NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 13
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
Yeah, but it won't be human anymore.
Uh-huh:) There was a time when I thought so too.
However, this is not the case. Our conception of the world is fundamentally based on concepts that we have learned during our lives under normal physical consciousness, and cannot be based on anything else. A normal person identifies himself with his physical body and thinks that a human being is an arm-foot-head (the vast majority of people do not know that they also have astral and mental bodies). Time is seen as a succession of events, as a unidirectional movement from past to future. Life is not a "moving protein object":). This is how life is only perceived, identified in FS.
Life is a given, it is a form of being, if you like:) But it is impossible to prove it, using a common "human" vocabulary, as it is impossible to explain to a blind person how red differs from blue (using the terms "sweet", "heavy", "big", "soft", etc.). A person will live "beyond" after his physical body (FT) has died. His consciousness will rise in a natural way, because the foundation on which his world-view was built - attachment to the PT - is knocked out. After some time the AT also disintegrates, the person reaches MS, but it is still the same person.
Interesting that Feynman has in Quantum Mechanics ...
Sorry, but I think there is no eternal life.
You can think what you like. One can appeal to the atority of modern science, one can simply deny everything - "because because". I'm not inclined to ridicule any point of view. Simply because truth cannot be arrived at logically, it can only be approached asymptotically. Truth is unattainable. And only our idea of truth, based on a mastered circle of concepts, can be said aloud.
To shake you a little I suggest that we consider an example from the theory of relativity (from what we seem to understand:).
According to the special theory of relativity (STR) the following phenomenon takes place: time in an object moving relative to an observer with a speed of light, is slowed down in 3 times. In textbooks (and in full in the Internet) the paradox of twins, which has already become classical, is described.
Once upon a time there were two twin brothers, Vasya and Pyotr, and they were 20 years old. It looked like this:
And one day Petya had the idea to fly to the distant stars. Vasya and all his friends, all the people stayed on the planet Earth, but Petya got in a rocket and flew away. He quickly picked up the speed of light and flew away. He flew straight away from the Earth, and then he got bored and flew back, and came to the square, where the same brother and all the other people were waiting for him:).
According to Earth time, 30 years had passed. From the point of view of earthlings in Petya's rocket and in Petya himself the time went slower, only 10 years passed there. This is the picture that people would have observed (for simplicity of image the age is correlated with the size of the human - the taller, the older). Here Vasya is 50 (20+30) years old, and Petya is only 30 (20+10).
This is how the relativity of time is understood from the position of STR. However, a more detailed consideration raises questions. For example, it is interesting, how it practically looks from the outside? And they will see that the twin brothers have different ages. They are standing side by side, but Vasya is 20 years older than Peter ! People will see the brothers going to a cafe to celebrate the New Year, eating sandwiches, drinking champagne and sitting side by side to celebrate life. That's how it's supposed to be understood ... classically.
But another question arises: how does Petya see all this? It would seem that he should see the same. But no! It turns out that on the basis of the same STO postulates Petya should perceive his return differently. Why? Let's speculate a little:) Suppose Petya took a watch with him and flew... Suppose Petya initially decided to fly for 30 years. He looked at his watch... When the clock showed that 15 years had passed, he turned his rocket around and flew back to his home Earth.
That's what STO is for, that the phenomena in it are considered relative to the observer. When Petya would return to Earth, he would perceive all the phenomena mirrorwise, namely: he would notice that he himself has grown old by 30 years, and his twin brother and all the people by only 10 years:
And old Petya together with young Vasya would go to a cafe to celebrate the New Year...:) Do you think not? You bet! They'd eat sandwiches and drink champagne. And what would people see? The same thing: old Petya, young Vasya sitting side by side...
It's strange... And the people are strange... ...and the brothers look a bit underdeveloped... The strangest thing is that all these phenomena would have happened in real life... What's the meaning of this? If you look at it in formal bureaucratic way then it turns out that after Vasya's departure Petya appears twice in his life: the first time Petya will come back as 50-year-old when Vasya will be 30, and then Vasya will live some more, until his 50-th birthday, and then Petya will come back as 30-year-old. Is that it?:))) No? How?:))
Maybe it's because of the acceleration that Petya's rocket is experiencing? STO doesn't say anything about the effect of acceleration, only the speed, but all this is too complicated for the average person to understand, so let's even the odds: let them both fly in different directions, and people stay on Earth and watch.
However, this turns out to be even worse for our composure. Everything will happen all over again. From Vasya's point of view everything happens twice and from Petya's point of view everything happens twice, and from the earthmen's point of view all observable events generally become a dizzying succession of events. Not only that the young brothers meet the old ones any time, but the young ones meet the young ones and the old ones meet the old ones. And from the point of view of earthlings it violates any statements of STO at all.
When some earthmen (who have not yet lost their minds from all this mess) reflected further, a whole bouquet of new questions arose. For example, people remembered that acceleration and slowing down of time in moving objects occurs not only at speeds close to the speed of light, but at any speed at all. It is just that the "time dilation effect" appears less, but it does!!! And then people started to realise that they are all like astronauts moving at some speed (albeit low, but it does not change the essence), with the result that all people with all other people have to meet each other repeatedly in an orderly manner throughout their lives...
As a result, all people imagined the world to be like this:
After that, the world was divided into many factions: some people began to argue that it was all bullshit, others began to prove that it couldn't be otherwise, with no one being able to prove anything to each other.
-----------------
Such questions cannot be adequately answered within the limits of FS, simply because the laws, on which the described phenomena are based, have a qualitatively deeper basis, and a higher consciousness is necessary for its perception... Modern science also turns out to be powerless, for the same reason. For its further development the recognition of the atral and mental levels of reality is necessary. And until that happens, our worldview will be based on faith, not on knowledge. And within the framework of faith no one can prove anything to anyone...
I like that kind of solipsism... "There is no world until I measure it".
And don't invoke the law of conservation of energy, which exists only for closed physical systems. Statics is not in the material universe and does not belong to it, although it is very closely linked to it. Well, in short, it is impossible to explain all Scientology in two words...
2 SK. Well, how colourfully you have shown the twin paradox. I had no idea it was so multifaceted... Something like that, I recall, is in the multiple universes theory of someone on X, Hewlett or something. ... No, Everett, but Hugh!
After this, the world was divided into many factions: some would argue that it was all nonsense, while others would argue that it could not be otherwise, with no one being able to prove anything to one another.
-----------------
Such questions cannot be adequately answered within the limits of FS, simply because the laws, on which the described phenomena are based, have a qualitatively deeper basis, and a higher consciousness is necessary for its perception... Modern science also turns out to be powerless, for the same reason. For its further development the recognition of the atral and mental levels of reality is necessary. And until that happens, our worldview will be based on faith, not on knowledge. And no one can prove anything to anyone within the framework of faith.
Thank you. Yes such preparation for an answer is indeed impressive. But you haven't managed to shake my foundations yet. These paradoxes are pretty well explained by "limited FS". And no astral and mental consciousness is needed for that. These are effects manifested by the limitedness of human perception of three dimensions. And the universe most likely has more dimensions. One of the indirect proofs of it is calculation of trajectory of planets of Solar system. The Earth does not fall (is not attracted to the Sun) because if we introduce the 4th dimension, it turns out that WE, together with the Earth, move uniformly and in a straight line, acceleration = 0. But WE cannot see (feel) it because we are THREE dimensions :-).
Here is a bit more details about it, though not so nice. http://www.mao.kiev.ua/icamer/forum/zhilyaev2.htm Not to copy it all here just read it.
That is why I think that for further development it is necessary to recognize not astral and mental levels of reality (and to have the same consciousness). But the multidimensionality of the world. And if I physically disappear here, all my projections will disappear too. There is no eternal life, there is only my desire to make people's LIFE eternal, and I am mortal like everyone else in this world.
I absolutely agree with you that if our worldview is based on faith and not on knowledge, we will not prove anything to anyone. And for me your notions of eternal life are a matter of faith, not knowledge. My knowledge says there is no such thing. But if you can really shake my knowledge, I would be very grateful to you.
So it turns out that on one side of the scale is eternal existence and on the other side is absolute, but not eternal, freedom.
A bowl of scales appears when one has substantially expanded one's understanding of the universe and tries to assimilate that experience in some way. But he thinks by inertia, within the traditions of modern society, namely on the basis of opposition, almost confrontation (it is our eternal habit to divide the world into good and evil, black and white, bad and good). It should be noted that, generally speaking, this is correct and quite justified, but a reservation should be made - at this stage of personal development.
Sergey, thank you for your addition. You and I hold close, or even very close, views. And the post you complemented is not an expression of those views. It is merely a logically coherent variant of an answer to the problem I've posed before. The question of the problem was simple: what is more constructive in terms of human life, to believe that God exists, or not? And the condition is even simpler: it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is, for the person solving this problem, it is unknown whether God exists or not.
That means that I am speaking about the solution of this task, which can be obtained with the help of logic and common sense on the physical, or even more - on the commonplace level of human consciousness. That is why all reasoning that I formulated on my behalf, playing the role of a solver of the task, is on this commonplace level.
You have written much and interestingly about subtle planes and different levels of consciousness, however, for those who profess the principle "what I cannot see (cannot touch, measure, etc.) does not exist" as the basic premise of comprehension of the world, all this is mere words for them.
But if you can really shake my knowledge, I would be very grateful to you.
It is both easy and difficult at the same time.
It is easy in the sense that it is sufficient to shift one's gaze from the scales (trying to assess the world within familiar concepts) to the external that surrounds the scales. At the same time, it is difficult, because one cannot simply voluntarily take and shift one's attention - for this to happen, one must have exhausted the arguments to solve the question, and even earlier want to find the answer and search...
As experience builds up, one unwittingly begins to "...ooh smell", to distinguish the real from the delusional. I can only say that this search is no small effort, the very one that lies at the heart of development.
There are many questions, the answers to which cannot be proved. If one is persevering and meticulous, it is not difficult to understand that all answers in general are like that. One knows something, not because it can be visibly proven, but because at that point society begins to exploit the (as yet poorly understood) properties of objects. The next generation simply absorbs new knowledge with its mother's milk; for it is the norm, a positive affirmation, unquestionable. However, inherited knowledge does not do us any honour at all - no absolute level of development characterizes human dignity, but only work on the Path of development.
2 SK.: Wow, how colourfully you've shown the twin paradox. I didn't know it was so multifaceted... Something like that, I recall, is in the multiple universes theory of someone on X, Hewlett, or something. ... No, Everett, but Hugh!
I didn't know either, until I wondered about it. I can't speak for all the world's literature, but in all the sources I know, the description of the twins' paradox ends after the first drawing. Like Petya came back ... and they lived happily ever after. .:) And all subsequent reasoning is mine. Nowhere in the literature have I encountered such reasoning (or maybe I have just searched poorly).
On the basis of such reasoning a somewhat unexpected (obvious from my point of view) conclusion begs to be drawn.
The world is dividing. Repeatedly, constantly and everywhere. With every move we make. At the same time it is "divided" only from the point of view of the FS, which is accustomed to perceive everything as a sequence of slides-slice-present. But it is somehow self-evident by everything that nothing is divisible, that the world is whole, but just... there is a multivariant future.
With FS it's all impossible to touch it all, in my opinion. But with MS or BS, all this is perceived in its entirety. In general, there is still work to be done:)
to Yurixx.
That's a strange way to look at it. If you are a materialist, you must be a destroyer, do what you want and live as you want.
I believe just the opposite - standing on this position, you understand that you cannot destroy life, nature ... as I cite your own words "Consciousness is only a property of highly organized matter". Having destroyed matter, I will kill consciousness as well.
The idealist, on the contrary, believing that there is another kind of eternal life, he can live as he wants, like this is a rough draft, and then in the next life I will rewrite it completely. He can kill in the name of his ideals, burn at fires, declare crusades, etc. After all, he is not doing anything wrong, on the contrary, he is sending us to that eternal life
But our ultimate conclusions are the same.
I too choose Life, and accept all the limitations of my Life, with only one goal Eternal life, no not mine, but the people - my descendants on earth. People must live Eternally.
Wah-wah-wah ! Is it possible to understand so primitively and straightforwardly what is said? I myself have been a materialist for most of my life and have not destroyed anyone or anything. And I have obeyed many principles, consciously.
However, tell me for God's sake, as a materialist, what is Good? Is there even an Absolute Good and what is it? If you can do this, why should man want to be on the side of this Good when he will die anyway and nothing depends on whether he is on this side or the other after his death. But while he is alive he does depend on it. He will have to follow many restrictions, he will have to give up his unlimited freedom, he will have to put some values (like the existence of humanity) above his own life, not to mention above his desires and intentions.
To do what we (both materialists and idealists) consider good, right, fair, honest, etc., a person may do irrespective of his or her worldview. What I wanted to show is that while the idealist is motivated to do so by Faith, the Law by which God created the World, for the materialist there is simply no motivation to do so. And so they differ in what their philosophy says to each about destruction (in the broader sense of the word), about their attitude to life (in the even broader sense of the word).
I regret that my inability to express myself clearly leads to misunderstandings and lack of understanding in this simple situation. But, once again, I wanted to say exactly what I wrote above.
The caricature you have drawn of an idealist has nothing to do with idealists or idealism in fact. It is simply the image of a hypocrite. There are such in every camp. But this is not about them.
About choice and "convergence". I know that though we have different philosophies, our attitude to life and principles of life are close. That's why I'm writing all this - I know that in the main we will understand each other. By saying "You shouldn't destroy life, nature... Destroying matter I will kill consciousness too" you put consciousness on a very high place in the scale of values. And with that: "People must live Eternally" - you accepted Eternal Life (one of its aspects) as an absolute value. By accepting all the limitations corresponding to these values and by following them, man, regardless of philosophy, creed, nationality, etc., will in due course, through personal experience, become convinced that the world is not limited to what can be measured or touched. Then another, new period of existence will begin for him and, consequently, new tasks. This is the meaning and the answer of the task.
I'm sorry, but I believe there is no such thing as eternal life. All of us are mortal and even that man who has developed his MS to such an extent that he cannot localize himself in space or time. He has lost his head, he does not know who he is, he does not know what time it is and whether he is on the third planet from the Sun or somewhere else :-). Suicide is near. We all will be buried, matter will be destroyed and consciousness too, because there is no consciousness without matter.
This is the very pessimism of materialism that I wrote about. It's only one step from that to the conclusion: "and if that's the case, then spit on everyone, live at your own pleasure, enjoy yourself at all costs, since life is short and after that nothing, so get something nice out of this injustice".
After all, I consider as a miracle (and a proof of the spiritual basis of existence) the quite opposite choice of those moral principles that you have made, which is not justified by anything except the inner knowledge of the truth.
So a choice arises for me. On the one hand there is the possibility of eternal life, but to achieve it I must help the creation of this World, or at least not destroy it. On the other hand, the possibility of living as I see fit and doing whatever I want. And you don't need anything for that. Live and do. But if it turns out that my choice was wrong and matter is not primary, and I've made some mistakes in my life, I might lose something. I don't know about anyone, but to me personally the possibility of eternal life seems to be a very substantial value. Very substantial. Absolute.
However, returning to the ground of the exact sciences, the value of the possibility of eternal life should not be considered in isolation from the probability of its existence. And this probability tends to zero, because no one has ever seen any evidence of its existence, so the value of the possibility of eternal life is absolutely small.
Do you not know the phrase "slave of God"? Any religion is always a slave. Escape from reality to fantasies of paradise life, cowardice and unwillingness to change anything in one's real life, self-justification for doing nothing, and all sorts of freedoms and paradise life already today for those leaders who teach this idyllic concept.
Careful, timbo, careful. I did not say that materialism means destruction, much less that idealism means creation. Both in the first and in the second case, the matter in question was what worldview induces a person to do. What moral principles it offers to him/her. So, idealism offers and materialism does not. Morality is a spiritual notion. In materialism consciousness appears only at a certain stage of development of matter, and morality appears even later, when human consciousness reaches a certain level and is strongly influenced by society, the state, economic formations. So morality is a historical category, transient and therefore relative. This is why I say: "but materialism isn't". I hope I explained it clearly.
There's been a substitution of concepts. Namely, - the substitution of notions of the world by what, who, when and to what extent has done in his life. I have already said what I thought, but I completely agree with you about what has been done. The whole history of mankind is a history of struggle and destruction. What a few have created and given to humanity, thousands have used for their own benefit to subjugate or destroy millions. And both idealists and materialists participate in this equally. Alas.
The highlighted phrase of the quote is simply hilarious. If I thought you weren't into maths, I'd take it easy. But you're not, are you? So why are you judging probability so easily? By eye. But that's nothing. The main thing is "no one, never and no one". Holy simplicity! I won't argue, much less give evidence. Two variants are possible here. There are materialists who deliberately and categorically close their eyes to any phenomena that are beyond the scope of modern scientific knowledge. Indeed, science develops and what we cannot explain today will tomorrow have a quite materialistic explanation. Well - quite a legitimate position. But there is no point in proving anything here.
The second variant is simple ignorance. For this case I can only say the following. A true seeker (both a materialist and an idealist) will always look with his eyes wide open and will not turn away from the facts. So for such a person it is a matter of little things - facts. So dig and you will dig tons. I'll be interested to know then why a materialistic concept is preferable to an idealistic one.
In essence, I was not trying to decide the question of eternal life, nor was I trying to estimate its probability. On the contrary, I have tried to solve the question of earthly life, but in such a way that the possibility of eternal life is taken into account. Even in a situation where nothing is known about it. In forex it is called finding a solution that ensures minimal risk. And you think we should ignore it? Yeah, you got to be more careful.
I used to feel the same way about the concept of "slave of God" as you do, but trust me, everything you wrote on the subject has nothing to do with that concept. Just like you, I have a very negative attitude towards such phenomena. A slave of God, however, is something else entirely.
Careful, timbo, careful. I didn't say that materialism means destruction, much less that idealism means creation. Both in the first and in the second case, the matter in question was what worldview induces a person to do. What moral principles it offers to him/her. So, idealism offers and materialism does not. Morality is a spiritual notion.