NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 66
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
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 meaning is no better.
In any discussion, one assumes that opponents at least understand what the other is saying.
Before one can understand the meaning of a statement, one usually learns to distinguish the meaning of individual words and phrases.
The meaning of the phrase you cited is clear, and its justice is so obvious that no one can challenge it.
Your version is nonsense, an impossible situation and therefore a great, funny joke. If by itself.
If you can't see the difference in meaning, then alas... sorry.
Harutyun Hakobyan, the great manipulative magician, in one of his TV interviews, referred with oriental fervour to
academics as "little kids" who are being tricked by clever crooks. He insisted on bringing in
to test the abilities of human phenomena by professional magicians, who know all these things
by virtue of their profession. He personally caught Rosa Kuleshova "seeing with her hands" and Filipino chilers by the hand right
in Manila.
+10. A subtle hint that the same is true of humans.
It is enough to see the documentary footage filmed in the "KGB prison cells" when the Kulagina phenomenon was being studied in closed laboratories.
Not enough
Yeah, what can I say. If those few lines are enough for you, with as straightforward as they are unsubstantiated statements of a person you know nothing about (even if he actually exists), who (if he exists) might be the unshakable "non-believer", who will speak black and white even at gunpoint, and who is interviewed by the Sceptics Club - an organization that is difficult to suspect of objectivity, ... If that's enough for you to disbelieve what you don't want to believe and believe what you want to believe, then you're welcome. Maybe that's the scientific approach. :-)
2. No Akopian was allowed near Rosa Kuleshova as she had the status of a "strategic resource".
3. The deplorable experience of mass use of such "techniques" was the NKVD in 1927-1939.
If these few lines are enough for you, with as straightforward as they are unsubstantiated assertions from a man you know nothing about (even whether he actually exists), who (if he exists) is probably the unwavering "non-believer" who will speak black and white at gunpoint and is interviewed by the Skeptics Club - an organization that is difficult to suspect of objectivity, ... If that's enough for you to disbelieve what you don't want to believe and believe what you want to believe, then you're welcome. Maybe that's the scientific approach. :-)
And I guess a few words from the opposite side, plus a couple of murky newsreels should be enough for me?
As for what I believe, don't decide for me. I am not an atheist.
But as someone associated with science, I don't mix proven facts (much less unproven facts) and faith. Scientifically, only agnosticism is consistent.
Yeah, in Kirkegaard conversion is an irrational act, so what causality are we talking about...
The problem with all such debates is one thing:
The apologists try to prove their case by presenting facts which confirm it.
The sceptics try to prove their case by citing facts which refute the credibility of the apologists' facts.
The argument is clearly unequal.
The apologists need only cite one irrefutable (i.e. credible) fact to win it.
The skeptics, to win it, need to prove the unreliability (fraud, charlatanism, other material explanation, etc.) of ALL the facts cited by the apologists.
ALL of them, throughout the entire existence of humanity and the question itself. Does anyone really think this is possible ?
No, I don't mean refuting all the facts. I mean the very idea that humanity has been falsifying a certain class of phenomena for thousands of years.
In my opinion this is, as Integer wrote, "the mental speculation of theorists with inflamed minds". Only, perhaps, not "theorists", but "practitioners" who are afraid to go beyond their "practice", their small, cosy worldview and admit that the world is much bigger and more complex than they think. And most importantly, that it is not at all what they want it to be.
Yes, and there's also a prayer - "Send up the evil spirit of Candida"))
And measles vaccinations:)
P.S. This is so that rsi won't say I'm uneducated :)