Article: Price forecasting with neural networks - page 6
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
Maybe we should take the notion of Intelligence process to pieces, and then discuss what is possible and what is not possible to implement programmatically.
Not how many neurons are in the head and how many of them are needed.
There is a term for reasoning. It is the most possible term for software implementation.
However, the term Consciousness is broader, encompassing the intellect, which is a tool for consciousness.
Well, well, well, Mr. Philosopher. This is reductionism in its extreme form. Counter-example? Please: one molecule of gas. In principle and even in embryo it does not possess temperature and pressure, because these are concepts applicable only to large statistical systems. And a gas of such molecules (it is a system!) has both properties - T and P. But this is a simple example from physics, what to say about biological or social systems...
By the way, the philosophical law of transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones disproves your quote, Vladimir11.
Well, well, well, Mr. philosopher. This is reductionism in its extreme form. Counter-example? Please: one molecule of gas. In principle and even in embryo it does not possess temperature and pressure, because these are concepts applicable only to large statistical systems. And a gas of such molecules (it is a system!) has both properties - T and P. But this is a simple example from physics, what to say about biological or social systems...
By the way, the philosophical law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones disproves your quote, Vladimir11.
Why not?
Even if there is one molecule in a vacuum, this "gas" will have both pressure and volume and temperature.
What is pressure is a vague notion - it is the number of molecules striking a wall, so you get pressure.
Temperature is a generalised concept - fuzzy.
The molecules hitting the molecules in the "wall" accelerate the vibrations of the molecules in the wall - warming.
=========================================================================
Quantity goes to quality. Why? Because the effect of some standard unit is small and statistically invisible. As the quantity increases, the effect grows, becomes noticeable. Or for example, it reaches a threshold value and becomes noticeable.
For example 10 photons are invisible to the eye, but 100, for example, are already visible.
Would that be more convincing?
There is both pressure and temperature in space.
And statistics can be kept on a single object.
There is both pressure and temperature in space.
And statistics can also be kept on a single object.
Vladimir11, thank you. Sufficient, but unconvincing. At this level I cannot continue the discussion. Perhaps it is better to return to the topic of the branch.
P.S. Formally, yes, you can keep statistics on a single molecule, tracking the change of its velocity with time and using the ergodicity theorem. But the change of its absolute speed is caused by external causes (e.g. by collisions with other molecules) and does not follow from its own properties. Consequently, the notion of temperature may be applied to this molecule only because it is in the system (in a gas with the same molecules).
I don't think you should express yourself in such a blatantly aggressive spirit. Believe me, Mathemat, as a mathematician, you look very unconvincing when you take a stand on physics.
Temperature and pressure are physical concepts formulated by humans, not objective phenomena of nature. Natural phenomena are the presence of kinetic energy of each molecule and the collision of molecules with the walls of the vessel. Since the temperature of the gas is associated with the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system, you can calculate the temperature of one molecule as 2*2. The situation is the same with pressure. These physical concepts, despite Vladimir11's statement, are perfectly clear, not blurred in the slightest. But otherwise he is absolutely right, your example is unfortunate.
And here concerning the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, or more precisely concerning the dialectical nature of being, I agree completely. This argument alone already shows the weakness ofVladimir11's argument. Indeed, since man possesses both perception, consciousness, thinking, etc., then, by his logic, everything of which man is "made" must possess this. That is, molecules, atoms and even elementary particles. Perhaps too strong an assertion to be true. :-)
In his time, Bertrand Russell formulated one essential thought: "There is no constructive argument by which one can prove or disprove the existence of God". Indeed, any phenomena of nature and everything that is given to man in his perception can be explained both within the framework of the materialistic and idealistic worldview.
To my mind, attempts to prove the existence of God or the lack thereof are very similar to Hilbert's attempts to prove the inconsistency of mathematics by means of mathematics itself. However, after the emergence of Gödel's theorem, no one seeks to do this anymore, do they? Similarly Russell's assertion has long been accepted by thinking people and the fights between believers and atheists, at least on the level of philosophy, are already in the past.
Vladimir11, as you have probably already realised, I am not an atheist. However, I am not trying to prove to anyone the limitations of a materialistic worldview. And I recommend you to leave such attempts behind, it is a waste of time. The question of the existence of God is open. It stands and will stand as long as people live, before man and before mankind. But everyone will solve it separately and only for himself.
Now, coming back to the INS, we can formulate a certain answer to the main question of the topic. It is quite clear to me that consciousness with all its possibilities and functions is not a property of a highly organized matter, as it was asserted during the lectures on philosophy in the Soviet times. It follows from this that any realization of the NS, even a very complex one, is nothing but a rather complex, but predetermined response algorithm. Possibly having the property of changing itself within known limits - which is called NS training. However, it changes neither the nature of NS, nor its predetermination, so it is not any training, in the sense of what a person is capable of learning. That is, to reach a different level of understanding of phenomena, comprehending being and expanding one's consciousness. NS is rather similar to the mechanism of physiological reactions, but by no means to the mechanism of comprehension.
But for the materialist for whom consciousness is a property of matter, there is an absolutely different task: to create an object (computer+software+periphery) of sufficient complexity to make it able to think for itself (I almost wrote - like a man :-)). Since it doesn't contradict its worldview, there are no (at least visible) obstacles for it. That's fine ! Materialists go ahead !!!
Temperature and pressure are physical concepts formulated by humans, not objective phenomena of nature. Natural phenomena are about each molecule having kinetic energy and the molecules colliding with the walls of the vessel. Since the temperature of the gas is associated with the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system, you can calculate the temperature of one molecule as 2*2. The situation is the same with pressure. These physical concepts, despite Vladimir11's statement, are perfectly clear, not blurred in the slightest. But otherwise he is absolutely right, your example is unfortunate.
Yurixx, I still remember how the temperature of a gas is related to the average kinetic energy of a molecule - and I even remember what the Maxwell distribution is. But for the life of me, I don't understand how one can calculate the temperature or pressure of a single molecule , isolated from everything and everything. And this is exactly what I was trying to tell Vladimir. The key word here is average. Didn't you study statistical physics yourself?
P.S. I am not a mathematician, it's just my nickname...
I don't think you should express yourself in such a blatantly aggressive spirit. Believe me, Mathemat, as a mathematician, you look very unconvincing when you take a stand on physics.
Temperature and pressure are physical concepts formulated by humans, not objective phenomena of nature. Natural phenomena are the presence of kinetic energy of each molecule and the collision of molecules with the walls of the vessel. Since the temperature of the gas is associated with the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system, you can calculate the temperature of one molecule as 2*2. The situation is the same with pressure. These physical concepts, despite Vladimir11's statement, are perfectly clear, not blurred in the slightest. But otherwise he is absolutely right, your example is unfortunate.
And here concerning the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, or more precisely concerning the dialectical nature of being, I agree completely. This argument alone already shows the weakness ofVladimir11's argument. Indeed, since man possesses both perception, consciousness, thinking, etc., then, by his logic, everything of which man is "made" must possess this. That is, molecules, atoms and even elementary particles. Perhaps too strong an assertion to be true. :-)
In his time, Bertrand Russell formulated one essential thought: "There is no constructive argument by which one can prove or disprove the existence of God". Indeed, any phenomena of nature and everything that is given to man in his perception can be explained both within the framework of the materialistic and idealistic worldview.
To my mind, attempts to prove the existence of God or the lack thereof are very similar to Hilbert's attempts to prove the inconsistency of mathematics by means of mathematics itself. However, after the emergence of Gödel's theorem, no one seeks to do this anymore, do they? Similarly Russell's assertion has long been accepted by thinking people and the fights between believers and atheists, at least on the level of philosophy, are already in the past.
Vladimir11, as you have probably already realised, I am not an atheist. However, I am not trying to prove to anyone the limitations of a materialistic worldview. And I recommend you to leave such attempts behind, it is a waste of time. The question of the existence of God is open. It stands and will stand as long as people live, before man and before mankind. But everyone will solve it separately and only for himself.
Now, coming back to the INS, we can formulate a certain answer to the main question of the topic. It is quite clear to me that consciousness with all its possibilities and functions is not a property of a highly organized matter, as it was asserted during the lectures on philosophy in the Soviet times. It follows from this that any realization of the NS, even a very complex one, is nothing but a rather complex, but predetermined response algorithm. Possibly having the property of changing itself within known limits - which is called NS training. However, it changes neither the nature of NS, nor its predetermination, so it is not any training, in the sense of what a person is capable of learning. That is, to reach a different level of understanding of phenomena, comprehending being and expanding one's consciousness. NS is rather like a mechanism of physiological reactions, but by no means like a mechanism of comprehension.
But for the materialist for whom consciousness is a property of matter, there is an absolutely different task: to create an object (computer+software+periphery) of sufficient complexity to make it able to think for itself (I almost wrote - like a man :-)). Since it doesn't contradict its worldview, there are no (at least visible) obstacles for it. That's fine ! Materialists go ahead !!!
Well it was nice to read :).
Temperature as a physical concept. Let its definition be clear, mathematical. But it is a kind of generalisation.
If we could observe every molecule, every interaction and its consequences, the concept of temperature would not appear. There would be no need for it.
After all, it is replaced by clearer knowledge, of every impact. But since we don't have precise information about it, we make up some adjectival generalisation - temperature. But it doesn't exist in nature. That's what I mean by vagueness.
For example, take an ideal case, gas has 10000 molecules, volume, velocity-temperature and no loss of energy. The volume is constant.
Number of shocks to the outside world, will be approximately the same, but not constant. Which corresponds to different temperatures. Hence temperature is not a physical reality.
======================================================================================================================
*** This argument alone already shows the weakness ofVladimir11's argument. Indeed, since man possesses both perception, consciousness and thinking, etc., then, by his logic, everything that man is "made of" must possess it. That is, molecules, atoms and even elementary particles. Perhaps too strong an assertion to be true. :-)
***
Well you've got it wrong here. It just proves that the nature of Perception is not generated by something material-scientific.
One cannot have perception if its constituents have no perception at all. But he does.
Conclusion, perception is not generated by the algorithmic nature of matter.
Either matter does indeed feel something a little bit - that's what yogis believe - but it's not scientific.
Either there is a different, algorithmic-scientific nature, a nature different from that of a robot, a program.
================================================================================
Unfortunately, the existence of God is not proven yet.
It rejects atheism as unfounded. And it points out that-something else exists, that's probably all :).
Temperature and pressure are physical concepts formulated by humans, not objective phenomena of nature. Natural phenomena are about each molecule having kinetic energy and the molecules colliding with the walls of the vessel. Since the temperature of the gas is associated with the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system, you can calculate the temperature of one molecule as 2*2. The situation is the same with pressure. These physical concepts, despite Vladimir11's statement, are perfectly clear, not blurred in the slightest. But otherwise he is absolutely right, your example is unfortunate.
Yurixx, I still remember how the temperature of a gas is related to the average kinetic energy of a molecule - and I even remember what the Maxwell distribution is. But for the life of me, I don't understand how one can calculate the temperature or pressure of a single molecule , isolated from everything and everything. And this is exactly what I was trying to tell Vladimir. The key word here is average. Didn't you study statistical physics yourself?
P.S. I am not a mathematician, it's just my nickname...
It's very simple. Inflate the balloon with one molecule and that's it :).
And pressure and temperature and volume. If we make the volume small, it'll be hot :) How's she doing there, jumping around!