NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 18
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
Good afternoon, everyone... I'm going to try and put my five cents in on this
topic.
An example from my own life.
Excuse me...but I didn't say I believe in the beyond and the beyond...in predictions and foresight...Everyone draws their own conclusions from what they read. I simply said that it's not all that simple, the world is very complex, our brain is very complex, and our perception of that world through our consciousness is something out of this world... I trust my brain's analytical capabilities incomparably more (if at all applicable and consciously) than dreams, black cats and mystical coincidences of numbers and signs.At this I am convinced that consciousness and subconsciousness (an uncontrolled phase of the thought process, nothing more) are powerful instruments that can be perfected and applied to solve many problems, both practical and philosophical, and the arts cannot be ignored.
And in general the world is not ready for speeches like: life is love and stuff like that ... But I think it should aspire to it, though personally I think people propagandizing it mean completely other sense rather than me ... Well, time will put everything in its place.
P.S. Simply amazed by duration of a branch in conversations about nothing....that for this forum becomes bad but all more often observed tendency...
Everyone draws their own conclusions from what they read. All I said was that it is not that simple, the world is very complex, our brains are very complex, and the way our minds perceive the world is something else....
Don't try to find deep metaphysics where a simple case plays out. Don't look for malice where everything is explained by trivial stupidity.
Constantine, the vast majority of this thread has been created since 23.12.07 (page 3), i.e., roughly speaking, during the holidays. You can distract yourself a little. And as for the otherworldly... It is in fact the most otherworldly, i.e. "I am" - not the body, not my role in material life and not even my personality, but the core, the Self, around which everything revolves and which will always remain with me, regardless of the death of the material body.
P.P.S. Unfortunately, man is so built that after hearing the same thing 1, 2, 3 times ... he starts to believe it. It's a type of hypnosis. And it is very bad when he sees how scientists, competent and seemingly sophisticated people believe it. He starts believing it even faster.
There is no formula for success, there is a formula for what you believe in, a couple of your own life has more proof than an approach from a scientific, strictly formulated point of view, and if you do not understand the essence of those formulations that science uses. For example, programming, implementation methods, most people just don't understand the essence of what they're doing, it's called using guides. But when the guides point in the wrong direction, the question immediately arises, why? One person knows the essence and does not need much time to balance the guides, or he uses the essence and again will find methods to balance, while another will persistently torture the same forum, as he does not get the essence and if he does not try to come to it, by all means, the question may remain unclosed, so, unclosed question, most often falls under the category of solutions in unusual ways and here again everything depends on the person's capabilities and concentration on the question.
Here you are saying, having heard it 1, 2, 3 times, right - it is called zombification, hypnosis, but concentration on a set task is almost the same thing. Hypnosis is not enough here if there are facts that contradict it. For example, that is why not all people watch TV and not all people succumb to zombification, regardless of the essence, it is called evolution, but there is also the word degradation, between them there is practically no border. And in order not to miss the point, we have to find evidence, we have to use everything that surrounds us, but there is no difference between the methods if you arrive at the same result, which was set as a goal. Also, only you are able to set the limits, whether it's going to be one objective or a hundred objectives consistently set for yourself, there are no limits, there are limits that you yourself or with the help of somebody else you are pushing yourself into.
You can read a dozen books without getting to the essence, or you can read the same paragraph, many times, and find the essence. A concentrated flow of information is much more useful than a superficial description, but getting to the essence from a superficial description is much easier for most people than the other way round, because you have to think about what is written, to recognise the author's code. If I had been taught this before, but instead, all my life, I have been taught to analyse information superficially and I came to the essence on my own, having once turned my own understanding of information upside down. But, again, the essence is not accessible without the potential desire to know it. Therefore, using any book and studying the works of other authors, it is most effective to approach exclusively the issue that interests you, instead of reading the whole book. There are many examples of this, for example at the same school they teach you to read a text and deduce the essence of what you have read from the whole text, you think there is no other way, because these methods have been imposed on you, but from my experience it is clear that in order to deduce the essence of what you have read, it is not necessary to read the whole book, details matter, but not the one you give them, you cannot come to this once, you must come to it constantly, discard details but find your necessary portion of concentration. It is also possible to impose your share of concentration on others, which has been most effective for those who impose, a simple comparison, bars and tics.
For example I recently saw a film about thoughts attracting events, think bad you attract bad, think good you attract good, many would consider such a film as zombification as throughout the film the proof, cause and effect is given. But if you look at the essence and analyse your own life, the evidence in the film ceases to matter, you are able to prove it to yourself, while the other person instead of evolution has degradation, they deliberately push away the essence, not even asocialising the relativity of this issue to their life.
In this regard, there is only one thing that can be said, the only true thing: Think for yourself, useful!:)
You have to live for LIFE, so that my descendants and yours can live on this earth. Yes, now we have to "protect our families" (tanks, an attack, everything...) So that those who make attempts on life know that it will not go unpunished. It is naïve to believe that those who dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped because of their high-mindedness and 'true' values. Troops are still being deployed in various countries, and if they had known they could use a nuclear bomb or any other weapon without punishment, they would have done so out of greed, avarice, money, power, etc.
We should live for that happy day when people will bury all these weapons and money will not rule the world. Instead it will be ruled by love, joy, happiness, thirst for knowledge with the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.
That's probably how it is.
But to live for the sake of some eternal LIFE, why suffer? Would it be better to make all the earth, all the people "happy"? How can we live with such thoughts? Why?
It is logical to assume that the concept of LOVE, is a connection, a bond with a person, a cause or some phenomenon.
It would be logical to assume that "happiness" is the satisfaction of the result, both yours and someone else's experiment.
It is logical to assume that HAPPENESS is a recurring manifestation of joy.
It's logical to assume that Lust is a need for something you don't have, a fanatically pursued goal.
It's logical to assume that PATIENCE is an unwillingness to share something that has been achieved in a way that has been contested in every possible way.
We could go on and on...
Do you honestly think that as long as LIFE is invested with all these concepts without any changes, there will be peace in the world?
LIFE itself means WAR, a war of division of interests, a war of identification of life, REFERENCES are inevitable, because there is always a point of view which cannot be agreed to, if this point of view is not changed, then a war begins:) WAR is a development, because after the war is over, LIFE picks up the pace.
I give you just one such fact - the myrrh. The phenomenon is that some icons or statues of saints start to ooze ointment in some places. This phenomenon has existed as long as the Christianity exists, maybe even longer. It continues to this day. The icons and the places are known, the phenomenon has been scientifically studied, the ointment thus obtained has been studied even more thoroughly. The conclusion is that there are two kinds of myrrh, one similar to oil and the other similar to tears; this substance is unknown to science, as well as its origin.
The composition is well known - sunflower oil, served on tubes to attract more believers.
Well, finally! Oil by the tube, there's a priest behind the screen with an enema, and this is up his sleeve. And this is the level of materialistic thinking?! "Coincidence, coincidence, I don't believe it." You know all about dreams, probability theory, even the subconscious. But you don't have enough courage or logic to make another step and understand that if information comes to you through subconsciousness, which your brain cannot get (for example about future), then a petty phrase "it is subconscious" solves nothing and does not explain anything. The subconscious mind is only a receiver, and the most important thing is the information, and even more importantly its source.
Yes, you really shouldn't talk at that level.
If you watch TV sometimes, check out the documentaries. There are quite a few decent ones on the subject now. About the myrrh, about Vanga, about Messing, and even about scientific research of the Kulagina phenomenon in the KGB laboratories during the Soviet era. Not to convince you, but just to know that it exists. Otherwise you get like Chekhov's hero: "It can't be because it can never be".
Yurixx, thanks for the ersatz. Generally speaking, religious wars are an extremely thankless and bloody affair. Logic is powerless here, since any picture of the world perceived by man is contradictory in principle. And the ability to construct logically contradictory models of existence and follow them is also an ability of the mind, but not of matter.
Glad you liked it. And in wars, you're right, it's not worth getting involved in. Although in general, I did not want to fight, but to share. I am not a priest and not a preacher, I am a physicist and remain a physicist. For the sane person it should be the reason for a question: why the physicist renounces materialism? But here, unfortunately, it does not come to that. If the concepts of belief and religion are confused and dumped in one heap and religion is identified with church, if centuries of development of a science and belief of the most part of great scientists (including Einstein) are crossed out at one stroke and only last decades are written in achievements, if instead of essence of the raised question own, strongly drawn by the ears "conclusions" are discussed, it is possible to understand what a mess is going on in a head.
As for the contradictory picture of the world as perceived by man, I would add. It is contradictory because the world is contradictory, and this is an inherent contradictory, which is fully expressed by dialectics. Interestingly, this contradiction not only does not destroy the harmony of the world, but, on the contrary, makes it incomparably more complex, richer and brighter.