NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 11
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
Here's the link http://lc.kubagro.ru/
Interesting. Just can't figure out what's so unique about this eidos system. Seems to be standard tasks solved using neural networks. What's so unique about it, who's figured it out?
SK, while we're at it, a question for you. What's your attitude to the instrumental methods? I mean the different psychophysical training with feedback, devices like NowaDreamer, etc.? ? How do you feel about drugs? I used to do mushrooms about once every six months some time ago. There were quite interesting and quite persistent effects. However, I didn't manage to make them SUSTAINABLE. Yes, and on the subject of the thread, the development of foresight, the effects were also "within the statistical margin of error". As for the instrumental methods, I was intimidated. But I was frightened by people who were not very knowledgeable and with an easy-going type of thinking, but they frightened me in a friendly way. Why do I ask, the topic is very interesting for me. I'm forced to live in Moscow, alas. It's not a good place for meditation. So I'd like to find some way out of the metropolis...
"Don't drink, Ivanushka, from a goat's hoof, you'll become a goat!" :)
(Russian folk tale)
I didn't write about the big rubbish heap for nothing. In most cases the discussion soon slips into the usual gentlemen's set - sex, drugs, money, politics, confrontation.
Straightforward and unambiguous: I am against all violent methods, whatever they are based on, including: hypnosis, drugs, technical methods. Development has to be natural. It simply cannot be otherwise, by definition, by its essence. Happiness cannot be imposed. It cannot be created artificially, it is impossible. Not because someone is stupid and simply cannot "create happiness properly", but because it is impossible in principle, it is just a delusion.
In justification of many deluded people one can only say that, generally speaking, they also strive for the best. But to a "better" in their own understanding, based on the cultural traditions and delusions of modern society. Because of their narrow-mindedness and the cowardice that goes with it, they usually want little - a fur coat, for example, or a fancy car. An overwhelming number of people are unaware that amassing material possessions alone does not lead to any happiness, but instead makes the mistake over and over again.
After many unsuccessful attempts to satisfy their sense of self-importance with "consumer goods" (like there are people, there are goods, and people consume, damn it, consume!) some especially outstanding individuals try to "consume" goods of a somewhat different nature - drugs, vodka, all sorts of perversions (lying face down in a salad: "Life is good"). Not knowing the essence of this phenomenon, such "explorers" can only cripple their bodies and cripple their lives. They cannot get any other results in principle (well, can you imagine an enlightened addict? nonsense).
Motivation, by definition, cannot be "right". A child wants to become an adult in order to "eat a hundred sundaes". He, of course, misunderstands 'adulthood' itself. He thinks that to be an adult is to be tall and wear a suit. Then he puts on his daddy's tie, climbs into a chair and looks in the mirror. He hopes to see himself in the mirror as an adult... but something tells him it's not happening, that he's not an adult, he's stupid. Then, at that moment (!), there are several possible developments (the bifurcation point). It is good if he remembers that daddy sometimes reads books in the evening and starts (sort of dabbling) to sit in a chair, to take a book, to adopt daddy's postures and make a clever show, trying to "grow up" in this way. This too, of course, will not work, but the child will intuitively choose the best way - perhaps he will begin to look at pictures in a book, read... his thoughts will flow in the "right" direction. But if he remembers that Daddy smokes ... and starts trying on a cigarette near the mirror ... that's worse.
But he's a kid. We're not kids. What's the point of fooling around between debauchery and drugs in the hope of becoming "cool"!? And the values are false, and the methods of attainment are atrocious. There are many variants of such delusions, but I am not going to write about them, so as not to provoke forum visitors into talking like "a moronic pile".
The first is the method of achieving conscious dreaming. The first is the method of achieving conscious dreams, which was developed by French researcher Steven Laberge. The second is the Hemi Sink method, used by the Monroe Institute in the USA. Both are more or less harmless and interesting in their results. Of course, neither is recommended without preparation.
Integer, as I understand it, you have watched the documentation of over 100 megabytes (the whole site weighs 1.2Gb, I downloaded it in its entirety) for 10 minutes and are drawing quite reasonable conclusions. Bold statement ! :) I've seen it.
No, I've only read the introduction on one page so far)
to Yurixx
In the end everyone will answer for everything they have done. Inevitably and fully (Prival, you can be sure of that).
I don't doubt it. I just don't care (I don't care about it). If he is and has the right to judge, let him judge. Although they say it's his phrase "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
Man very often acts from notions of "give", "want" etc. And often the whole "thousand-year spiritual experience", the "experience of special services", the whole experience of mankind turns out miserable when man makes the first step into the unknown, when he flies into space, when he makes discoveries, etc.. This is what songs are written about "To the brave we sing a song ...". "And experience is the son of hard mistakes". That is why I think the fool who entered the field of unexplored is much better. Than a fool (monk) who perfects "his spirit" three times a day banging his forehead against the floor. Since the first gives experience and knowledge to others, while the second locked himself inside 4 walls, shut off from the world and gives nothing to the world and humanity. Well at least some of them sometimes come down from their mountains, go out of their cells and share their knowledge with others. But both the former and the latter have to think about what they are doing in this you are right.
You said "But it doesn't change the point - the "reward" is waiting for the "winner". And the 'winner' will wait. :-))". I choose ETERNAL LIFE OF HUMANITY as my reward all other things are unimportant. So I think this one is not quite accurate and therefore wrong.
Not in terms of discussion, but just to understand each other better.
1. the phrase I wrote, "everyone is responsible for everything he has done" has nothing to do with the statement that there is a God. It is just the way our consciousness perceives it - if he is accountable, then to someone. In fact, it does not matter at all whether a person believes or not. And it does not matter at all whether God personally judges or simply the way the world works. My phrase only expresses that everything in the world is interconnected and everything has consequences. Otherwise it is also called philosophical (as opposed to physical) principle of causality. And I also add to this the idea that if the destructive forces in the world were stronger than the creative forces, then the world would never be able to develop and reach even the low level that we are at now. So for the believer it is the Judgment of God or, what is the same, the operation of the Law of God. For the materialist it is the inexorability of the laws of Nature. What is the difference ?
2) There are morons everywhere: among scientists, monks and even among Forex traders. There are morons everywhere: among scientists, monks and even among Forex traders :-) Whatever field of fools you take - all of them are greased by the same world, all of them destroy themselves, people around them and the world. Not because they go into the unknown, but because they do it thoughtlessly, selfishly, with inadequate motivation or for many other reasons. Read carefully, I did not say that you cannot go anywhere, you cannot learn anything new, you cannot do anything. On the contrary, I was saying that the way of comprehension is the way of man and humanity on this earth. And the main idea was that cognition of being, and therefore the development of man, is valuable in itself, not because it leads to wealth, fame, and other ponAtions. Therefore one should not approach this cognition remaining at the level of consciousness of a Pithecanthropus, just as one should not experiment with fire in the forest without realizing what fire is. You will burn yourself and the forest and everything in it.
In short, I was calling for the fact that you can't be ignorant and you can't be a fool. Except for those who are proud of it. :-))
3. an award and a "prize" are different things, as well as a winner and a "winner". So I insist on my wording. :-) What remains to be clarified is who is the winner and what is he actually supposed to win ? It is far from a trivial question.
And for you, Sergey, as a materialist, I have one interesting logical problem. Here it is.
As Bertrand Russell argued, and no one has challenged this, there is no constructive way to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is, we cannot, in principle, get a definitive and reliable answer to the question whether He exists or not. The question is: What is more constructive from the point of view of human life, to believe that He exists or not?
You're suffering from bullshit, IMHO.
An award and an "award" are different things, as well as a winner and a "winner". So I insist on my wording :-) What remains to be clarified is who is the winner and what, in fact, he should win ? This is far from a trivial question.
And for you, Sergei, as a materialist, I have an interesting logical task. Here it is.
As Bertrand Russell argued, and no one has challenged this, there is no constructive way to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is, we cannot, in principle, get a definitive and reliable answer to the question whether He exists or not. Question of the task: what is more constructive from the point of view of human life, to believe that He exists or not?
2. To the task.
It is beautiful, everywhere you look there is an ambush :-). I choose the 3rd variant of the answer, since it is impossible to prove it, I do not know :-). Rib of the coin. If I am not mistaken I think it is called agnostic.
1.
For inverted commas and emphases thanks (I am inattentive) really they somewhat change the sense of what is said (such a beautiful accent appears) :-). Trying to avoid non-trivial matters, winner and "winner", I choose the wording of the main thing not to lose :-)
Thank you. Happy holidays !!!
To the task.
Beautiful, everywhere you turn there is an ambush :-). I choose the 3rd answer, since it is impossible to prove, I don't know :-). Rib of the coin. If I am not mistaken I think it is called agnostic.
From Wikipedia: an agnostic is a person who believes that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of God. From this point of view Russell was also an agnostic. In fact, he wasn't. After all, he said "there is no constructive way to prove". But even if there is no constructive way to prove the existence or non-existence of God, it does not mean that there is no constructive way to know Him (or Nature - if you look through the eyes of a materialist). On the contrary, all traditional (thousands of years old) spiritual practices not only proceed from the possibility of such cognition, but, moreover, offer absolutely concrete ways for this. And the materialistic practice - science - similarly proceeds from the possibility of cognition of Nature and promotes this cognition every day.
So let's leave the proofs aside. It is more relevant in mathematics than in philosophy. The problem is about something else entirely.
The problem asks about the most constructive approach from the point of view of human life to this question. What is better for me in this sense, to believe in God or not? This is a completely practical question, analogous to the question: "What is better for me to do in life: to be a shoemaker or a carpenter"? All of us have already solved dozens of such questions in life - big ones, and thousands or hundreds of thousands of small ones. Or is it like this: to marry or not to marry? :-))
So, from my point of view, anyone can and can look over his life - past, present and future - his ideas, desires, goals, dreams and decide what is better for him. In doing so, in order that he may then be able to explain his decision, logic, reason, reasoning, everything he has, may be involved. An explanation is a must. A simple yes or no answer is of no interest.
And there is no catch here. Just an awareness of one's life. So I don't know what you see as an ambush.
A challenge, by the way, for everyone. Not just the people here.
PS Thanks for the congratulations. Happy New Year and success to you and all your loved ones in the New Year and in life !
And there's no catch. Just an awareness of one's life. So I don't know what you see as an ambush.
Fucking hell, how you've been led away from trading.
You're suffering from bullshit, IMHO.
All much simpler and healthier. Reread Tolstoy - "Masha and the Bears", "Zhilin and Kostylin", or
here's a more complicated one, but with a healthy human meaning - "The Death of Ivan Ilyich". Hamengway is also very helpful.
And the best remedy of all time is to be out more in the fresh air. Make it a rule to take two-hour walks at a moderate pace every day, in all weathers.
What have you come to - eating poisonous mushrooms!
Such talks are not typical for Soviet scientists.
Regards - S.D.