NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 12
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
Citizens of bandits, Happy New Year! Alas, I don't have internet. It's hard to read from a mobile phone, let alone write. I'll be back soon :) In the meantime, all the best in trading and gaining spirit in the New Year. And remember, Forex is only one of the ways of spiritual development, no more than that... Happy New Year !!!
Thank you! I join in the congratulations! Death to the moose! :)
And there's no catch. Just an awareness of one's life. So I don't know what you see as an ambush.
Strange how it is "by taking one side I limit myself in methods of cognition". I can understand how a man is limited by his mental faculties - that's yes. How his morals, ethics, conscience - that is, his inner principles, which a person with any worldview may have (or not have). But how does a worldview limit cognition ... ?
Well, no, I do. For example, modern Western medicine. It implicitly, but definitely adheres to materialistic principles. As a result, it has stuck its horns into physiology and biochemistry-biophysics and does not want to know anything else. She seeks the source of all processes and phenomena only there and nowhere else. It produces medicines with terrible speed, consumes enormous resources, hacks and reshapes the human body as it pleases. And it still cannot even cure a runny nose.
From this point of view materialistic philosophy is indeed reactionary. After all, nobody, including idealists, denies the existence of matter and the laws of nature to which it obeys. It's hard to deny what you can feel. :-) But a spirit ... What is it? Where is He ? Let me hold it with my hands? Ah, impossible ... Then it is not there. Thus, if we exclude special cases of especially dogmatic thinking or simply the absence of it, it turns out that only a materialistic worldview can create obstacles in the way of cognition. Therefore "going both ways" is closer to idealism.
I choose not to believe that I do not think that somewhere out there is some better unknown to me life, and here so I do not live, but a draft to write. I don't need it as a scarecrow (a carrot and stick) either. Nature is all around me, it can be felt, tasted, measured, evaluated, predicted and there are objective methods. I'm no expert in spiritual practices, but IHMO the sub-jective component is too strong there.
Yep, an understandable point of view. But, imho, illogical, contradictory. Another option seems logical to me.
Suppose I don't know whether there is God or not, whether matter is primary or Spirit. OK, let's take that as a basis. And what do I want? I want to live in such a way that my ignorance or my arbitrary choice does not prevent me from living, does not rob me of essential possibilities, even if I do not aspire to knowledge and will never get an answer to this question.
Materialism proceeds from the premise that matter is the root and source of everything. Consciousness is only a property of highly organised matter. From this it follows that I was born some time and will die some time; and although matter is eternal and consciousness, as long as mankind exists, will also exist, but personally I, having once appeared, will disappear after a very short time. Forever. My life is a moment for the universe and an insignificant phenomenon in the process of its existence. It has no meaning to anybody except me, and it has no meaning except the one I make up myself. All values, including good, evil, fame, fortune, honour, friendship, knowledge, etc., are relative. - every single one of them, is relative and transient. Therefore, do what you want and live as you want. All the attitudes are invented by people in order to put me in some frame. But after death there is nothing! That is why one may not stop at nothing.
For an idealist, Spirit is the root and cause of everything. For him, the material world is only a part of the Universe and earthly life is only a part of the eternal existence of the imperishable human spirit. So spirit and consciousness - precede the material world and there is always freedom from the material world and a choice. What choice is it about? It is a choice to be on the side of those who create the world or on the side of those who destroy. And in my opinion it is obvious that this eternal life is found only by the one who stays on the side of creation = light, good. This is the absolute Good. And he, who chooses destruction, destroys the World and destroys himself. For he himself is a part of this World. And so he comes to the boundary beyond which is not only death - nothingness. Eternal. I hope the zealots will forgive me for such simplified and condensed presentation of the conception of idealism. I have not erred against the essence.
So, a choice arises for me. On the one hand, eternal life is possible, but in order to achieve it I must help the creation of this World, or at least not to destroy it. On the other, the possibility of living as I please and doing whatever I want. And you don't need anything for that. Live and do. But if it turns out that my choice was wrong and matter is not primary, and I've made some mistakes in my life, I might lose something. I don't know about anyone, but to me personally the possibility of eternal life seems to be a very substantial value. Very substantial. Absolute.
And so it turns out that on one side of the scale there is eternal existence, and on the other side there is absolute, but not eternal, freedom. In order to gain this possibility of eternal existence, it is necessary to limit your freedom. In fact, it is already limited: we can neither fly like a bird, nor live underwater, nor travel through time, nor do a lot of other things. And to that we must also add do not kill, do not encroach on another's life and in other ways, do not steal, do not commit perjury, etc. And also do not be a slave to lust, passions, wealth. And don't be a slave in general. Well, there's a lot more. Terrible, isn't it?
When I read the whole list, I found that there was nothing on it that I wanted to have now and for sure, instead of maybe eternal existence later. The vast majority of the items on the list are already unacceptable to me. And the few things on it that arouse some interest may yet turn into disgust afterwards. But even if it doesn't, what have I got to lose by giving it up? The satisfaction of one of the thousands of momentary desires of my life? So what? What will it change? What will change in my life, which is a moment? What will I lose? Ah yes, memories...
What if I limit my freedom and there is no eternal life? Well then I will live a life that will not have what I gave up, but will have many other things instead. And nobody ever before or after will be able to prove that this other thing is worse than that.
And so, whether it is eternal or not, I choose Life over its destruction.
So it turns out that on one side of the scale is eternal existence and on the other side is absolute, but not eternal, freedom.
Your position is very close to me. One can feel that you know it by hearsay. I would not like to argue with that position. Rather, I would like to make an addition to develop what I have said.
The scale appears when man has significantly expanded his conception of the universe and tries to assimilate this experience somehow. But at the same time he thinks by inertia, within the framework of traditions of contemporary society, namely on the basis of opposition, almost confrontation (it is our perennial habit to divide the world into good and evil, black and white, bad and good). It should be noted that, generally speaking, this is correct and quite justified, but make a caveat - at this stage of personality development.
Very roughly, the model with scales may be represented as an infinite space-fog-undeterminacy and in sight are these scales, on the scales of which is understood by everybody in their own way good and evil. In this case, attention is naturally drawn to the question of choice. Here is where it is important: the next step in development comes down to taking the eye off the scales and shifting attention to the fog of uncertainty surrounding the scales.
There is the following model of development of a personality (and subsequently of consciousness): a human being in the centre and various information around him/her - ordinary and easily perceived information and more complicated information that is not easy to identify (one has to work hard to find it and then to "weigh" it) and not perceived at all. Roughly speaking, each person has a "diameter of the sphere of cognition," and the larger the diameter, the more developed the person is.
At the same time, the maximum possible diameter of this "sphere" for an ordinary person in FS is fundamentally limited by the limits of physical consciousness. In other words, further development requires a qualitatively different basis of worldview and a natural rejection of the "old scale of values". At this stage it becomes uninteresting to quote the world according to the principle good-bad, or "what will I get if I do so-and-so...", these values themselves cease to be values. Remember, DH called his behavior "conscious stupidity" in the state when he could not consciously and confidently ascend to a higher level of consciousness, but had already lost all interest in ordinary life in the FS (and at the same time consciously chose joy out of all possible choices of behavior).
Under MS, the world is perceived qualitatively very differently. In particular, the question of choice does not arise, because knowledge is available on the basis of direct perception, and unconditionally accurate knowledge. In MS the time is perceived spatially similar, so the question of death does not arise at all:), it falls away as an anachronism, evaluated as a delusion peculiar to the previous stage of development (FS). However, the scale you describe works: until the man learns necessary values, his consciousness will not rise to the possibilities of free manifestation (which are principally related, being one and the same), so the man will have to come back and "finish learning" again. Again it turns out that man is in a sense master of his destiny.
There is eternal life. But not because this life will last long. But because at the higher forms of consciousness man can be localized neither in space nor in time :)
to Yurixx.
That's a strange way to look at it. If you are a materialist, you must be a destroyer, do what you want and live as you please.
I believe just the opposite - standing on this position you understand that you cannot destroy life, nature ... as I will quote your own words "Consciousness is only a property of highly organized matter". By destroying matter I will also kill consciousness.
The idealist, on the contrary, believing that there is another kind of eternal life, he can live as he wants, like this is a rough draft, and then in the next life I will rewrite it completely. He may kill in the name of his ideals, burn at the stake, declare crusades, etc. After all, he is not doing anything wrong, on the contrary he is sending us to that eternal life
It's the ultimate conclusions we have in common, though.
I too choose Life, and accept all the limitations of my Life, with only one goal Eternal life, no not mine, but the people - my descendants on earth. People should live Eternally.
There is eternal life. But not because this life will last, but because with higher forms of consciousness one can be localised neither in space nor in time :)
Sorry, but I believe there is no such thing as eternal life. All of us are mortal and even that man that has developed his MS to such an extent that he cannot localize himself in space or time. He has lost his head, he does not know who he is, he does not know what time it is and whether he is on the third planet from the Sun or somewhere else :-). Suicide is near. We all will be buried, matter will be destroyed and consciousness too, because there is no consciousness without matter.
STATIC, an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time.
If one understands this, it means one is well versed in the language of the Founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. The language is not easy at all, dare I say it...
Interestingly, Feynman in Quantum Mechanics has a hint of how to describe such physical objects (an object with a single strictly fixed de Broglie wave): no localization in space, as it is a pure monochromatic wave; no localization in time either, as there is no energy uncertainty, i.e. time uncertainty is infinite (delta_energy* delta_time >= h/2). It is true that pure spirit does not belong to the physical universe - and Feynman says nothing about pure spirit...
So a choice arises for me. On the one hand there is the possibility of eternal life, but to achieve it I must help to create this World, or at least not to destroy it. On the other hand, the possibility of living as I see fit and doing whatever I want. And you don't need anything for that. Live and do. But if it turns out that my choice was wrong and matter is not primary, and I've made some mistakes in my life, I might lose something. I don't know about anyone, but to me personally the possibility of eternal life seems to be a very substantial value. Very substantial. Absolute.
However, returning to the ground of the exact sciences, the value of the possibility of eternal life should not be considered in isolation from the probability of its existence. And this probability tends to zero, because no one has ever seen any evidence of its existence, so the value of the possibility of eternal life is absolutely small.
Do you not know the phrase "slave of God"? Any religion is always a slave. Escape from reality to fantasies of paradise life, cowardice and unwillingness to change anything in one's real life, self-justification for doing nothing, and all sorts of freedoms and paradise life already today for those leaders who teach this idyllic concept.
STATIC, an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time.
What about this phrase of yours ?
I like that kind of solipsism... "The world doesn't exist until I measure it".
And here you can't measure anything, there is no wavelength, no mass either, no position in space and time either. But if this thing can create (destroy) mass generate energy and we can't see how it's done, we just don't know how to measure. We don't understand the physics of the process, we don't feel it. So we need to study and create a device to help humans "see"=measure this process.
To de Broglie
here at the end of the article(http://elementy.ru/trefil/21123) there's a great phrase
"I like another interpretation of this principle - a philosophical one: Bohr's model of the atom admits only such states and orbits of electrons in which it does not matter which of the two mental categories one applies to describe them. That is, in other words, the real microcosm is organised in such a way that it does not care in what categories we try to comprehend it!"
___________________________________And there is no meaning to it other than the one I make up myself. All values, including good, evil, fame, fortune, honour, friendship, knowledge, etc. - every single one of them, is relative and transient. Therefore, do what you want and live as you want. All the attitudes are invented by people in order to put me in some frame. But after death there is nothing! So you can stop at nothing.
"And the terrible hour will come,
And men will cover the earth with ashes, mourning.
And I shall never be,
As before there was no me."
(Heine)