NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 64
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
By the way, scholasticism in modern times is a sign of the collapse of the system.
For example the USSR: "The economy must be economical".
or "The main quality of a communist is conviction".
or "Value is value".
or "The Marxist-Leninist theory is correct because it is true".
And further, supposedly co-operation is good and collective farms are bad....
.....
By the way, F.Engels has already warned about a possibility of such outrage, but he didn't notice it, and didn't want to notice it.
Let's get back to the subject of this forum:
If the trader does not have or had a mental consciousness but disappeared somewhere - he will sell out in a few days.
(Does it mean that the non-sinking trader is a "superhero of all times")))
Maybe I missed something, but then how does a person who is not a practitioner learn about what else is in the world other than what he "sees, hears and touches"?
In this case I have used the word 'practitioner' in a narrow sense, i.e. a person engaged in his material activities and not interested in what he cannot see or touch. Consequently, he assumes that none of it exists, and that those who are babbling on about it are swindlers, charlatans, chatterboxes and the like. And since he thinks so, he cannot practically do it, i.e. "find out" what it is. Until he bangs his forehead on it, accidentally.
I assumed that was clear from the context. Alas, you still have to work on yourself and your ability to communicate clearly. :-(
I would add "thinks" to that list, because it turns out that you have just described an amoeba, or at the best, my cat. You can't even think in a straightforward manner.
Firstly, there are different levels of thinking, as well as different mechanisms of the processes that we call thinking. The aforementioned practitioner, too, naturally thinks. However, his thinking does not go beyond his practical interests and does not lead to the acquisition of principally new knowledge. I hope it is clear what kind of knowledge I am talking about?
Secondly, thinking has its material and immaterial aspects. That is why it is a boundary phenomenon that unites "practitioners" and "theorists" to a certain extent. But I, on the contrary, sought to dissociate these two approaches to the awareness of Life.
Thirdly, I have nothing against adding thinking to this list, but with known reservations and explanations. I hope you, Sergey, will formulate them. After all the basic idea is clear to you.
Everything depends on the "importance", "personal impressionability" and "imagination" attached to a fact or conjecture. The ancient Indians, for example, including the ancient Vedas, assure that the soul is also contained in a stone.
By doing so you deny the content of the fact. Cool ! So all that facts, even scientific ones, give us are only our fantasies due to personal impressionability. There is no reality, no laws of nature, scientific knowledge is a fiction. Yes ... Strong... Even I, with all my skepticism about the possibilities of scientific cognition of the world, could not go that far. I'll catch up with you. :-)))
About amoebas.
Type in search, "the great mystery of water" and you will learn a lot of interesting things about it. The human being consists basically of water, especially the brain which in fact does not have anything special except water and it is difficult to explain our abilities by the presence of "grey matter". Water is much cleverer than amoebas and possibly humans (it is believed to be the world's most sophisticated computer) and it is possible that it is water which makes your amoebas so clever :o)
It's not about amoebas but about water. :-)
Yes, I know something about water and understand its key role in the existence and vital functions of the human body. Nota Bene: body but not consciousness !
Maybe it is water that makes your brain "the world's most perfect computer", but if you use your brain to explain all aspects of your existence, then you continue to stand on materialistic positions. You can, of course, explain the purposefulness and amazing ability of amoebas (who have no brain) to complex collective actions by water. Moreover, one can find quite materialistic explanations for anything that exists in the world. But then what about Ockham's razor ? After all, these 'explanations', compared to the simpler, more comprehensive, but alternative - idealistic ones, look like clumsy piling up or as formal excuses.
Like, for example - water is smart, it's the one that thinks for us and the amoebas.
Or, as granit77 wrote , "the example only shows the underdevelopment of science". Like - and that's enough to reject any non-materialist explanation or even attempt. I wonder if Ockham would accept such an argument ?
About pseudoscience, if anyone is interested: http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/OUTSIDE/BULLETIN1.PDF (~ 1.4 MB).
In AiF, if I am not mistaken, I read that at PhIAN some scientists are seriously concerned with an experimental verification of the divine origin of the Shroud of Turin, as well as the experimental study of the supernatural properties of holy water. What can I say - the citadel of domestic physics, however... And yet the question arises - who paid for this nonsense and how much?
The classification of objects of Reality as non-existent is relative and depends on the level of development of consciousness and technology
A masterpiece of thought! Classification of non-existent objects.
You are distorting, my dear. You rearrange words, radically changing the meaning. Not good ....
Nothing to say on the merits ?
Hm, that's a curious thing, this Grex. It begs the question: Why isn't the hypothesis that amoebas are unified in the normal (distributed) state considered? A network organism of sorts.
The classification of objects of Reality as non-existent is relative and depends on the level of development of consciousness and technology
A masterpiece of thought! Classification of non-existent objects.
You are distorting, my dear. You rearrange words, radically changing the meaning. Not good ....
Don't you have anything substantive to say?
The original doesn't make any better sense.
Relevance. What's there to say on substance? Well it's obvious to me that it's all mental speculation by theorists with inflamed minds, and very far from the practice of awareness.
The essence of the matter is just banter. I am frank, so excuse me :-)
There is a hypothesis that collectives of lower creatures are ruled by one spirit.
This is an unscientific hypothesis. In the sense that you cannot make a plan for it, get money and use it :). The network organism is much more scientific :)
There is a hypothesis that collectives of lower creatures are ruled by a single spirit.
Hypothesis, or no hypothesis.... Jung has it all figured out. Not just the lower creatures - any social group.
Hm, that's a curious thing, this Grex. It begs the question: Why isn't the hypothesis that amoebas are unified in the normal (distributed) state considered? A network organism of sorts.
That's right. I read recently (sorry, I did not save the link) that geneticists have mastered the "countdown" method and can model genetic changes "back in time". So, in the early stages of life, they got similar pictures - individual "organs" existed by themselves, only with time "coalescing" into single organisms. But another thing is surprising to me - that such facts can shake the materialistic views of educated people... (I'm not talking about you Candid)