NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 69
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
I apologize if my note was ambiguous. I meant that I was not referring to you for suggesting that your materialist views have changed under the influence of the facts about amoebas, and I was not questioning your education at all.
No no, I understood you correctly, I just couldn't resist, yesterday seems to be Heresy Day :) . So it's me who should apologize.
By the way, isn't what you said an argument for creationism? As it is unclear how they could have survived outside the test tube.
Am I breaking in here, Candid? There are other interesting details about organs and creationism. For example, the eye sort of couldn't have gradually evolved from simple to complex, for it wouldn't have been able to work. It had to arise immediately and certainly had to have been created by the Creator himself.
And what trick is there in the banal "one, two, three" that any child starts with? The natural series was invented by the Creator - that's it (either Kant or Russell).
And - the verdict on reasoning about logic: you must urgently change your worldview from "yes-no" to "absolutely whatever".
Am I breaking in here, Candid? There are other interesting details about organs and creationism.
Fuck knows. The thing is that in school textbooks, as far as I remember, the theory of evolution is stated like this: Look - there is an evolutionary series, so there is evolution. Then the hypothesis of natural selection with its hypothetical mechanisms is stated. I say hypothesis, because I have not yet heard of anyone breeding a new species by means of natural selection.
Meanwhile, the evolutionary series is not proof of spontaneous evolution at all. You only have to go to any technical museum to see that.
It seems best to leave the door open for the moment :)
So what is called evolution is a kind of process of choosing something out of chaos.
In the "fabulous years" at the physics department I almost got an axe to grind with some dumbass insensitively dumped on me by my own boss, who had read "Geometrical Principles of Physics" by the venerable and infamous secondary school teacher M. Lobanovsky, but I guess the priests paid a lot of money. What are we up to?
......................
Sad and sordid, brethren...
I still could not remember the name of the author of this "genius" book, although I remembered that it was a famous one. But the title was etched in my memory forever. :-)
When I read it, I could not even laugh in astonishment. I could not believe, that someone could have written such a book. All the more so - to publish it. But when I've got to the conclusions I've already managed to relax and laughed heartily. All these "predictions" about pi-mesons, photon charges and other. A masterpiece in its own way. :-)))
Now I understand your "shrivelling" with glory seekers, science graphomaniacs and the criminally insane. I sympathize, alas. This contingent is always present, as well as a certain percentage of drunks and smokers in society. And what is more difficult is that this contingent has the highest activity and penetrating capacity. There's no hiding from them, they don't need soap to ... ...without soap.
Nevertheless, there is rather wide class of phenomena, which existence can hardly be accepted by common people. Especially burdened by the established scientific picture of perception of the world. If there is a desire to expand one's perception of reality, there is only one way out: to exclude those phenomena that are related to human beings or their activities. That is why I turned my attention to the Grex.
Some time ago I read in a book about consciousness and intellect that the main characteristics of it are goal-seeking and purposeful activity. For all the narrowness of that definition, I must admit that there is an essential rationality in it. Purposefulness of course does not mean searching for food when you are hungry or searching for water when you are thirsty, but something much more. I hope this is clear. However, even with these reservations, one can see elements of purposefulness in the actions of developed animals. Purposefulness is another matter. Here, there is already an absolutely ideational product - a goal. By this, first appears the idea - goal, and then its implementation through purposeful activity.
The actions of the 50 thousand amoebas that make up the Grex are as complex as they are purposeful. The goal of these activities is quite obvious - the continued existence of the species. Moreover, the realisation of this goal can be considered infinitely distant for each of the amoebae - it will be achieved (if possible) already after the death of almost all the amoebae of the population. Does this not already show that ideas dominate matter? After all, its embodiment turns out to be more valuable than the lives of already existing individuals.
You could, of course, say that it is water that is intelligent. But then why isn't the ocean smarter than all of us put together ? Or could it be that every molecule is so smart? Why a molecule then? Why stop at the molecular level? We could go further and think of atoms or protons-electrons as smart.
One can leave it alone and postpone understanding this phenomenon until the happy moment when "fellow scientists" will explain it all to us intelligently. Perhaps even using such far from superfluous entities as quantum mechanics and the theory of entangled states.
There's a lot to be said for that...
But I choose a much simpler and more universal answer: Consciousness IS! And it is not "a product of highly organized matter" - there are no living organisms as simple as amoebas. On the contrary, it is the beginning that organizes matter. And let someone try to show me where I have offended old man Ockham.
Of course the Grex is not direct evidence from which such a conclusion inevitably follows. But, as agnostics claim, such evidence does not exist in principle.
But there are plenty of facts around which, without any human involvement, provide the richest food for thought for those who have retained the urge to know.
I would, for example, mention Lima de Faria's book "Evolution without Selection".
Again, this is not about converting anyone anywhere. It's about thinking freely and not being a prisoner of once accepted perceptions. And, at the same time, to think consistently, structurally, logically, economically, within the limits of common sense - that is, within the limits of the actual facts of Being. And to expand this framework as these facts accumulate. This is also an aspect of the median path.
By the way, for the ancient Greeks the modern position "I understand", "I accept/I do not accept" and other flooding would probably be ridiculous.
Because the end product of the research of the Greeks was a healthy body, a healthy spirit, the Will, Longevity, Victory over the enemy,
winning the competition, urban democracy, etc. I.e. the product of philosophy was the concrete revealed physically, mentally, socially.
The neighbours of the D. Greeks and even the Yogins called them respectfully "the knowers".
Hence the question of modernity: -How to turn flood into practice....
Long ago, since 1932, a scientific method of working with any human phenomena has been ready. This is Schultz Autogenic Training.
However, who really owns autogenic states at least stage 2 of AT)))
And what trick is there in the banal "one, two, three" that any child starts with? The natural number was invented by the Creator - that's it (either Kant or Russell).
And - the verdict on the reasoning of logic: it is urgent to change the worldview from "yes-no" to "absolutely whatever".
And who teaches children? How old are you? -Two, and how many fingers you have -Five ... ))
And then begins the division into "good" and "bad" to "right" and "wrong" to "me" and "not me". And this discussion, sometimes turning into an argument, mutual recriminations and bitterness, is proof of that. So "totally whatever" is the right :-) worldview.
I apologize if my note was ambiguous. I meant that I do not refer to you the assumption of a change of materialistic views under the influence of the facts about amoebas, and I did not question your education at all.
No no, I understood you correctly, I just couldn't resist, yesterday seems to have been Heresy Day :) . I owe you an apology.
By the way, isn't what you said an argument for creationism? Because it is unclear how they could have survived outside the test tube.
Or maybe I shouldn't ... :-) Certainly there is no question about any creationism. The author of that publication rightly points out that the roots (memory) must be sought in genetics. But I would not like to slip into superficial argumentation here, I suggest that we better get back to our rams.
I've tried almost annoyingly before to stop forum flubbing like this. Even in this thread, I think. But now I'm beginning to understand the non-accidental nature of it,
"survivability" :-). People with different experiences and even different epistemological views and approaches, but mostly well-educated people, I agree with SK here, are here not only and not so much because they are trying to solve their material problems. Money, having become an essentially virtual reality almost from its very inception, all too clearly, routinely demonstrates to us the interplay of the ideal and the real. And this can indeed be attributed to an as yet understudied and, indeed, unformed area of science. Hence numerous attempts to find mathematical models to describe price behaviour, TA, search for dynamic properties and analogies with physics, "correct" quotes, waves, fibos and so on. Hence the appearance of "information-energy" theories of bona fide pioneer researchers and charlatans discrediting them. The financial market and Forex, in particular, being a reality of our social being, is a virtual reality both by form (it is especially evident in trading with a robot-program) and by content - there are no matter movements (electrons are neglected :-)). We are even if not consciously trying to understand and explore this new "mixed" reality. That's why if moderators don't interfere, I won't interfere :-) - So we'll come to new discoveries.
Yurixx писал (а):
.. It is about thinking freely and not being a prisoner of once accepted notions. And, at the same time, to think coherently, structurally, logically, economically, within the framework of common sense - that is, within the actual facts of Being. And to expand this framework as these facts accumulate. This is also an aspect of the median path.
And maybe I don't do it for nothing ... :-) Of course there is no question of any creationism. The author of that publication himself rightly points out that the roots (memory) must be sought in genetics. But I would not like to slip into superficial argumentation here, I suggest that we better get back to our rams.
I' ve tried almost annoyinglybefore to stop forum flubbing like this. Even in this thread, I think. But now I'm beginning to understand the non-accidental nature of it,
"survivability" :-). People with different experiences and even different epistemological views and approaches, but for the most part well-educated people, I agree with SK here, are here not only and not so much because they are trying to solve their material problems.
But it's still an interesting thread, damn.
A couple of words of development and addition.
Nature has acted wisely towards us - it does not allow us to go through the stages of growth, but invites us to establish ourselves at each stage and then take the next step.
In fact, the boundaries of any closed system are blurred. They are blurred in the sense that some part of these boundaries is outside the system itself, to the outside. Perhaps this - the possibility to touch at least in part the more general - is the determining point for expanding and clarifying our perceptions of reality.
It is not for nothing that I have defined the law of increasing the quality of the basis. It is important, in my opinion, to accept this statement as a law, which determines the presence in this branch of active participants and its popularity. After all, pay attention, opinions vary, but all (not all, but many) show interest in the issues discussed. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. This is the forest (the law in action). In this case, we all (whether we like it or not) live according to that law. The only difference is in perception and identification of the fact of manifestation of this law - those who get acquainted with the notion for the first time may not understand it at once. But gradually one gets accustomed to new perceptions and at a certain moment a completely new judgement is somehow revealed by oneself:) It is necessary to notice that this law works even then (generally speaking, always) when we do not realize even the fact of its existence.
A human being may freely dispose only of objects which he/she created. A computer program, for example. Here he is the rightful ruler. However, neither the program nor its bearer, the PC, which is also man-made (for them it is a manifestation of a certain law, sent from above) are not able to fully understand the deep causality of their own existence, nor the laws according to which they work.
Man is in the same situation. The intellect has an absolute limit of itself, which is why it is not possible to arrive at the truth "sent down from above" intellectually. The fundamental reason is that this very truth is not created by the primitive intellect but on higher levels of reality - mental, buddhic, etc. It is only possible to identify the manifestation of this truth, the law at the level of physical reality (which has already been mentioned here on the forum). From this position, the flawed and limited nature of all "intellectual" attempts to raise the level of consciousness also becomes clear.
For that purpose, one necessarily has to have a high moral and spiritual development, as well as at least a little personal experience of conscious (if not using, then at least touching) astral and mental objects (and at an earlier stage, of course, recognition of the fact of their existence).
In common parlance, one could say that development is not due to the intellect, but to the dictates of the heart...
--
PS About non-existent objects. I think there has simply been a terminological confusion. If a person is asked: does a miracle exist? Before answering, one must classify the object "miracle". He must consider it as really existing or not existing objects. That is, to define whether it exists at all or not, in other words, to classify the object as existing or non-existing.
By the way one classifies objects, one can confidently judge the level of one's awareness (a quantitative measure of the development of consciousness) and consciousness itself.