operates with his postulates, explaining human (brain) needs - it is even funny now. Well Sigmund is not a Kraut, he suffered from the regime and was put in a concentration camp because he was a Jew. In general, okay this Saveliev - he has his own interests, but you can read Freud, he did a lot of research, collected a lot of facts and hypotheses - I personally like the logic (based on the data available at the time) in his writings, the validity of the position. Yes, you can disagree, but before you need to study a dozen of his works, I think so.
I am familiar with his works, with the opinions of opponents and supporters. I did not know that Saveliev had such an attitude to Freud, when he himself operates with his postulates, explaining the needs of man (brain) - it is even funny now. Well Sigmund is not a Kraut, he suffered from the regime and was put in a concentration camp because he was a Jew. In general come on this Savelyev - he has his own interests, but you can read Freud, he did a lot of research, collected a lot of facts and hypotheses - I personally like the logic in his works, the validity of his positions most of all. Yes, you can disagree, but first you need to study a dozen of his works, I think so.
Read them, I don't read any pissers, I don't have time for them.
It's like they say, if you don't value your life, you can waste it studying other people's sexual fantasies. I have enough of my own.
I'm done on this topic.In fact, doubts about the scientific validity of Psychology are partly justified by the too wide range of hypotheses and views of different psychologists, which cannot yet be brought together into a coherent picture of the workings of the human psyche. This is what prevents psychology from being considered a Science, in the classical sense. But, personally, I believe that Psychology as a Science is too young and everything is ahead of it.
There are a lot of stereotypes about psychology, and yes, this field is very versatile, and experimental data are collected with difficulty - the same age research from early years to adulthood takes a lot of time and money, and it's really difficult to get funding for them, and very few of them are conducted, especially in Russia.