NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 17
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
Prival, one question: how do you live with a worldview like that?
After reading the last post (the previous ones were not so tough) I had a desire to hang myself.
What is the point of living? For the sake of knowledge? For development? So that there would be something to bury in the grave?
Or "to protect the family" (tanks, an attack, all that...)? So that they continue to protect their family until they too pass away?
What is the point? How can science answer that question?
I agree with almost everyone on this thread. Not believing them, but agreeing with them.
Apart from you, there's not much faith to go on here...
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. They would have launched troops into different countries, and if they had known they could use a nuclear bomb or any other weapons without punishment. They would have used, because of greed, greed, money, power, etc.
It is worth living for the happy day when people will bury all these weapons and money will no longer rule the world. Instead it will be ruled by love, joy, happiness and thirst for knowledge with the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.
I guess that's it.
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? What for?
I can and many, only I do not explain it by a manifestation of the "universal mind". I cognize, study and move on. And what was 100 years ago, a phenomenon that was used to explain "God", "Backbone Life", etc. becomes understandable and explainable ;-)
I can't prove everything correctly to you "true believers" as it DOES NOT exist. You stand on the fact that yes it does exist. You know about it and have known about it for thousands of years, but what is strange is that you still cannot prove it (scientifically). Yurixx join in prove scientifically that there is eternal life. And then yes to the question if there is eternal life, I will answer Yes there is. I'm sorry, I don't know yet.
I didn't ask for an explanation. I asked for an example of the intangible. Unfortunately, I have not received any answer from you and timbo. So maybe that's why you are such convinced supporters of materialism, that for you the "immaterial" is connected with a completely not clear concept of "God"? That's why the concept of "eternal life" remains empty, unfilled with any meaning. In contrast, matter can be seen and even felt.
If I knew nothing about electromagnetism, the terms "charge" and "field" would have no content whatsoever and any attempt to explain me something about electric current and its use would be met with incomprehension and resistance. On the other hand, when there is a system of notions - philosophy - into which materialism with its elaborated system of laws and categories, and science, and morality, and phenomena far exceeding the bounds of scientific knowledge, and even questions (together with answers) about the meaning and goal of human life, both earthly and eternal, are settled like a nest, then to remain outside this system (I speak about myself) is like living on one foot, looking with one eye, breathing with one lung, etc.
Regarding "prove scientifically". The scientific approach is a limited and very narrow method. It relies on the repeatability of experimental results and the objectivity of observations. We can no doubt provide this for our experiments on non-living matter in the macrocosm, where deterministic laws apply. The transition to the microcosm is already making adjustments. The electron diffracts on the slit and the point of its hitting the screen becomes uncertain. No physicist will attempt to repeat the electron hitting the same point at diffraction on the slit. What does science do? Refuse to accept the phenomenon of electron diffraction? Absolutely not. It changes its approach. Here it is not repeatability in exact meaning of the word, but statistics, i.e. repeatability of electrons distribution. And the whole quantum theory becomes a statistical theory. Thus, there is an extension of the concept of "scientific proof".
Let's go further into biology. Research on animals on various diseases and drugs shows that statistics alone is no longer enough. Even in animals, there are certain aspects of their general condition that affect their physical condition to such an extent that it is very difficult to draw scientific conclusions. Drugs that have been tested for years on animals and then on humans do not work the same way in real life as they do in the laboratory. And one of the main reasons for this is human consciousness. Thus it turns out that such FDA-approved and certified drugs have to be scandalously withdrawn from production. So where does the "scientific proof" of their efficacy and usefulness turn out to be?
So I am prepared to present some ersatz "scientific proof", but with two caveats.
1. Scientific approach must be understood in a broad sense, without any dogmatism whatsoever. Namely, repeatability is not only the repeatability of the experiment I set up in my laboratory. It is also the repeatability of phenomena of a certain sort in the practice of mankind. It does not matter that we cannot reproduce these phenomena in the laboratory - perhaps because our level is not even sufficient for simple reproduction, let alone study. What matters is that these phenomena exist. So does objectivity. Objective observers are not only representatives of science, but any disinterested observers who happen to be in the right place at the right time. To call everyone frauds or fools and thus dismiss the phenomenon is not the way of learning, not the way of the researcher. It is the way of arrogance. IMHO
2. definitive and irrefutable proof, as we have already established, cannot be found here. What is it about then? It's about an unbiased view from both sides. As timbo said, an empirical generalisation in order to arrive at the most probable, in terms of consistency with the truth, way of understanding the Universe. But to do so, one has to look at both sides after all.
Instead of a preface, I want to give an example of what timbo asked for - "facts that will make you think, that don't fit into a materialistic picture of the world." There are actually a lot of such facts, you just have to see them, not pass them by. And to do that you have to stop clinging to materialism and want to look at the world without prejudice.
I give you just one such fact - the myrrh. The phenomenon is that some icons and statues of saints start to ooze myrrh 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 oil-like and the other tear-like; both are unknown to science, as well as their origin. Thus, in this phenomenon, matter of an unknown kind emerges from an unknown source (out of nothing ?). Physicist's note: the amount of energy required to "produce" 1g of miro can be calculated by Einstein's formula E=m*c^2=9*10^13 J. A 1 Gigawatt generator has to work for 25 hours to produce such energy. Don't speak about Lomonosov-Lavoisier law. :-)
And here is the ersatz.
As it is known, in science there is already more or less established opinion about origin of the Universe from initial explosion of primateria. So, let's imagine this moment before the explosion. There are no molecules, no atoms, not even protons-electrons yet. There is only something from which it all emerges after the explosion.
First, elementary particles will arise, which interact in electromagnetic and gravitational fields to form atoms. Then atoms will start to form molecules. This is chemical interaction. To a certain extent it is based on electromagnetic, but it is not reduced to it. If I understand correctly, this is how the emergence of chemical properties of substances at this level of matter existence is manifested. Then organics and inorganics appear. Complex organics may already have biological properties. A living cell appears, then plants, then animals, then man, society and so on. And on every level of matter existence it has its own quanta of existence and its own, quite specific and not reducible to simpler ones, ways of interaction between them.
About this a little bit more in detail. Why I say "not reducible to simpler ones" with such confidence. At his time, Sinai proved that the simple system of ideal gas (the system of perfectly elastic balls) has the property of mixing. It means that the past of such a system cannot be reconstructed. This goes completely against the statement of classical mechanics: "knowing the positions and momenta of these spheres at a given time, one can exactly restore the past of the system and predict its future by solving the corresponding system of equations of Newton's 2nd law". Thus, just a sufficiently large number of balls in the system already gives it qualitatively new properties - a manifestation of one of the laws of dialectics. What can be said if not only the number changes, but the structure of the elementary object also becomes more complex? Hence "irreducibility" to the simple, to the sum, to the superposition, etc.
So, coming back to quanta of matter and methods of their interaction, we see the appearance and growth of great hierarchical structure of not only material world objects, but also laws of nature, according to which they exist. And these laws are very different, although each one grows out of those underlying the generating level. And even knowing these laws of the previous level, we cannot derive the laws of the next level from them, not to mention the properties of the objects of this new level. First we study it, build models, find experimentally the actual laws of its existence, and then we find a way to explain it all in relation to what was at the origin. This is all reminiscent of explaining the ex post facto price history in forex.
But in spite of all the differences, these laws of interaction, relating to different levels of existence of matter, have something very important in common. All of them act in such a way, that material objects, the connections between them turn out to be stable, stable, providing life, existence. And at the same time, they turn out to be flexible enough not to hamper, but on the contrary, to help to the dynamic, multivariant development of matter.
The crown of this process is known - man and his brain; it is such a complex material phenomenon that it turns out to be a carrier of consciousness.
What am I getting at? All this enormous, most complicated, evolving hierarchy of laws of existence of all levels of matter turns out to be penetrated from top to bottom by interconnection of these laws and their mutual harmony. If even one link in this construction is broken, the whole material world will collapse like a house of cards. If somewhere in it there was even one discrepancy, then at least matter would simply stop in its development at a certain stage.
Now the basic question of philosophy. :-) How could this happen ? The nature of matter does not change by magic. All that we have now was already in the nature of matter and then in primacy, before the initial explosion. It means that all these potencies of development and all laws of existence and interaction were already there then. And the harmony of all that superstructure already existed, but it was embodied only with time, in time and space.
If someone says - chance, it is not even funny. One should just estimate the probability of such chance.
If somebody will say that it was not then and it appeared gradually, together with the appearance of the next level of development of matter. This would mean that the rules of the game are invented in the process. Or otherwise - the laws of nature are transient, they arise in time. And if they arise, they can also disappear. But even if they do, where do they come from? All in all - very improbable.
If someone says, "That's the nature of matter", that's the most meaningless answer. Nevertheless it would be a confirmation of the existence of this superstructure even before the origin of matter.
And what is this superstructure? In my opinion it is the Absolute Idea, the Uniform and Universal Law of Existence of All, or some other name of what is called by mankind the short word "God".
This is not proof of the existence of eternal life. But if an Idea exists before the matter and carries all information, all laws of existence of the matter, if our consciousness is only a particle of this Universal Idea and thus it exists eternally, why should our consciousness disappear with the disappearance of the body? Because it is inseparable from this Universal Idea. Because everything is in It and It is in everything.
I repeat once again - this is not a proof. But it is an occasion for deep reflection.
We must live for LIFE, so that my descendants, yours and mine could live on this Earth.
A person who says that "life must be lived for LIFE" is not defensive.
A person who says "live for LIFE" does not exist.
A person who says that "you must live for LIFE", LIVES.
Does not survive, does not continue his line (it is not primary), but LIVES.
Yes, now we are forced to "protect the family" (tanks, an attack, everything ... ) So that those who make attempts on life, know that it will not go unpunished.
And all the bad and evil we just kill.
Wonderful position!
You should live for the happy day when people will bury all these weapons and money will no longer rule the world.
Oh, yes, also to develop science, I forgot... Knowledge - first and foremost.
It is a pity that scientists will not invent happiness...
And love will rule...
Not in the heart of Hitler and Stalin, and not in the hearts of scientists, but in YOUR heart.
Wouldn't it be better to make all the land, all the people "happy"? How can we live with such thoughts?
I wasn't talking about eternal life, I was saying that it will only be eternal now.
And it is worth living for now, not for the "happy day".
My (only) question was not answered:
Prival, one question: how does one live with such a worldview?
I will cite just one such fact - myrrh flowing. The phenomenon is that some icons or statues of saints begin to ooze myrrh in some places. The phenomenon has existed as long as Christianity has existed, perhaps 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.
I have not received an answer to my (only) question:
Prival, one question: how does one live with such a worldview?
Good afternoon, everyone... I will try to put my five cents in on this topic.
An example from my own life.
"Prophetic dreams" are seen by many (all?). This is the result of your brain's hard work on a problem, perhaps unconsciously, when the problem exists, it is very disturbing, but you shove it into the background, saying that it is not important right now. In a dream, you calm down, the domestic husk disappears, and the thought that you have already formed before, the solution to the problem, comes to the surface. Some people call it subconsciousness, so be it. But there is no miracle here. You have not come up with anything that you did not know beforehand, you already knew everything, you foresaw it and you were worried. Even at that moment you knew that the army was inevitable and that's why you didn't try to get out.
You had already made up your mind, even though you were not aware of it. And you took the dreams, which were quite logical when you were in that mood, as foresight.
Forex dreams aren't cool. Imagine seeing six numbers in a dream, writing them into a lottery ticket and winning. You would definitely tell everyone you know and everyone you don't know, and even the newspapers would write about it. Will it be a miracle, a premonition, or simply the result of a theory of probability? Millions of people play the lottery, thousands dream of their "winning" numbers (or appear in the sky, on land, water, etc.), sooner or later one of them is bound to win. And there will be a scientifically documented fact of immeasurable foresight. Or there won't be.
With fokkers in general it's simple, it's either up or down, and immeasurable heights are only a matter of time. That is, if you think about it a lot, sooner or later the dream and reality will coincide, and you will remember this moment as a dream that has come true, while you will forget about thousands of other similar, but unfulfilled, dreams.
to komposter
You got me a little wrong. LIFE does not mean my life, but the LIFE of people - our descendants, those who have just been born or will be born again. LIFE is worth living for, to protect it, to try to keep love and joy alive in people's hearts. And my position is not to kill, but to protect. Not to let evil do it.
Or do you think there's no need to protect. Just watch as it was during the war come and burn people, watch scum rape a pregnant woman. And do nothing, live for one day "now" and then the deluge?
Then I take back your question, how do you live with that worldview?
I live with my worldview as it were, bad or good I do not know, but life (reality) leaves no other choice. But I do not trade it (my worldview) for the deluge that follows me. Let posterity judge us, good or bad we lived. The main thing is that there would be descendants.
I can and many, only I don't attribute it to the manifestation of "universal intelligence". I'm learning, studying and moving on. And what was 100 years ago, a phenomenon that was used to explain "God", "Backbone Life", etc. becomes understandable and explainable ;-)
I can't prove it to you "true believers" properly as it DOES NOT exist. You stand by the fact that yes it does exist. You know about it and have known about it for thousands of years, but what is strange is that you still cannot prove it (scientifically). Yurixx join in prove scientifically that there is eternal life. And then yes to the question if there is eternal life, I will answer Yes there is. I'm sorry, I don't know yet.
I didn't ask for an explanation. I asked for an example of the intangible. Unfortunately, I have not received any answer from you and timbo. So maybe that's why you are such convinced supporters of materialism, that for you the "immaterial" is connected with a completely not clear concept of "God"? That's why the concept of "eternal life" remains empty, unfilled with any meaning. In contrast, matter can be seen and even felt.
And I told you that I can, and a lot of it. Radio engineer by profession. And your examples are understandable to me, maybe not entirely successful. Let's take a better one - intangible. Phase velocity, far exceeds the speed of light and it is connected just with the fact that no matter is transported. There is a transfer of information. So what of it, is it a manifestation of the "Universal Mind"? Where is he "God" there in radio waves, or in an electron, a quark ?
The hypothesis of the origin of the universe, yes there is one. Maybe someday people will be able to find an answer to this question. And the answer will not necessarily be what you say or suggest.
You once asked what is more constructive, "Question of the problem: What is more constructive from the point of view of human life, to believe that He exists or not?" I think it's more constructive that He doesn't exist. But if you take the other side, it works out.
Yurixx
What if the idealists are wrong? What if, with the death of the last man, intelligent life in the universe dies as well? Will that last drop of consciousness in this dead matter disappear?