Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Rel's Philosophy of Trading Discussion 24 replies

While you wait: Trading philosophy (excluding trades) 5 replies

What's your basic logic/philosophy for trading in simple words? 6 replies

Simple Trading Philosophy - Daily Trend Following 5 replies

Positioning yourself for Success (Advanced Trading Philosophy) 28 replies

Attachments: Forex Trading Philosophy
Exit Attachments

Forex Trading Philosophy

Quoting Rufus
The similarities between a professional gambler and a professional trader can be seen or heard here.
Its also worth noting that there are several great traders and hedge fund managers who got their start in professional gambling. Edward Thorp comes to mind, he started off playing Blackjack and Roulette professionally.
hi,

i am a big fan of this thread.
yesterday, i found good video.
do we see reality as it is?

Inserted Video


thank you,
Attached Image
As Above, So Below
Quoting jimsterk
hi, i am a big fan of this thread. yesterday, i found good video. do we see reality as it is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY thank you,
great
As Above, So Below
Quoting tradeforlife
{quote} You are right CP.. I am a great follower of these three pioneers of Permaculture.. Even I have a plan (for future) to create a food forest based on permaculture concept... and I have been learning and watching lot of videos for last few years.... It's good to know that you too are a follower of permaculture....
Now you're talking. Like you I have loaded up on the video's relating to develop food forests and am hatching a plan for a land degraded farm in northern NSW, Australia. Bring on Sepp Holzer. Interestingly Bill Mollison was my next door neighbour in Tamania, Australia and I used to pinch his tomatoes and pears as a kid. What a fantastic logical principle he fathered!!!!!! Muchas respect to Bill.
What is the world made of?

The building blocks

Physicists have identified 13 building blocks that are the fundamental constituents of matter. Our everyday world is made of just three of these building blocks: the up quark, the down quark and the electron. This set of particles is all that's needed to make protons and neutrons and to form atoms and molecules. The electron neutrino, observed in the decay of other particles, completes the first set of four building blocks.
For some reason nature has elected to replicate this first generation of quarks and leptons to produce a total of six quarks and six leptons, with increasing mass. Like all quarks, the sixth quark, named top, is much smaller than a proton (in fact, no one knows how small quarks are), but the top is as heavy as a gold atom!
Although there are reasons to believe that there are no more sets of quarks and leptons, theorists speculate that there may be other types of building blocks, which may partly account for the dark matter implied by astrophysical observations. This poorly understood matter exerts gravitational forces and manipulates galaxies. It will take Earth-based accelerator experiments to identify its fabric.

The forces Scientists distinguish four elementary types of forces acting among particles: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational force.

  1. The strong force is responsible for quarks "sticking" together to form protons, neutrons and related particles.
  2. The electromagnetic force binds electrons to atomic nuclei (clusters of protons and neutrons) to form atoms.
  3. The weak force facilitates the decay of heavy particles into smaller siblings.
  4. The gravitational force acts between massive objects. Although it plays no role at the microscopic level, it is the dominant force in our everyday life and throughout the universe.

Particles transmit forces among each other by exchanging force-carrying particles called bosons. These force mediators carry discrete amounts of energy, called quanta, from one particle to another. You could think of the energy transfer due to boson exchange as something like the passing of a basketball between two players.
Each force has its own characteristic bosons:

 

  1. The gluon mediates the strong force; it "glues" quarks together.
  2. The photon carries the electromagnetic force; it also transmits light.
  3. The W and Z bosons represent the weak force; they introduce different types of decays.

Physicists expect that the gravitational force may also be associated with a boson particle. Named the graviton, this hypothetical boson is extremely hard to observe since, at the subatomic level, the gravitational force is many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three elementary forces.

The Higgs boson

The Higgs boson is a particle associated with the Higgs field, the mechanism through which elementary particles gain mass. Without the Higgs field, or something similar, atoms would not form, and there would be no chemistry, no biology and no life.
The Higgs field is like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe. Most of the known types of particles that travel through it stick to the molasses, which slows them down and makes them heavier. The Higgs boson is a particle that helps transmit the mass-giving Higgs force field, similar to the way a particle of light, the photon, transmits the electromagnetic field.
The ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland, announced the discovery of the Higgs particle in July 2012.

Antimatter
Although it is a staple of science fiction, antimatter is as real as matter. For every particle, physicists have discovered a corresponding antiparticle, which looks and behaves in almost the same way. Antiparticles, though, have the opposite properties of their corresponding particles. An antiproton, for example, has a negative electric charge while a proton is positively charged.
Physicists call the theoretical framework that describes the interactions between elementary building blocks (quarks and leptons) and the force carriers (bosons) the Standard Model. Gravity is not yet part of this framework, and a central question of 21st-century particle physics is the search for a quantum formulation of gravity that could be included in the Standard Model. Physicists think it is possible to describe all forces with a Grand Unified Theory.

As Above, So Below
  • Post #267
  • Quote
  • Edited Oct 8, 2015 12:14am Oct 7, 2015 11:15pm | Edited Oct 8, 2015 12:14am
Quoting tashkent
What is the world made of? The building blocks Physicists have identified 13 building blocks that are the fundamental constituents of matter.
I think you can go deeper that any fundamental constituent and replace this with 'process'. This is where classical notions of 'things' in a system such as billard balls are replaced by notions of system 'process'. Ultimately as we probe further and further into the microrealm, we reach a limit (the planck scale) where isolated 'things' are replaced by probability descriptions of process. We of course experience a classical reality as we 'exist' in a classical system which comes replete with laws that tell those things how to behave. If we could adopt 'quantum glasses' our perspective of reality would be counterintuitive in nature where the 'connectedness of those things' would replace 'it' with a process and we then see that it is the connections themselves that are manifested as the laws we experience classically.

For example 98% of mass associated with 'normal matter' or that which is 'observable' is associated with the strong force between quarks and their force carriers 'gluons'. It is quark confinement (or process) that creates 'mass' and not the properties of the components themselves.

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) describe how gluons bind quarks together in neutral groups of three to form the proton and neutron. Quarks come in three colours (possible charges) where if you combine all three, the combination cancels the net charge. The reason for this requirement is that the gluon recognises a quark by its colour charge. Gluons themselves carry a charge and their job is to transmit a sticky force (the strong force) to quarks. So when quarks assemble in groups of three each with a different colour charge to cancel the charge, the gluon is no longer attarcted to the quarks but are attracted to themselves by virtue of their colour charge creating complex structures that confine the region surrounding the quark triplet. Imprisoned in this triplicate structure, they form protons and neutrons and if it weren't for the vacuum, atoms would simply fall apart. The force of the virtual gluon field restrains the quarks movement and if you try to grab an isolated quark and move it, it wouldn't budge giving mass to the arrangement.

To set the quarks free you need to 'melt' the vacuum which can only be achieved at very high energies (say in colliders) and what is found at these extreme high energy conditions is that the seething activity associated with the vacuum at lower temperatures disappears and we achieve a quark qluon plasma which is symmetric and undifferentiated in nature and the quarks and gluons move around in a coherent way unlike what was previously envisioned.

The vacuum therefore seems to be involved (by confinement) in giving material substance to structure. In the example above, it gives mass to the arrangement. In QCD, quite clearly that which was thought of as 'nothing' (the vacuum) clearly is a 'something'. Restructuring the vacuum gives rise to the majority of ordinary matter in our classical universe.

A prominent physicist Frank Wilczeck describes how spontaneous symmetry breaking results in an array of equally valid vacuum states for a single, unique higher energy state. The most symmetric vacuum state being unstable ( a state devoid of particles and background fields). A second lower energy state is available which is a vacuum state in which background fields permeate space but with the associated transition to this state, energy is released that is sufficient for the purposes of creating particles. Quark-gluon plasma provides evidence at least that the vacuum did start out more symmetric. If you continue to achieve higher energies, you ultimately come to more symmetric and simpler conditions as opposed to more chaotic systems.

The description of process above is only one example in physics where you start to question whether or not there is something fundamental at the root of it all.

Even Gauge theories themselves which account for the 4 forces you describe including the Higgs field, ultimately demonstrate that a force is an illusion and simply the necessary counterbalancing amount necessary to 'account' for a particular observers perspective in spacetime.

The process of 'unification' which has been going on in science for years is converging to simpler and simpler fundamental principles. Every time we think we are near to discovering a fundamental level, another observation that falsifies the theory sends the contemporary popular theory to the dustbin and we find once again a deeper layer of enquiry which applies to a broader domain. Where does it end. Already we are acknowledging that is is not 'things' that matter but 'process', so ultimately we have to ask how did this process start from a purported 'nothing' which lies at the heart of the dillema?
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} I think you can go deeper that any fundamental constituent and replace this with 'process'... Already we are acknowledging that is is not 'things' that matter but 'process', so ultimately we have to ask how did this process start from a purported 'nothing' which lies at the heart of the dillema?
Quantum physics absolutely amazes me... even though I do not understand much from it, every time I read something, I feel that this field is more about philosophy than science in our understanding.
the "things" as we know are actually made of empty space, or at least of %99.99999999999..... of the matter is empty. Basically anything material, stars, oceans, biological beings are actually made of nothing (vacuum). On the other hand, vacuum is not really an empty space, because it consists some"thing" called quark gluon fluctuations. My conclusion from all this is that "nothing" does not exist. There is no real emptiness or real vacuum in the universe. There is always some"thing" behind every"thing" and there is no such thing as "fundamental particle", universe is a fractual-holographic continuum.
One of the reasons I wanted to read about the quantum physics was to research a phrase "before the heavens and earths created, God's throne was upon fluid". This lead me to information about quark gluon plasma, the fluid state of the universe within nanoseconds after the Big Bang. This plasma state could be reached at above 4 trillion degrees Kelvin.
Meanwhile, there are a few things which resonate with trading, like price is made of up and down ticks (like quarks) and travels in a space made of orders (Higgs fields). These orders (Higgs boson) give the ticks (quarks) mass/volume. More ticks hit the orders, more the mass is. Essentially, a tick is an expression of something abstract, intangible called "value", which appears in our screens as numbers. It is that "value" that drives the markets. If we ask what the "value" is, that will become a topic of fractual-holographic continuum
As Above, So Below
Quoting tashkent
{quote} Quantum physics absolutely amazes me... even though I do not understand much from it, every time I read something, I feel that this field is more about philosophy than science in our understanding. the "things" as we know are actually made of empty space, or at least of %99.99999999999..... of the matter is empty. Basically anything material, stars, oceans, biological beings are actually made of nothing (vacuum). On the other hand, vacuum is not really an empty space, because it consists some"thing" called quark gluon fluctuations. My conclusion...
You are spot on Tash QM is a fascinating arena that is so exotic it appears alien to us given our very limited domain in which we experience things. Fortunately we come equipped with a brain and the ability to project mathematics into unobservable areas which provides hope that one day, we will actually be able to better understand it without every actually seeing it in action. We are only privy to it's impact or 'trace' left in this classical world just as a price chart leaves a trace of behaviour of it's market participants. While QM may not be necessary to understanding market behaviour albeit it that it fundamentally lies at the bottom of all 'things', it is symptomatic of how all complex systems operate. We must be able to examine the 'things' in the context of the entire system to make sense of it. Only then do we have a hope of ever actually understanding it.

We owe such a debt to Einstein and some of the clan such as Schrodinger, Bohm, Feynman, Wheeler, Hawking et al who were responsible for taking our 'blinkers' off and forcing us to assess a system not in terms of the things we see, but the relationships between the things we see. Netownianism was such a Dogma that it was very hard to overturn. Einstein was of course the father of the relativity movement and the QM movement and set the ball rolling with his 'supernatural insights' but we still see today a retisence by the practioners to attempt to understand them. They simply shutup and calculate with the knowledge that the outcome will simply work as opposed to attempting to understand 'how it works'. This is just sooooo disappointing given the legacy we have been granted.

There are hints however that a resolution is quickly coming in regards to a merging of General relativity (GR) and QM but it is going to force us into very exotic lands and challenge our beliefes in what we understand as our universe. It is quickly extending into previously deep philosophical territory but as Wheeler said, "it's just too important to leave alone in the hands of philosophers".

The contemporary view of the Standard Model of Cosmology and it's baggage regarding the initial conditions (the singularity), inflation (expansion) and an accelerating universe are now being seriously challenged by cutting edge physics. What was once thought of 'nothing' clearly is a 'something' but just in a different form which is a far better explanation for attempting to understand the 'how and why of our universe?' What was once thought as a single shared universe and then a multi-verse is now turning to a position where an observer occupies their own universe and shares portions of it with another observers universe. Perhaps we are all gods of our own universe? Interestingly what was previously thought of as blunders of Einsteins in relation to determinism and an eternal universe now seems to be coming back to bite everyone on the arse. What a thinker he was.........simply because he challenged orthodoxy and had the cohonas to investigate it on his own terms. A stunning testament to human endeavour.
Quoting tashkent
{quote} Meanwhile, there are a few things which resonate with trading, like price is made of up and down ticks (like quarks) and travels in a space made of orders (Higgs fields). These orders (Higgs boson) give the ticks (quarks) mass/volume. More ticks hit the orders, more the mass is. Essentially, a tick is an expression of something abstract, intangible called "value", which appears in our screens as numbers. It is that "value" that drives the markets. If we ask what the "value" is, that will become a topic of fractual-holographic continuum ...
You are quite right about this of course. We are limited to view this market in the terms we map it's outcome (namely a price chart) but the 'explicit' outcome (the chart) is based on 'hidden (implicit) interactions' of market participants in terms of ticks, their value, timing and their volume. I don't think we need to go quantum with this to understand the mechanics but we probably do need to go quantum if we want to understand the motivation for the underlying market participant behaviour. In any event, history shows time and time again that it is best to keep an open mind in this regard as there is no such things as 'fact' or 'truth' in reality or science, only falsifiable models that attempt to explain the particular features of the particular system domain they are investigating. As with all human constructs, models are only as good as they persist and a single empirical observation that falsifies them can send them reeling into the dustbin.

I suppose that our extent of enquiry on how deep we want to or need to go depends on our objectives. If that objective is simply 'to make money in a sustainable manner' then you may not need to go the whole way but certainly it helps to review what is presented to us (such as price charts) in a different way such as that reflected in AlphaOmega's thread or delve into a bit of mathematics such as Fourier Transforms and Fractal Fourier representations to get additional info that might help our cause. Having a different perspective to things really helps understanding so my advice to any investigator is attack the problem from all possible angles.....hence the need for an open mind.
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} You are spot on Tash QM is a fascinating arena that is so exotic it appears alien to us given our very limited domain in which we experience things. Fortunately we come equipped with a brain and the ability to project mathematics into unobservable areas which provides hope that one day, we will actually be able to better understand it without every actually seeing it in action. We are only privy to it's impact or 'trace' left in this classical world just as a price chart leaves a trace of behaviour of it's market participants. While QM...
I would also add to Non-Standard Cosmology the theory of electromagnetic universe and plasma universe. btw do not forget about Nicola Tesla and his E=TC2 where T is Time (or delta t), which also can be considered a form of compressed energy...
I am keen to think that there might exist infinite number of universes and their eternity. what exist will never perish. only change of form or structure.
what you have written about the multi-universes or observer's universe is a deep topic and i am not at the level of discussing them but will gladly read your insights
As Above, So Below
"People see what they wanna see, hear what they wanna hear, and believe what they wanna believe"

As im still trying not to
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} You are quite right about this of course. We are limited to view this market in the terms we map it's outcome (namely a price chart) but the 'explicit' outcome (the chart) is based on 'hidden (implicit) interactions' of market participants in terms of ticks, their value, timing and their volume. I don't think we need to go quantum with this to understand the mechanics but we probably do need to go quantum if we want to understand the motivation for the underlying market participant behaviour. In any event, history shows time and time again...
i just wrote a few similarities between trading and the topic we were discussing, nothing serious though. however, deeper research may offer some handful ideas. I really do not look at trading as something complex. There are a few main simple rules which summarize the general philosophy of trading and then depending on the situation sub rules can be subtracted if necessary but that is it. the market is continuously changing environment, the more we tweak the system with excessive set of rules to fit to the current market condition the more chance of failure. I think, the system needs to be little loose so it can adapt to the changing conditions. Basically i am fond of simplicity when comes to trading
As Above, So Below
Quoting tashkent
{quote} what you have written about the multi-universes or observer's universe is a deep topic and i am not at the level of discussing them but will gladly read your insights
Crumbs Tash.....I wouldn't know where to start or to finish as it necessitates a journey through history that commences when life first emerged in the Cosmos to a point now where it is questionning it's role in it. What is clear in this journey is that our understanding grows when we take the blinkers off and overcome our innate biases and take the time to peer deeply into our universe and into ourselves.

At the foundation of our interpretation lies information that is made available to us and this is the way, we as humans 'interpret' that portion that is made available to us, but at the same time we don't expend the necessary effort to interpret what lies deep within ourselves as this might indeed fill the gaps to the remaining questions about the universe. We might find for example that the answers have been there all along handed down by our philosophers, but our innate biases simply hide that which is obvious. If we assessed our own thoughts for coherence, then this would be the best gauge of whether or not we truly understood ourselves.

I am having a creck at Western culture here and it's derision of Eastern belief systems and viewpoints where clearly we have a lot to learn.

As a consequence of this system seperation where the universe is that which is 'external to us, we feel seperated from this universe and 'special' as opposed to a position that accepts we are just a part of a greater whole. This is a dillema passed down by our Western notions of 'power' and 'control' that has blinded and indoctrinated us. Unfortunately this 'deep pit of despair' that we find ourselves in is now challenging our 'existence' on this beautiful planet and is a symptom of our beliefs and ideology of 'control and influence' that has been ingrained in us. It has come from the 'reductionist' way we do science where we observe from outside the system as opposed to the rightful stance of looking from inside out. We are participants of a system, nothing more and nothing less. The more we accept this view and elimiminate our 'special stance' in this universe the deeper we will be able to go in our understanding of this universe.......hence my avatar 'Copernicus' which is having a subtle crack at Western Dogma. :-)

If we can come to grips with this universe from the correct perspective then our need for a controlling influence or deity and it's delegation of powers to kings and presidents and prime ministers is no more. We are masters of our own destiny and as such need to reflect that in our ideology and belief systems and as a result take charge and become morally responsible and ethical universal citizens and use that brain of ours for the benefit of the entire system and not our own parochial patch.

If we can remove those blinkers of ours and see the universe for what it is as opposed to what we think it is, then science will be able to progress from the stalemate it has currently found itself in between the macro scale (relativity) and the microscale (QM). Fortunately signs are afoot that this broad acceptance is finally sinking in where unification exists when we can place the two theories on the same footing, namely a perspective or point of view taken from inside out. We will always be limited to only a portion of that which is available and that necessarily will 'shape' the way we perceive things, however underlying all these different points of view is a unity or a wholeness. Namely the entire system within which we reside.

I will leave it there Tash as it is turning into a rant as opposed to an opinion. :-)
Quoting tashkent
Let's look at the famous Elliott Wave theory interpretation.
Philosophy - not an exact science. Here we can to discuss the wave theory for a long time. But the point is only that there is no panacea. All works in one degree or another as well as not works. The high probability you'll earn if your balance allows it. Can you patiently wait for the market will turn in your favor. Again, how much you want to earn% per year. Be a leader, think like a leader. Success in trading.
Quoting BalenC
{quote} Philosophy - not an exact science. Here we can to discuss the wave theory for a long time. But the point is only that there is no panacea. All works in one degree or another as well as not works. The high probability you'll earn if your balance allows it. Can you patiently wait for the market will turn in your favor. Again, how much you want to earn% per year. Be a leader, think like a leader. Success in trading.
I do not remember saying philosophy is science or vice versa
However philosophy (or believe, perception or whatever name you want to give it) is the essence of any existing system, just like the essence of the matter is intangible/non-material.
wave theory is just a theory among many other theories.
"All works in one degree or another as well as not works" - this is what i stated in the very first post of this thread.
And you can lose everything waiting patiently for the market to turn in your favor. Patiently waiting is not a solution.
Eagerness to earn specific % per a specific period will not help you to success, this just does not make sense.
Being a leader or thinking like leader has nothing to do with trading, if there is something, this kind of mindset only helps to kill someone as a trader.
I am here for long enough to learn that being a humble follower is the bridge to success.
I understand if things I said are totally opposite to your thoughts and this is perfectly fine. We are all learning. Absolutes do not exist and everything is relative.
As Above, So Below
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} Crumbs Tash.....I wouldn't know where to start or to finish as it necessitates a journey through history that commences when life first emerged in the Cosmos to a point now where it is questionning it's role in it. What is clear in this journey is that our understanding grows when we take the blinkers off and overcome our innate biases and take the time to peer deeply into our universe and into ourselves. At the foundation of our interpretation lies information that is made available to us and this is the way, we as humans 'interpret' that...
Western school of thought and Eastern belief systems are two wings of one quest - search for truth. West has more scientific approach and East has more philosophical understanding of everything surrounding. Absolutely agree with you on the necessity for unification of the two schools and I think fractal holographic universe theory is one of the attempts in this direction.
As Above, So Below
Quoting tashkent
{quote} I do not remember saying philosophy is science or vice versa However philosophy (or believe, perception or whatever name you want to give it) is the essence of any existing system, just like the essence of the matter is intangible/non-material. wave theory is just a theory among many other theories. "All works in one degree or another as well as not works" - this is what i stated in the very first post of this thread. And you can lose everything waiting patiently for the market to turn in your favor. Patiently waiting is not a solution....
Fair enough, but I mean, that each trader's own philosophy and understanding of how and why it works. Only his fears and the amount of deposit makes him make the wrong decisions.
The learn of technical analysis is great help. Adds confidence in the correctness of the choice this or that strategy. With confidence comes peace of mind and success, I believe in it.
Quoting tashkent
{quote} Western school of thought and Eastern belief systems are two wings of one quest - search for truth. West has more scientific approach and East has more philosophical understanding of everything surrounding. Absolutely agree with you on the necessity for unification of the two schools and I think fractal holographic universe theory is one of the attempts in this direction.
You will be interested in this Tash regarding Bohm's views of thought (if you haven't already looked into David Bohm).

Interestingly Bohm's viewpoints culminated like yours in a 'holographic viewpoint of this universe) 30 years prior to String Theories current reincarnated form via Leonard Susskind et al .... as depicting a duality between what lies on a surface boundary and what we observe as 'our universe' being the projection of information on this boundary into our 3D and 1T context.
Where this externalised viewpoint of this universe creates self awareness and associated biased baggage

Here is an opinion of how emergent complexity of a system results in universal 'intelligence' being transferred to and distilled into the individual leading to creeping harmful biases such as a concept of 'self' and 'ego' arsing from a perception of system seperation. This viewpoint demonstrates how biases manifest from 'an external perception' of our universe and why we rarely examine our own role in interacting with this universe.

We are not passive observers but active participants in this universe. Consciousness can be dangerous as it artificially seperates us from the system and makes us believe that we are mere observers as opposed to being participants. We see the world as a collection of independent things that have no connection to ourselves. It divorces responsibilities away from 'self' towards others or the external surrounds and therein lies the root of the problem.... in that this problem manifests in symptoms that are incoherent in nature such as how our alienation compels us to feel obliged to 'control' it as opposed to accept it thereby creating so many problems that David Bohm (in the prior post) discusses.

The following opinion challenges the viewpoint that our brain 'knows' all and focuses on it's ability to deceive and why we need to clearly step outside our own biased thoughts and interrogate the way we think. The basis of this viewpoint is one of emergent complexity where a notion of self is associated with centralised processing of decentralised information about the environment surrounding an organism leading to a notion of self arising from this analysis. 'Self' being that region which is not being measured and 'the environment' being that region which is being measured.

Imagine a simple organism like a single cell that has say one sensory receptor such as a chemoreceptor that is used by the cell as a basis to find it's food. The single chemoreceptor is located somewhere in the cell and is directed externally away from the cell itself. The chemoreceptor measures the environment and dependent on the result being a 'yes' or no', the cell responds to the result with a motile response to the food source. At this point in time, the simplicity of the response serves to create a notion that there is food external to the receptor worth pursuing for survival purposes of the cell, but at this primitive stage, the relationship between the measurement underaken and the analysis of this measurement does not create a notion of 'self' for the simple organism (as being physically seperated from the enviornment) but does pave the way for this to unfold with emergent complexity.

Now imagine we have a multi-cellullar organism where each cell has a chemoreceptor (externally oriented) that acts in the same way plus a centralised processor that receives these decentralised inputs and co-ordinates a holistic behavioural response for the entire cellular arrangement. What this centralised processing unit is doing is receiving this de-centralised stimuli from physical locations of the collective arrangement itself that help to delineate the boundary of an organism and then assessing the information received about the external enviornment using the location of it's chemoreceptors as guidance to elicit a co-ordinated motile response. While the primary objective is survival of the entire cellular composite, the means to which this is achieved requires that the multi-cellular organism knows it's physical boundaries in relation to the external environment and 'bingo' a rudimentary notion of self is borne being the entire composite and not just the individual receptor. The entire composite being the region that is interior to the external receptors which is not being measured. The measurement now is asymmetrically orientated to the external environment serving to seperate that which is 'it' and that which is external to 'it'.

Now let's add more external uni-directional receptors of different types (chemoreceptors, thermoreceptors, touch receptors ete. etc. etc) that are all configured through evolutionary adaption to aid survival through more complex processing by a centralised processor of the environment surrounding the organism itself (exterior) to the location of the receptors. It would be an evolutionary advantage if a notion of self was further amplified to facilitate coordinated action and behaviour and hence this complex centralised processing of a variety of different stimuli would ultimately manifest itself in full blown self-awareness despite the ultimate objective for the organism being survival.

The feedback loop between measurements taken by an array of sensors maps the location of the food source with respect to the centralised processing unit and the associated coordinated response by the processor if favourable to the organism's survival amplifies or reinforces the feedback loop creating a notion of 'self' in the centralised processing unit (ultimately being the brain or the regulator of the multi-cellular assembly) .

Have you ever wondered why the brain has no pain receptors itself? It is responsible for regulating the assembly that sits outside itself and the inclusion of sensory receptors in the brain would be self-referential and counter-productive for the organisms survival.

What the above viewpoint illustrates is a possible root cause for the concept of 'self' that is sufficient to get the ball rolling before we add layers of complexity (emergent complexity) that expand this primitive root of self-identity into other aspects of consciousness (higher order manifestations such as ego, greed, love etc which all relate to a comparative reference against self-measure), all borne from a primeval ulterior motive associated with survival but so far departed that we don't recognise it. For example our decision to live in social groups and the way we develop interpersonal relations etc. ultimately may be related back to this primitive notion.

What we need to understand here is that 'intelligence' in the rudimentary form of 'information' was always present in this universe albeit in a very dilute form (conservation of information), but through evolution we have concentrated and magnified this sentient universal presence in the human form through emergent complexity. The information extracted from the external environment (which was always there) has now been further 'distilled' into the human brain, so we are very much part of our universe and have not 'magically' arrived at intelligence through divine intervention.

The emergent hypothesis proposed here suggests that at this stage we just cannot fathom the incredible complexity of information processing that goes on in the brain and we are just literally chipping away at the tip of the iceberg. While there are close parrallels between what I am staying and artifical intelligence (AI), the immense complexity of the brain should not be underestimated and we are light years away from achieving 'self-awareness' with our machines which may in fact be a very 'bad' thing to attempt given the biases that we must currently face ourselves. However clearly our trust in our brain and it's thought processes needs to be closely examined as our perceptions (that received from our enviornment) shape our thoughts and behaviours.

It is essential that all thought processes are critically examined to avoid the potential for 'creeping bias'. If you don't think that your brain makes sh$t up, then have a look at this to damage your 'ego'.
0 traders viewing now