NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 68
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
It's funny that pseudo-scientific theories unsupported by practical facts are being discussed on a Forex related forum. I thought forex was a fast learner, as it seemed to me at first and in fact it turned out to be.
Well, how it really is - no one knows. An honest scientist is bound to be agnostic about matters of the soul.
We have no scientific methodology for studying spiritual phenomena. There are not (and cannot be) even criteria to distinguish between objective and subjective spiritual phenomena.
At least by virtue of the fact that reproducibility of spiritual experience in laboratory conditions is practically impossible. Though here Prof. Slezin has dug up something... :)
I meant dreams and expectations and the actual result. While it is not possible to feel an elephant completely all the theories about it will be incorrect.
Good question. It's where we should start communicating on these topics. Both in general and in particular.
In other words, it is a good idea to ask the person from the very beginning: "What do you need to learn so that it will make you reconsider your world view?
Agree, with at least minimal experience of critical reflection on the information received, it is almost impossible to convince a person to change his or her worldview.
And it is not his stubbornness that is to blame, but his ability to think coherently. Returning to the example with that same Kulagina, how is it possible to change one's world outlook on the basis of several witness statements, and moreover on the condition that not all witnesses consider the phenomenon to be really occurring? If we were to change our world view on the basis of every dubious "testimony", we would be like a weather vane, swirling in the wind. And after reading the next tabloid, the whole mass of readers would urgently reconsider their beliefs :)
Alas, Occam's razor has no room for imagination.
Broadly speaking, one's world outlook is formed not on the basis of knowledge and facts but on the basis of intuitive perception. Therefore, different people draw completely different conclusions from the same set of facts, interpreted according to their own intuitive worldview.
Interesting, didn't know before that the philosophy of science (which is entirely built on the recognition of human experience) is agnosticism.
I am only talking about areas of human activity where scientific methodology is not applicable (specifically, spiritual matters). And since it is not applicable, a coherent scientist cannot make a judgement.
I was referring to dreams and expectations and the actual result. As long as the elephant cannot be fully felt, all the theories about it will be wrong.
The world is set up in such a way that almost any more or less elaborated assumption about its structure works.
If you want to think of light as a particle, you are welcome to do experiments to confirm this. If you want to think of it as a wave, the experiments will prove it too.
If you believe in karma, you can easily deduce regularities confirming its existence. If you don't believe it, you'll find hundreds of facts "against" it.
The world (at least perceived by consciousness) is a function of that consciousness. Not yet solipsism, but somewhere along the line :)
Further, after the "experimental confirmation" it will be followed, for example, by the inclusion of the "theory of torsional vortices", raising prayers from a lighted candle and directly into the ears of God, into the mandatory curriculum, which has already been attempted in the Rostov State (!) University; however, the "experimental confirmation" did not come to this, but I suppose the priests paid a lot.
To be fair, the Church considers attempts to use pseudoscientific theories to provide semi-occult justification for their practices to be both unscientific and anti-Christian.
1. Rosa Kuleshova "read with her hands", click on Google.
2. The "strategic resource" thing is someone else's joke. She was dragged around all sorts of open commissions, I personally
I personally read the report about the editorial experiment in Literaturnaya Gazeta. Harutyun Hakobyan (and not only him) exposed it
in one such public experiment by exposing her for peeping. I personally watched his performance with
I personally saw his speech telling about it and repeating Kuleshova's "miracles".
3. didn't get it.
"Phenomena" of this type are almost all explained, but continue to be exploited by unscrupulous
people for their own purposes, against the background of the uninformed and gullible electorate.
P.S. This is so rsi won't say I'm uneducated again :)
I was referring to dreams and expectations and the actual result. As long as the elephant cannot be fully felt, all the theories about it will be wrong.
The world is such that almost any more or less elaborated assumption about its structure works.
If you want to think of light as a particle, you are welcome to do experiments to confirm this. If you want to think of it as a wave, the experiments will confirm that too.
If you believe in karma, you can easily deduce the laws confirming its existence. If you don't believe, you will find hundreds of facts "against" it.
The world (at least perceived by consciousness) is a function of that consciousness. Not yet solipsism, but somewhere along the line :)
Assumptions of something work, when solving some particular problem. Wave theory is used to solve some problems and corpuscular theory for others.
Actually, I meant the dreams and expectations of beginning traders and their actual results. At one time there was a huge influx of inventors of grails, absolutely convinced of the profitability of their strategies and not accepting any objections - everything is theorized, justified, checked on the history, and maybe even on a demo account. However, practical results, as everyone knows, in most cases, leave much to be desired.
Agree, with at least minimal experience of critical reflection on the information received, it is almost impossible to convince a person to change his or her worldview.
...
If we were to change our worldview on the basis of every dubious "evidence", we would be like a weather vane, turned by the wind.
There is no urgent need to change one's worldview, but if something affects one's foundations, it is logical to try to deal with it seriously. Or, in the absence of such a possibility, at least leave the entrance open. Instead, it is often concretised. It's more like a defensive reaction of the psyche.
New ideas are never accepted, they either die out on their own, or their opponents die out (certainly Planck is an authority in this matter :).
The communities of the first Christians evolved into the Church. There is a sense that science is moving in the same direction. In fact, elements of the Inquisition have already taken place in some countries in the last century. Perhaps the flowering of alternativeism is partly a reaction to this process.
If you ask me, let them. Let a hundred flowers bloom as long as the cats catch mice :)
However, the practical results, as we all know, leave much to be desired in most cases.
True. But the interesting thing is that almost all beginners lose, regardless of the methods used. But after 5-7 years, those who survive, become professionals and gradually begin to work in profit (according to statistics). At the same time, some of them believe that the market is described by the fractal market theory, someone is a supporter of the efficient market theory, someone believes in self-reflexive market theory, someone believes only in fundamentals... However, everyone, in one way or another, earns. Their expectations, despite their differences, if not opposites, work.
...Or, in the absence of such a possibility, at least leave the entrance open.
That is agnosticism :)