The whole issue of my muse is all certainly digested and in the Past. 14 years from start to finish - I'm clearly a slow learner; I hope the other issues in this blog resolve more quickly!
Put very simply the actual issue was that of self - which i was deeply aware of at the time but lacked perspective. I valued my muse a lot (more than anyone else) and certainly sex with her was more valuable than anyone else. She on the other hand did not share either this value of sex or herself. Now at the time I could take that three ways: either I was wrong and she was not valuable (as a friend said about herm as he didn't consider her worthwhile), or she was wrong and she was valuable, or thirdly we were both wrong and right and depending on how you looked at her she was valuable or not valuable. Certainly the third is correct. For example not everyone would find her attractive, and more obviously not everyone would be sexually attracted for example other women.
The problem then lay in my bias to my own conditions. I found her attractive, the most attractive, and it was my existence stuck on that side of the argument that I found so difficult. I now don't see her as so valuable so I haven't resolved the issue of self, but I am able to see her side of the argument now which is that she is just another girl looking for sexual thrills and why shouldn't she have them. But to see her side I have had to forget about my side.
What is ideal is to be able to switch between sides while they are prevalent and relevant. But to do this we need to understand and master ourselves.
This is the essence of the illusion of self and of attachment: the inability to switch between our own desires and attitudes and those of others. It implies that we remain ignorant to the fundamental reality that what we find ourselves desiring and attached to is not of our own choice: it is rather chosen by the situation we find ourself in; but this is chosen by our past actions - that is Karma. So when we see our own mind state and desires as the total product of our genes and experiences we then understand that we have as much "right" to it as anyone else, and also we understand that it is only relevent to our own genes and conditions. Now to deeply understand that means we can step outside the limitations of our conditions (by SRH that wisdom cannot be conditioned itself and must be un-conditioned [it is only the lack of wisdom that is conditioned - the onion skins of illusion that we must remove as it is often referred to]). Once we can step beyond our own limitations then we see how other people are trapped within their limitations and that inspires (1) compassion, (2) equnimity toward the interaction of our position and theirs, and (3) the loss of suffering.
That is the theory I'm still on the road of ending Dualism by weakening one side to see the other. The next step would be to desire again but not be attached to it, keeping equanimityand freedom as I go... dangerous... not ready yet.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Stock Market analysis update...
Here is the 1st attempt at implementing the IFS from that Chinese paper (which they misquoted from Barnsley)...
The paper fails to explain the importance of the "d" stretch parameters, and does not explain how they were discovered. I don't believe after searching that there is a set of "d" parameters that will recover the Shanghai stock trace as described in the paper. Is this another mistake in the paper, a failure on my behalf or deliberate fraud... don't know.
===
Rather than look at only the price some thought was given to the role of volume. The population of sellers and buyers in a market will change respectively in size and also in mean and standard deviation. This reasonably I assume does obey the normal distribution. Where the two curves over lap is where trading occurs. Large differences in mean will result in large shifts in price, with respective numbers of traders determining in whose favour the price goes, while large overlaps will result in large volumes of trades. Flattening standard deviations then are associated with large volumes, and different means correspond to price changes. Somehow deducing these parameters from the stock charts would be good insight into the markets...
===
Following the logic thought about the "stack price". The stack might be the pile of held stock. Some is for investment and will be held for a long time so is far down the stack, some is speculative and goes around quickly. Assuming that stock is traded only once a day then volume as a percentage of the total issued shares combined with the mid price of the day determines what the average holding of share holders is the next day, loosely called the volume weighted average price VWAP here.
It was thought the VWAP would give more information about the behaviour of investors than the chart price.
This is the number of days spent at each VWAP price for the BP-NYSE chart (prices are in 3dollars). There are very distinct prices to which the price returns and of interest (but not yet explored) is the fractal bifurcating peak in the middle. The whole peak is split into two in the same ratio as each prong is split into two. This is also a bifurcation tho no evidence for the Feigenbaum constant.
===
Again BP the frequency distribution of Volume and daily High-Low price on suitable X scales. Interesting how volumes and size of days range appear to obey the same law.
===
The Blue curve is the High/Low distribution the Magenta is the Poisson distribution. When have time it's another probability distribution search.
===
Conclusion still no decent attractors, or any real understanding of the stock market - 4 months coming up... should knock this on the head for a while... but give it 4 weeks more first.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Golden Rule
It's got a name...
Not read the page yet just blogging its existence. I wonder if it explains the reason why the Golden Rule is true... namely the contradiction of Self (SRH), the dialectic of Self/Other, and the nature of the Grand Illusion of Reality. Doesn't start well tho talking about "individual rights" which is a contradiction already.
Human v Machine: Watson
On the subject of machines taking over the last remaining jobs...
But the efficiency of the human brain won't prevent machines like Watson from encroaching on certain jobs, starting with call centers. First, these computers will grow dramatically more efficient. That's the nature of information technology. Not too long ago, generating the computing power in an iPhone also used to require a roomfull of hot machinery. The other point is this: While human brains are efficient, we consume a lot more energy than that single lightbulb. We drive cars, we heat and cool our houses, we eat food from all over the world. From a company's perspective, operating a human, at least in this country, costs tens of thousands of dollars a year. When it comes to efficiency, they'll be comparing the cost of the entire human being to Watson. We're far more than our magnificent brains, and we cost more, too.
Monday, 7 February 2011
Stock Analysis Notes
Change of direction (ironic ;-):
Measured the dimensions of some price series - using the counting boxes method (executed in Excel VBA):
FTSE 1.8241
BP 1.425
GKSR 1.1058
They are progressively less fractal.
Now for the FTSE and BP it seems that a velocity approach is not the most appropriate approach since dy/dx is not defined for fractals. While moving averages are appealing in watching trends: I wonder what theoretical foundation exists for their use now.
The shift in approach now (altho I will return to other approaches) is in search of attractors that drive stock charts.
===
This paper is exactly what I wanted to do all laid out tho I've not got the IFS to work yet:
===
From discussion board
-Business Forecasting: "moving average", exponential smoothing, dynamic regression, deseasonalization, ARIMA, autocorrelation, correlogram
-Spectral Analysis: "Fourier transform", FFT ("fast Fourier transform), DCT "discrete cosine transform", wavelet, coherence
-Digital Signal Processing: FIR ("finite impulse response"), IIR ("infinite impulse response"), Wiener
Of course, many other, more generic, techniques have been applied to time-series. I suggest an on-line search for terms like "fuzzy logic" or "neural network" in combination with time-series terms such as "forecast", "prediction" or "denoise".
Aristotle on Robots/Work
~ 322 B.C.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle writes...
“If every tool, when ordered, or even of its own accord, could do the work that befits it... then there would be no need either of apprentices for the master workers or of slaves for the lords.”
Except (as explored in depth in the blog) Aristotle misunderstood a very deep aspect of human Life - that society implies hierarchy. Robots (99.95% of work is done by machines) will never release us from employment because that is a hierarchical feature.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Here & There
After seeing Uranus last night for the first time and commenting on Facebook that I had now seen them all I was going to update with what a fraud I am since I have not yet seen Earth...
This irony commented on before (1st occurring to me as I looked at a holiday photo from the side of Ben Macdui mountain) that to see the here we have to be over there, is broadly explained by the SRH that we cannot have "self" knowledge.
I now totally concede to Hofstadters way of thinking. The world is fractal in nature infinitely twisting in through itself. What we think is here is really only visible to us when we are there. What is there is only visible because we are here: to understand what is There, we HAVE to be Here! There and Here are the essential poles of the mirror. M.C.Escher above has to paint a glass sphere in his hand to show himself what he looks like. The only other way is to have someone else paint him. It is a head-over-heels world. (I am writing bitty lines here to rapidly try to catch the general point). It is not a matter of finding a fixed "reality" or series of material building blocks but rather as Hofstadter argues the folding of the large scale into the small scale. What we look into become what we look at; what we look at becomes what we look into. Put more physically it is as though the doors that we pass through during our investigations becomes the things we are investigating and what we were investigating inside those rooms becomes the building where our science is done.
This kaleidoscopic world is all brought about because of the deep contradiction that "objective self" would bring about.
Materialism... again
Watching the BBC Horizon program on Pain last night I had two thoughts. Firstly the issue of the Sciences great achievements and secondly the issue of materialism. A quote from the discussion board at http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/584583-my-daughter-has-made-me-realise:
My name is Mark and my beloved daughter's name is Sophie-May. Almost 6 years ago she was born with pontocerebellar hypoplasia type 6 caused by the RARS 2 gene fault. This is a progressive metabolic disorder which is very rare: as far as her geneticist knows, there have only been 4 other children born with the condition and all sadly passed away before they reached 18 months.
Sophie is severely brain damaged and depends on my wife Kelly and me for her daily care. Like I said, it is a progressive neurological disorder so things will get worse. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that Sophie will be 6 in May and she wouldn't have got this far if it weren't for her geneticist who helped in discovering her diagnosis, her paediatrician for his medical knowledge and care, the ear nose and throat surgeon at Bristol Children's Hospital for my daughter's tracheostomy to enable her to breathe, the metabolic specialists, physiotherapists, homecare nurses, etc etc. I could go on but you get the picture.
I used to go to the church on the camp where I work (I'm in the Royal Marines) but since watching The God Delusion, Enemies of Reason and The Genius of Charles Darwin plus reading The God Delusion, I've realised that going to that church, all the praying, the begging really, never did anything to help my daughter. I'm an atheist now because I know that religion has never played a part in keeping my daughter alive.
I'm so humbled by the work her medical team do, it has made religion seem petty by comparison. Please tell me what you think, thanks very much!
This same thought came to me watching the program on Pain. There is simply no substitute for clear investigation of phenomena. I used to argue in the Mahayana Buddhist Temple that if you wish to help people then get a profession; what can a monk actually do to help in say medicine? "Helping" is a very complex issue.
But the problem as always is a mismatch of scale. You can't discuss this with people like Mark (above) this because they are utterly devoted to the immediate small scale. The story of Buddha's approach to death is revealing here. A woman who had lost her daughter cam to him pleading for some magic. Buddha said he would revive the child but only after she had been into the village and found a house that had not been touched by death. She went from door to door discovering as she went that everybody has been touched by death. When she returned she understood it was not death she was grieving but the loss of "her" daughter. This is why we can watch the news day of day and see people dying and it mean very little to us, that is until it happens to us! This is where Mark above is. However that said one cannot, and shouldn't, dismiss the wonderful work done by the researchers, it is just we must put it in perspective to see the real nature of the world. Technological science shouldn't become a prop to maintain our fantasy land. It ought be pointed out here also that Jesus' miracles are perhaps more complex as well. After the feeding of the 7000 the disciples were talking amongst themselves and Jesus was quite abrupt with them saying "hadn't they understood yet". One wonders whether anyone really gets the Kingdom of Heaven and what Jesus was really trying to say.
And so to the second point. The Nature of Reality: Materialism. If I hear it enough I might start to believe it! Apparently Pain is created by the Brain: it is not "out there". This is the new religion almost and is branded across all science to do with human beings. It is not a bad place to start however, but it is only a start. For me the revelation was realising that colour was not "out-there". But there began a long investigation into what is "out-there". So lets list some suspects for "in here": pain, colours, emotions, feelings in general. The reason we conclude that they are "in-here" and not "out-there" is because there is variation between people's experiences (in-here) while there is only one "out-there" that we all agree on... (well that is one reason there are many).
So now what about tastes: sweet, sour, bitter, salt? There are four regions of the tongue that respond to these so we might argue it is more a feature of our tongue than anything "Out there". Chemical come with a variety of properties why should these 4 be so special? So taste, and we can add to that smell are "in here". So that leaves sound. We can see sound waves on an oscilloscope so we agree that pressure waves in air exist what we can question is the "tone" of these waves. IN the West we split the scale into 7 intervals, there are mathematical reasons for this but other cultures and animals don't and there is no reason to value these mathematical relations especially. So we can rapidly split the perceived phenomena into brain features and more abstract "real" features.
But what about movement. Surely movement is a profound fundamental, mathematical, feature of space-time and reality. A simple brain injury can destroy the sense of movement. I remember an interview with one such woman who described that crossing the road was very difficult because cars would be stationary and then suddenly be right up next to her without moving. We are beginning to run out of "real" things, and everything seems "in here".
So to reverse the process... a quick reductio-ad-absurdum: if we put a blender in our brain case and mash up our own brain what results do we expect (only a "thought" experiment not a "brain" experiment - which leads to the next point ;-). This is where it gets tricky. What is the sound of a tree falling when no-one is there to hear. Well I've just argued for very little "out-there" but now it seems absurd that when I have no brain, then is no "in here" either. This is all very Shurangama Sutra (previous post).
Now we are into the realm of "thoughts" because that was a thought experiment (as indeed this whole thing has been) and I made the assumption that there was a real brain to blend in the first place. Put that another way: how could I have blended my brain if there was nothing "out there" in the first place. This is now were the SRH kicks in. This idea is growing in robustness. In short it says that any statement which results in any loop is meaningless (exactly why is still unclear). Now if I say that everything is "in here" the question is in what? Whatever "here" is, is that in "here" also. OK there is the loop and so it is meaningless -> end of discussion.
Likewise if I say that everything is "out there" the question is what is "there". IS that "there" out-there also. OK loop -> end of discussion.
So almost all the time you can't say "All" anything because it will include itself and so you get a loop. I say almost because it seems that putting a limit around oneself is the problem, so to say everything we need to have an open set. You can't make a close set with yourself inside (that is the SRH bit) because then the limits of the set are then within the set and so what are they within... this is the paradox but it seems a bit more complex to show up in maths...
SO we can't take the "here" and "there" as fixed aspects of reality. What we are left with importantly is the idea of "ideas". Now not everything is an "idea" by SRH but what is not an idea can't be expressed in an idea, which is another idea and we start spiralling very fast into the net of the spider of Structuralism and private-language arguments. Best to leave that as an open set also. But once we are thinking about ideas Scientific Materialism gets its "substance" because the ideas that Science has about what "is" are really just that "ideas" about what is. Everyone may agree and we have a "reality" but it is through consensus that it has its power not some God given material fact. And, there is the irony: the Materialists are still appropriating factual immutable Creation [uk ho Richard Dawkins = more contradictions].
SO looking for the absolute truth we have spun out of the low orbits of materialism rather fast but realise that there is no limit to the orbits we can enter. That is the ancient long ago seen point that whatever we do we are in orbit. Hence the Swastika and Dharma Wheel in Buddhism. What are we in orbit around? That is the intangible next step but its takes a different approach to what is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Well that was quite interesting ChatGPT can't really "think" of anything to detract from the argument that Jews have no clai...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t...
