Very interesting post and study, Jack. Several traders talk to me about having this feel of inference for the market, and it is something I hope I may some day be able to have as well.
I would like to ask you about what you know or believe to be the nature of inference and its attainment (I especially found the inference through sleeping interesting) if you are willing to share.
I don't believe I can reflect on these psychologies personally, however; I am only familiar with more simple theories and applications.
Thanks for the insight as well.
Quote from stefan_777:
Greg, philosophers personally come to conclusions all the time, and they argue with eachother all the time.
But if philosophy wasn't contentious, there wouldn't be any such thing, because the questions it addresses would already be answered, the truth would be obvious, and there would be no need to formulate arguments.
Since that will never happen, just like in other disciplines, coming to a unified conclusion is irrelevant.
I agree with you almost completely, Stefan. My point is that I believe philosophy is the pursuit to reason unattainable knowledge, which is logic and understanding at its purest and most noble forms.
The sharing of philosophy should be the sharing and flow of ideas in the sense.
Philosophical arguments serve great purposes in that they add, challenge, and qualify to the wealth of human reasoning, and yet it completely entirely destroys it.
The arguments in philosophy are usually naive, where views are defended for pride and nothing else. People that believe in their faith will scrutinize and pick out some minor detail in a theory to assist in justifying their own beliefs rather than question them. If an argument is not conducted for these reasons, very few actually have a legitimate point, simply because most people are not rational or wise enough to construct one on their own.
In essence, I believe the personal practice of philosophy and collecting philosophical ideas is absolutely beautiful, but the distractions of those who cannot understand nor practice it correctly, as well as those who can do this but succumb to the temptations of human pride and contentiousness and ambition makes the community itself a large pile of shit.
The rational evaluations, qualifications, and refutes of theories serves a good purpose of greater information for future generations, but at the time just creates more nonsense; it is like listening to two people on CNBC having a heated squabble on why this will happen and the next why it won't; there are important tidbits, but both of them are fools and 90% or more of what they say is shit. The wise one sits patiently, collects ideas, and perhaps comes to the conclusion of what is more or less likely with an open mind to being wrong.
The ideal philosopher should never come to a conclusion on the unknown besides to attempt to decide which situations are more or less likely, whilst supporting and refuting all sides of the arguments at all times.
At this point I must admit that I have kind of lost sight of my point and also have the "I feel a lot better now" feeling of contentiousness, so in essence I am no more an ideal philosopher than anyone else, and have plenty of work left to do. This is why I decided not to write philosophy anymore; I don't agree with the structure of the philosophical community, nor am I any different than the rest of them.
I just have individual progress to make.
