NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 67
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
To win it, the apologists need only cite at least one irrefutable (i.e. credible) fact.
The sceptics, in order to win it, need to prove the unreliability (fraud, charlatanism, other material explanation, etc.) of ALL the facts given by the apologists.
Yura, it's not that simple, you know it yourself: no credible fact by an apologist will help to convert (exactly - to convert!) unless the opponent has an irrational will to do so (S. Kirkegaard). And for skeptics, according to human logic (not mathematical), it is enough to deny only one argument of an apologist, in order to sweepingly and indiscriminately denigrate all his other arguments.
But it's still an interesting thread, dammit...
And I guess a few words from the opposite side, plus a couple of murky newsreels, should suffice for me
That's a good question. It's the right place to start talking about it. Both in general and in particular.
That is to say, it is a good idea to ask the person from the start: "What is it that you need to learn so that it prompts you to reconsider your world view?"
If he/she answers honestly, it is immediately clear whether such a conversation makes sense and, if so, what to talk about.
Unfortunately, the vast majority are not at all inclined to reconsider their world view. Not under any circumstances.
On the subject of what I believe in, don't decide for me. I am not an atheist.
But as someone associated with science, I do not mix proven facts (much less unproven facts) and faith. Scientifically, only agnosticism is consistent.
Dear DrShumiloff, did I dare to decide for you somewhere what you should believe in? Where? And about faith I said by the way. We are talking about facts, and the link you cited cannot even stand beside, even though it is cloudy and authentic. I also wished you well.
A quote from Wikipedia:
Agnosticism ( Greek: "incognizable, unknowable") is a movement in philosophy that denies the possibility of objective knowledge of reality by subjects through their own experience.
Interesting, didn't know before that the philosophy of science (which is built entirely on the recognition of human experience) is agnosticism.
By the way, in Anglican, a person who denies the Gnostics is called an orthodox.
They write it that way, ...in such a CIS country 97% of orthodox.)))
And you can safely write "orthodox" in the column "religion" in your personal questionnaire.
Yura, it is not so simple, you know: no reliable fact of the apologist will help to convert (exactly - to convert!), if the opponent does not have an irrational will to do it (S. Kirkegaard). Well, for skeptics, according to human logic (not mathematical), it is enough to deny only one argument of the apologist, in order to sweep aside all his other arguments with a clear conscience.
Exactly, Alexey, it's not easy...
The problem is exactly that, the psychology. Every skeptic takes any argument of an apologist at his own expense, and interprets it as an attempt to convert him to another faith. That's why he resists it as much as he can. And for this reason I have emphasized several times that I only talk about facts that make me personally think. Moreover, that I respect as a sacred, the inalienable right of everyone to choose their own worldview, without regard to any facts and without giving any explanation for them. And this will not change my respect for both the worldview (just as long as there is one) and its bearer.
Nevertheless, even that does not help to overcome the barrier that separates a person from admitting the existence of some phenomenon. Only the fact itself! You understand how static the human psyche is. How can you talk about development? What can you change in your life if you can't even change anything in your head?
And if it's enough to disprove one argument to criticize everything, then it's .... So if I come across a crook once, everyone around me is a crook ? Nah, there's no medicine for that.
But I think you're being too pessimistic about sceptics. :-)
С научной точки зрения, последователен только агностицизм.
I liked it, only I would make a correction: he is consistent in terms of the history of science, which proves that nothing is unknowable by scientific methods.
Is gravity known? No, although it is kind of well described. But description is not cognition. Real cognition is knowing what a phenomenon is, not just how it works (this is the paradigm of scientific cognition proclaimed by some of the medieval greats - whether Galileo, Spinoza, Descartes or whoever). All attempts to cognise gravity - from the unscientific ones, from the Greeks, continuing with Newton's law (or rather all four), then Einstein (who tried to cognise it) to modern quantum theories - have failed; it's all just description, though all more accurate.
2 Korey: orthodox are simply followers of the orthodox branch of Christianity (which incidentally happen to be hostile to the Gnostics). When you were talking about a CIS country, were you referring to Greece? That is exactly the percentage there....
2 Yurixx: about 10 years ago I came across a two- or three-volume bestselling book by a Christian preacher, who was famous in the States and supposedly converted a lot of people. I could only get through part of the first volume (there were a lot of clever letters). All the judgements and actions relating to Christ are dealt with there from a rational point of view, and he quite convincingly - from a rational point of view - proves each fact, substantiating it with historical evidence. Not convincing or converting. This goes to the question of the conservatism of the human psyche.
I am a concrete person. At PhIAN in the mid-1990s, I was a member of the commission that exposed: "time travelers" (a certain pretzel sent white mice either to the past or to the future; no, to himself); tough guys who violated various principles of thermodynamics for very solid dough; even more tough guys who developed superluminal spaceships based on waveguide and ondulator effects completely incomprehensible to them, etc. In the "fabulous years" at the physics department I almost had an axe to grind with some insensibly dumped on me by my own chief dolbo@boy, who had read "Geometrical Principles of Physics" by the venerable and infamous secondary school teacher M. Lobanovsky, and created on the basis of this opus his own theory of everything in the world. Now it reached the discussion and even experimental verification (sic!) of such "theories" in all seriousness the PhIAN I once respected. Then the "experimental confirmation" will be followed by inclusion of, for example, the "theory of torsional vortices" that offer prayers from a lighted candle directly into the ears of God, as a part of compulsory education disciplines, which attempt has already been undertaken in the Rostov State (!) University; however, it seems not to have reached the "experimental confirmation" there, but the priests, I suppose, paid handsomely. What have we come so far? Sad and vile, brethren...
Gravity known? No, although it seems to be well described. But description is not knowledge. Real knowledge is the knowledge of what a phenomenon is, and not just how it works (this is the paradigm of scientific knowledge, proclaimed by someone from the medieval greats - whether Galileo, or Spinoza, Descartes or anyone else). All attempts to understand gravity - from the unscientific, from the Greeks, continuing with Newton's law (more precisely, all four), then Einstein (who tried to know it) and ending with modern quantum theories - failed; all this is just a description, although everything is more accurate.
Moreover, electricity and such a phenomenon as electric current are known only from the side of "how it works" and then partially, and not "what it is" and what is the essence of this phenomenon. There is also a "magnetic" and "electric" "field". Although we use the results of "how it works" every day.
Touching at least marginally on the topic of the branch about natural intelligence in all manifestations of its attempts at cognition, you come (I to myself) to the conclusion that the "culprit" of everything is "the intellect itself", or rather the quality of thinking. A particularly noticeable problem is the discreteness of thinking, which, starting with mathematics (differentiation and integration), has reached our beloved Forex.)) Quite by accident I came across statements on this topic by "elder brothers". Let me quote an excerpt from the Appeal to Humanity given in the book by Nikolai Levashov with an almost similar title. If anyone is interested in another look at the universe, then at this address: www.levashov.info
Third Appeal to Humanity
Russian text. Given in 1929 from R.X.
The Coalition Detachment of Observers (C.O.N.) addresses the intelligent inhabitants of the Earth, the race that calls itself Humanity. Transmitted by intermediaries of Shambhala E.I. Roerich and N.K. Roerich.
This Appeal K.O.N. to earthlings is the third in a row, control. First Appeal K.O.N. handed over in 576 BC. residents of the largest city on Earth at that time, Amurajhapura . Second Appeal K.O.N. handed over in A.D. 711 residents of the then largest city on the American mainland, Tkaacetkoal . This Appeal K.O.N. to earthlings, basically identical to the first two in content, compiled in the main of the real languages of the Earth: in Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish.
The text of the Appeal has been edited, taking into account the current level of knowledge and misconceptions of the inhabitants of the Earth. The purpose of the Appeal is a proposal to hold negotiations in some future between representatives of Humanity and representatives of the Coalition on the subject of Humanity's entry into the Coalition. Since negotiations will be possible only after the fulfillment by mankind of certain preconditions (these conditions are given below).
Foreshadowed for their correct understanding, both by brief information of a cosmic nature, and by a comparative characteristic of the way of thinking of Mankind.
- one -
To date, Humanity has formed an idea of the Universe as a whole, somewhat more correct than during the first and second Appeals. Indeed, the Earth is not flat and is not at the center of the universe. She, like one of the planets, revolves around the sun. Indeed, the Sun is not located in the center of the Universe, but is one of the stars that make up the Galaxy. Indeed, the last of the energy transformations that support the activity of stars and, of course, the Sun and make it possible for life to exist on Earth and planets similar to it, is not the only one in the Universe. Otherwise, most cosmogonic conjectures are erroneous .
It is a big delusion that your scientists believe in the existence of some, even if they have not yet discovered, unshakable laws of the Universe and the constancy of world constants. So, the gravitational constant varies markedly within your solar system, not to mention larger scales. This led to significant errors in your determination of the size of the Galaxy and the distances to other galaxies, and caused the emergence of an erroneous theory of a closed Universe, and this year the theory of a receding Universe. The notion of the universal three-dimensionality of space, on which your cosmogonic notion is primarily based, is also erroneous.
The world is chaotic, there is nothing immutable in it, including dimensionality. The dimensionality of space in the Universe fluctuates, changes smoothly over a very wide range. The best condition for the emergence of organic life is the dimension of space equal to + π (3.14...). Significant deviations from this value have a detrimental effect on living Nature. At present, the neighborhood of the solar system has a dimension equal to +3.00017... The proximity of this number to the integer 3 (three) misled you.
In the vicinity of your cluster of Galaxies, a gravitational cyclone is drifting, having a dimension of -3.15, which can touch the edge of your Galaxy, destroying organic life on all planets on which protection measures will not be taken.
In particular, this circumstance makes it necessary for you to join the Coalition, in a short time, at the latest, after 6,500 Earth years, from the date of filing this Appeal, i.e., from 1929 AD, in order to so that the Coalition has time to help humanity prepare for protection from the cyclone
At present, there are about 220,000 (two hundred and twenty thousand) intelligent races in your galaxy considering joining the Coalition, including you. K.O.N. asks you not to consider the message as an attempt to influence your answer (information about the cyclone).
You are also mistaken in the question of the origin of life on Earth . The solar system arose from a dusty cloud, seeded by the construction teams of the Coalition in a region of the Universe that meets two conditions for the development and emergence of life. This region is quite remote from other stars and has a space dimension close to +π.
You are mistaken in likening a reasonable race to a living individual , representing in the near future the inevitable decrepitude and death of mankind. In an evolutionary process, of which you also have little idea, new species of living beings are descended from some old species, and it should be our concern that new species of intelligent races on Earth descend from yours. It is this consideration that must determine the strategy of an intelligent race.
Meanwhile, according to the observations of K.O.N., humanity is not at all guided by such or a similar strategy, presenting its development to chance and directing all its efforts to satisfy short-term needs. You should not think that your delusions are random, transient. They are inevitable and stable due to the specifics of your thinking, a brief analysis of which is devoted to the next chapter.
- 2 -
The thinking of living matter and the very existence of living matter have a common basis (we remind you that we are forced to express ourselves in your language, at your earthly level of knowledge, and because of this difficulty, certain incorrectness is sometimes inevitable, for example, in the previous phrase). Both thinking and existence are the result of a struggle with the entropy of logic.
Your thinking is also characterized by the search for logic, but only this ends the similarity of your thinking with the thinking characteristic of the vast majority of intelligent races that are members of the Coalition. This circumstance forces many participants in the K.O.N. doubt the legitimacy of referring to you as an intelligent race.
The basis of an extremely miserable personality is the concepts of "yes" and "no"
, as supposedly really existing and repeatedly manifested in the stepwise analysis of any complex process.At the same time, the number of steps in the analysis is, of course, and, most often, very small, even if you are investigating a fairly serious problem. The search for an answer comes down to choosing one of two, where two is the number of steps of possible solutions, while the most correct solution lies between them.
Your mathematicians will understand the following analogy: the solution to a problem that appears after solving particular yes-no questions is analogous to choosing one of the vertices of an N-dimensional cube, while the space of possible solutions consists of all points in an N-dimensional space.
To clarify, the real dimension of the solution space is most often determined by you incorrectly and very rarely is actually numerical. The current attitude towards you as an intelligent race is hampered by the following informational considerations.
As far as we can tell, any scientific or legal law, the meaning of any discovery or invention, the essence of any important thought, can be expressed in any phrase consisting of one hundred words from a dictionary of 50,000 words, including mathematical and other conventions. The total number of possible phrases in such a dictionary seems to be a very modest value, equal to 100.
If, however, only phrases that have only a diagnostic essence are left, i.e. defining meaning, then their number is reduced to 50. If we now discard phrases in which the words are grammatically correctly connected, but their content does not even have the appearance of meaning, then the number of meaningful phrases will be reduced to 25. In fact, sifting out false from true statements , by the most inflated estimates, gives a list of only 3-10 statements that can be made by you and would correspond to reality.
Meanwhile, we know representatives of the animal world on various planets capable of giving no less variety of unconditional reactions, quite adequate to reality, to various combinations of external stimuli, which, nevertheless, cannot be called reasonable. Yes, and you have such on the planet. Apparently, it would be more correct to consider humanity not a reasonable, but a potentially reasonable race , since the limited thinking, as you already understand, could not be innate in you.
By nature, the human brain is endowed with a thinking apparatus no less perfect than the thinking organs of representatives of many intelligent races in the Universe. The fact is that the development of your thinking from the very beginning went along an absolutely wrong path. At the beginning of the formation of the thinking process, the ability to think lies in the potential for the emergence of diverse reactions to the same information impact (see Fig. 1 ).
On this graph, hereinafter referred to as the logical foundation , the ordinate shows the strength or perceptibility of the reaction to the information impact, the abscissa (to the right) shows the acceptability, pleasantness of this reaction. And to the left of zero - its unacceptability, trouble. Like everything in nature that has not yet been processed by the activity of the mind that counteracts entropy, this graph is chaotic, the bursts of the curve on it are explained by purely physiological threshold effects.
The self-education of the mind consists not only in the construction of a complex system of logical thinking, but also in the processing and improvement of the foundation on which this system is based. As the example of numerous intelligent races shows, the most consistent with the requirements of successful knowledge of nature is the restructuring of the logical foundation according to the following scheme (see Fig . 2).
It should be noted that we know several races in the Universe that have a rectilinear structure of the logical foundation with branches extending to infinity (see Fig. 3 ). They make up their own association of races, they are not included in the Coalition, because. we could not find a common language with them.
The fundamental difference between their thinking and ours is that the area of the figure describing the foundation is finite for us, while for them it is infinite . We even find it difficult to imagine how they imagine our existence. We cannot understand what keeps them alive under the furious blows of positive and negative reactions going to infinity to one information impact.
The raw logical foundation of a person has two surges - to the right and left of zero, and several small ones. This fact once again shows that a person did not have, and there are no obstacles to building his logical foundation according to the scheme of continuous logic generally accepted in the Universe . Meanwhile, the human mind from the very beginning developed fundamentally erroneously, focused only on these powerful bursts and now has approximately the following form of a logical foundation (see Fig . 4).
These bursts, to the left and to the right of zero, are nothing but your “ yes ” and “ no ”, without which, in principle, you cannot imagine the phenomenon, although only force of habit prevents this. The absurd splitting of the logical foundation into the concepts of " yes " and " no " is the biggest obstacle to your knowledge of being, which today you have in a very rudimentary state.
Moreover, the theoretical development of logical thinking, undertaken by you, has slipped to the point that instead of correcting the error, it only aggravated it. Theoretical logical systems began to operate with refined concepts of "yes" - "no", excluding other options for logical decisions (see Fig . 5).
Discretization of logic forces you to extend the principle of discretization to everything that exists. So the natural series of numbers, which in essence is possible, but a very artificial mathematical trick that has very little in common with reality, has become for you the basis of those foundations of mathematics, with which the vast majority of mankind is only familiar.
You strive to count everything in a row and, at the same time, you are not able to accurately convey even information about the strength of the wind, expressing it in terms of “yes” and “no”, and besides, not hoping for the same reactions to such a message.
Arithmetic calculation has led you to the emergence of a puzzle caused not by the reality of the world, but by the primitiveness of your thinking. Meanwhile, you are wasting your energy trying to solve it and harmonize it with the picture of the world that appears to you, as a real riddle of Nature.
For example, the arrangement of rational and irrational numbers on a real scale. The discretization of logic forces you to break up the whole perceived into separate facts, phenomena, concepts, categories, drawing artificial lines between them.
The discretization of logic and the principles of counting force you to assume that the number of attributes of an object or event is finite and give a name to each of them. This gives rise to the highly dubious possibility of separating one attribute from the others—a device you call abstraction.
Moving up the steps of abstraction to more general features is considered by you to be the only way (and the only true one) that leads just in the opposite direction. It is no coincidence that all your abstract constructions, called philosophical systems, are mutually contradictory, although they are based on the same logic.
Step by step, plunging into darkness along the steps of abstraction, step by step through the connection with the real world, philosophical systems gradually lost their orientation and reached the point that in the impasse of this movement to the meaningless question of the primacy of matter or spirit, to "yes" and " no", forces you to always draw the boundaries of the same phenomena with different complexes of signs, objects, and, due to the weakness of this logic, entropy dominates in the process of drawing boundaries , and they are drawn very chaotically and, by the way, illogically, even from the point of view of your own logic , which is easily proved by the unequal arrangement of these boundaries, for example, in the conditions of human languages .
On the drawing of these chaotic boundaries is based your way of communication, which you consider to be one of the highest achievements of the human mind ...
The primitiveness of the language, as a way of exchanging information, is already shown by counting the number of meaningful correct phrases. Language,
in essence , not a way of transmitting information, but a way of narrowing it, and not an achievement of reason, but only a wretched temporary phenomenon in the early stages of human evolution.Considering language as the basis for the transmission of information and the carrier of information, you did not see how it influenced, in turn, your thinking, forcing it to more clearly adhere to the same principle of discreteness. Therefore, in particular, your ethics and aesthetics contain many paired concepts that are opposed as thesis and antithesis. Your public and personal morality is guided by rules that polarize the concepts of "love-hate", "good-evil", "life-death" and others, in the same spirit...
Even your own observation does not help you, that the meaning of these diametrical concepts is different for different peoples, and even it changes over time. And, now, considering yourself a highly civilized humanity , you will also determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant in a jury trial according to the principle: “yes” - “no”, which may be acceptable for the fate of one person, but cannot be acceptable for deciding the fates peoples.
But even there the same immutable principle “yes” or “no” prevails, which in essence has turned your entire planet into a huge prison for the peoples. Moreover, discrete logic allows you to entrust the fate of peoples and mankind to several individuals ... In international politics, such a concept is the concept of "state of peace" or "state of war" and the abrupt transition from one to another, inherent exclusively in such logic.
You consider this concept, without any reason, inherent in nature and implement it with truly insane determination. The recent world war and the imminent new world war testify that the rapid development of technical civilization has not made you wiser.
etc....
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.
Yurixx, and to classify an object as not existing is not nonsense - an object exists, and they say that it does not exist. To classify an object, it must be identified.... Just imagine - we identify objects: red, white, blue - and classify: nonexistent type 1, type 2, type 3. MARAZM.
The meaning of the phrase changes a lot because of the transposition, I agree with that, but the essence does not change.
What has the level of consciousness or technique got to do with it? The object is either there or it is not. Regardless of whether you are aware of its existence or not. That is the ideology of these, as I wrote, "gurus with limited reality" - the non-existence of objective truth, to protect their, also limited, world and to keep the same limited followers around them.