>If you wish, consider learning about how a human works or >doesn't work.
Don't worry for that, I have in fact advised to read this book
A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination
by Gerald M. Edelman (Nobel Prize)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/046...dir/102-0867256-3634532?v=look-inside&s=books
which deals much with conciousness and learning
>Once you do, then you can understand what is necessary for a >person to do to get to a place to make money efficiently.
But I'm not really dealing here with learning methods but with the
ESSENCE of KNOWLEDGE which is a totally different subject.
>The four things you listed, are not very important relative to >transference of efficient paradigms from one person to another >to be "enabling".
The four things I listed is not from me but from the link I refered to which belongs to a firm that have developped new compression algorithm based upon that.
>With respect to trading, most people go through a process from >the time they begin to when they quit, that is simply a totally >dissabling process from which they cannot, by just personal >effort, recover.
I will profit here to return to the subject I am concerned with here: what is knowledge. As said in the ontology definition "Being able to standardize the definition of real-world concepts becomes very powerful as you begin to investigate knowledge that spans across multiple domains." most people think that a definition is something that is obvious whereas it is not and being able to define something precisely is in fact a long process.
I have already given the example of temperature in science (see about phlogistic
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=400738&highlight=phlogistic#post400738) but in trading this is obvious : term as fuzzy as consolidation, pullback etc. (see for example the question asked "Are there pullback systems that backtest well"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28858&perpage=6&pagenumber=5)causes problem because they are defined conceptually but not OPERATIONALLY. And since I followed the spirit of Walter Shewart the father of Statistical Process Control I know how important it is to have an OPERATIONAL definition and not only a conceptual definition. All my effort around my model is to be able now to create such OPERATIONAL definitions.
With the coming of so called semantic web, it is funny that such a thing which seems philosophical before now enters the field of technology, notably with XML and RDF by the W3C comitee see
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28344&perpage=6&pagenumber=2
<IMG SRC=http://www.semaview.com/img/rdfxml_web.gif>
Quote from Grob109:
If you wish, consider learning about how a human works or doesn't work.
Once you do, then you can understand what is necessary for a person to do to get to a place to make money efficiently.
The four things you listed, are not very important relative to transference of efficient paradigms from one person to another to be "enabling".
With respect to trading, most people go through a process from the time they begin to when they quit, that is simply a totally dissabling process from which they cannot, by just personal effort, recover.
Think very thoroughly about the descriptions people give here and elsewhere when they describe the common set of events before, during and after "busting out".
What occurs to a human that has incapacitated himself by repeated punishment. ("doing wrong" in a hostile climate). He takes a break as a consequence of personal collapse. What was destroyed by this sequencial process?
Draw a diagram of the input to output path. Be sure to show the ancillary streams of lateral support mechanisms that maintain the I/O process. Be sure to show all the non centralized "information storage areas" and especially how they are tapped for info and how they are maintained and updated.
Defining learning is not an easy task. You will easily see at some point why learning becomes impossible after failure reaches a "critical" value long before it becomes dominant.
The recent Nobel Prze conclusions demonstrate abundantly that the mode of financial investment by participants is beyond the stage where learning is still possible. How could such "conditioning" become the mode?