Dump it Here

Do I accept that there are different levels of consciousness - yes. There are any number of psychoactive substances that will alter levels of consciousness, trances, hypnosis, deep meditative states etc.

Is this 'reality'? For that individual, at that time, possibly, but it is not 'reality' for anyone else. Unless that individual is permanently in a form of psychosis, they will return to 'reality' at some point.

Reality consists of cause and effect. We interact with reality by manipulating causes to gain effects.

jog on
duc

 

This was your claim, and it was FALSE:

You instead created a straw man to respond to a question which was not raised.
Next:

You seem not to understand what is at issue, and it is "faith".
My simple response is that in lay terms there are people who use reason to determine a cause for belief.
With regard to your many other questions, people are not perfect.
There are cheats, liars and fraudsters, and then there are people who either cannot tell the difference or are unwilling to accept they could ever be party to their motives.

 

The problem here is that statements are being presented that are believed to be true.

Markets move because people trade them.

People trade markets because they move.

If nobody traded, markets would not move.

If markets do not move, people are not trading.

That's great Duc! Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

If I have somehow failed to correctly convey my intended meaning, via faulty word choices/usage, or lack of contextual clarity , then I apologise.

Did my "execution only" brokers comparison, somehow fail to contextually clarify, my intended meaning for you?

Understanding market context can be an important consideration for some traders.

 

If you believe it so.
Thankyou for your ample demonstration of the veracity of the point I raised.

Straw men can be most insightful, and have much to offer:

====================================================
Now how might this relate to trading.

Does own know one's personal limitations?

If not, then rest assured!
The market has a well established history of educating people on same, via emotionally, and financially, costly life lessons.

And what if one thinks one already knows one's personal limitations, what then?

How does one discern what one thinks one knows, from what one truly knows?

Take note of the straw man! Despite his mental limitation (i.e. lacking a brain) useful insights might be discerned by those keenly observing his behaviour!

 

Logic is not formed in belief.
Your claim is that "Any argument (and/or premise/s of same), merely adds to the body of supporting evidence. "
Arguments are supported by statements.
Statements (premises) must be valid in order to draw a sound conclusion.
Statements which are not valid lead to unsound conclusions.
It is an utter nonsense to propose what you have.

 

1. As soon as any counter argument (or premise/s of same) is believed, the evidential support base, of the contested philosophy, is increased by that very same counter argument (and/or premises thereof)!!!

1. The problem here is that a counter-argument is not necessarily a proven fact. It is a counter-argument that is 'believed', belief is not factually proven and is therefore incapable of adding to or subtracting from the 'truth' - whatever the truth actually is.

Putting it another way: it does not matter how many believe 'X', the truth or falsity of 'X' is unaffected by the nominal belief it attracts.

So now let me re-address [1] using the same argument stated in a slightly different way.

Again, it is necessary to break the sentence into constituent parts:

(i) [As soon as any counter argument is believed] At the moment the argument is put forward by 'X' it is believed by 'Y'.

(ii) [the evidential support base,] the 'evidence' , which in this case is implied to be the strength of the evidence [support base]. It is not clear however whether the strength of the evidence is in: (a) volume of evidence [number of people believing] or (b) a higher probability of reaching an uncontroverted fact [based on an empirically proven fact or a deduction from an a priori axiom].

Dictionary result for evidence
/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun

1. 
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;

It can be seen from the definition that either usage is correct. It is becoming clearer that you are using the word evidence in the context of a 'fact'.

I am using it in the context of merely 'indicating'.

The reason that I am using it in this context is because of the word "As soon as any counter argument is believed"

Belief in a counter-argument, unless proven [in some manner] does not equate to a fact. It is simply a belief founded on faith. If it is not a fact, then the evidence, is the evidence of belief, which is the definition of evidence that uses 'indicating' as its meaning. Indicating is a probability: not a fact.

It is only after the belief has taken place, that it adds to the evidential support base, as a probability. This probability is however based on a 'volume' of evidence, [not the strength of the probability of the evidence] which has no relation to the probability that the evidence is a fact.

jog on
duc

 

It seems easier to go back to what constitutes an argument.
People are making statements which lead to a reasoned conclusion.
If their statement (premise in this case) is not supported by their evidence then they cannot arrive at a sound conclusion.
The construction of the argument has nothing to do with belief.
You seem to be creating some mystique over the nature if the evidence. As I see it, that would be an entirely separate argument and dilute something relatively straightforward with epistemology.
Whenever minutiae come into play philosophy falls into the hole of infinite regress.

 

If you believe it so, then I again thankyou for providing further demonstration of my point.

Has one learnt anything new, from straw men, in recent times?

Or does one already know everything?
========================================================

Now to relate this to financial markets.

So one might think one knows, enough about the financial markets, to trade profitably!

How does one know, that one knows enough to trade profitably?!

Perhaps one has ready many books written be experienced traders.
Does reading about sport make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has learnt how to chant popularised mantras courtesy of some purported market gurus (i.e. "trend is your friend", "fail to plan, plan to fail","only worth what someone is willing to pay")!
Does quoting the, purportedly sage, advice, of actual sportsmen, make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has engaged in lengthy discussions about trading!
Does talking about sport make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has watched other people engaged in live trading, or electronic representations of same!
Does sitting in the crowd of spectators at a game, or viewing the game on television, make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has thoroughly examined and analysed historical data!
Does analysis of past games make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has "traded" using a simulator or "demo" account!
Does the playing of video games make one an expert sportsman?

Perhaps one has been successful in debating the perceived merits of a trading methodology!
Arguments with umpires aside, when in history, has intellectual debate, ever won a game of cricket or football?

 

You need to get some mental health help.
Continuing your irrational games here is fascinating.
Markets are active things which have a history.
They also have an apparent future.
Individual decisions to enter markets are quite separate from what the market does after one has entered. They are completely different senses.
One's view on their prospects while in the market can be conditioned by reasonable expectations, but markets are inherently irrational.

 

Do I believe I exist?
Yes, I have evidence and I trust you see that this post helps substantiate my claim.
Do you believe I exist?
My existence to you is likely that I am a real person. Nowadays I could equally be an AI or Poe.
The above is about ontology.
If I was to meet you and we discussed this post, my existence goes beyond belief: you would have justification, and that's about epistemology.
In matters of argument, there is a structure.
To suppose an argument has no structure defeats the very purpose of using language to convey meaning.
It is unsound of cynic to continue to repeat himself unless he is proposing an alternative to logic. I have not seen this. Moreover cynic so seldom makes sense to me that I just ignore much of what he writes.
I could have chosen less charitable words and indulged in an ad hominem affront. I did not.
If cynic is not interested in rationally defending his statements then I will call out his repeated nonsense at my choosing (unless someone bans me here from posting).
Everything I have seen him post since my time here this year suggests he needs to get mental health help.

 

With respect, I look at what is presented and see if it makes sense. I suspect I deal with information very differently from you.
For something to make sense we apply any number of rules. A good one is to use principles of logic.
A simple way to test that logic makes sense is to consider how to put a roof on a home which has no framework to support it.
So in logic we underpin a conclusion with statements (premises) which support it.
Using the analogy again, we can test the premises such that if we can prove the framework will support the roof then our structure is reasoned and sound.
The antithesis of this is throwing around statements which have no bearing on the conclusion.
Anyone posting who wants to be credible should realise that there are good ways to present their information.
It defies logic to suppose an argument without structure would be credible.

 

I don't believe much and don't know much.
My preference is try and work out what makes things the way they are.
If something seems not to make sense, it's either me or it.
I try to minimise the risk it is me.

 

Quantity, or, quality, or, quantity of quality. For the purposes of the point being made, do such considerations make a difference to the outcome?
And if so, (remembering that absence of disproof is not being claimed as disproof of absence) how so?

That was not my intention.

That was my intention.

According to the definition for evidence (so helpfully provided):
"the available body of facts or information..."

Does information (i.e. "knowledge given or received", according to "The Award compact English dictionary") truly exist, or is information truly non-existent?

Does the believer of "a belief", require knowledge of that, upon which the "belief" is founded?

Does "faith" (using one's preferred definition) truly exist, or is "faith" truly non existent?
======================================================================
Traders incorporating technical analysis into their chosen methodology, will typically select some preferred indicators, for inclusion within their toolkit.

Prior to employment of such tools, it may prove beneficial to first acquaint oneself with the tools' strengths and limitations.

What are the strengths of one's chosen indicators?

Which market conditions/contexts are more favourable?

And which market conditions are less so?

Can the indicator be expected to perform favourably in all conceivable market conditions/contexts (i.e. universally)?

If not, which conditions/contexts require alternative tools, or avoidance?

How might one, identify the unfavourable conditions/contexts early, so that an alternative tool, or evacuation, may be quickly effected?

 

I would argue that it does.

Evidence is information which assists the decision maker in determining facts. To do so, the evidence must fulfil two criteria when directed at information.

(a) what is the ultimate fact to which the evidence is intended to make more/less likely; and
(b) how does the evidence make the ultimate fact more/less likely.

(i) facts in issue; and
(ii) facts going to credibility.

Facts going to credibility are those that bear upon the reliability of witnesses or a particular element of the witnesses evidence.

The evidence does not have to make a fact certain [stronger if it does] but the evidence must make the fact more/less probable.

Weight and probative value are words used to describe probability. Numbers [again] inform probability, viz. it can be measured by numbers, which gives weight or probative values.

(a) Classical Approach Frequency: 4 Jacks in a pack of cards 4/52 = relative frequency.
(b) Relative Frequencies: is where you have X observations with Y from your variable, which gives you Y/X expressed as a %.
(c) Likelihood ratios: to test the significance of the evidence [footprints found were made by a male adult shoe, low likelihood. Footprints made by an adult male shoe with a crack in the sole, higher likelihood.]

The above are merely statistical hypotheses.

(d) Circumstantial evidence: where like strands of a rope, no individual strand is sufficient, but when all together, they can bear the burden [of proof].

When assessing the evidence in combination, the rule is that the probative value of multiple items of evidence supporting the same factual allegation is greater in combination than the sum of the parts.

An example: there is a bank robbery and Ms Brown is charged with the offence.

Witness A states: the bank robber was female; and
Witness B states: heard the robber say her birthday was in July; and
Witness C states: saw the robber drive away in a red car.

These strands cumulatively add to: 1/2 x 1/12 x 1/10 = 1/240

The Crown is entitled to say that Ms Brown is 240 times more likely to have these characteristics than a random person [assuming of course that she is in point of fact female, has a red car and her birthday is in July].

Therefore the outcome, which in this case is 'belief', I would argue that this can be very dependent on the [quantity and or quality] of evidence given.

jog on
duc

 

1. I would argue that information exists because we as humans, effect decisions, based on information, that address causal factors when we wish to create an effect that benefits us in some way.

2. I would argue that no, knowledge in the epistemological meaning is not required. Knowledge of the information conveyed in [1] would be required so that a belief could be formed.

3. I would argue that 'faith' exists.

jog on
duc

 

You would certainly expect that traders would do so. I would however argue that it is not necessary, to trade [whether successfully or not] that they do so.

jog on
duc