Time - Developing JftB Issues

[TheBramble]

I can understand manipulating particles aint fun, but it abstractly proved mind can move matter !!

With regards to perceiving future events, is this related to "waking dreams" ?
There is some evidence that hypnagogic and hypnopompic dreams ( immediately after falling asleep, and immediately waking, I forget which ), if remembered are most vivid, and can hold cryptic clues to future events.

There is an exercise, where you wake up half and hour than you usually do, and then drift off into a semi-sleep state. The dreams you have are more vivid, and can become controllable. If you have a strong intention on seeing the future, it becomes so.
On waking, write your impressions down..
These, apparently, seem to be strong indicators towards being able to manipulate dreams,a nd perhaps, seeing future events.

Problem is, the subconcious, being essentially emotional, tags onto emotional events, rather than numerical ( market prices ).

i have experienced dreams where I feel I am in control, but I can never read signs, they suddenly become blurry, because that is a left-brain function, whereas dreams are right-brain actions.

Am I going off at a tangent here ?

Trendie, don't worry about off-topic on this thread - we all are - and it's my thread, so there.

I think you're talking about lucid dreaming which doesn't AFAIAA lead to symbolic interpretation of future events, but is a fun thing to do while you're horizontal, in bed. The second best thing to do in that position actually.

As for the mid-point twixt sleep and wakefulness, yes, a clue. I spend 20 minutes at a time in that area twice a day (quite apart form normal sleeping patterns) to precisely experience the possibilities it may provide.

And a clarification if I may on the Unconscious - it is not 'emotional' in our general wide-sweeping sense, but it does have the emotional response of a 5-7 year old. Very literal - very immediate. But IT doesn't 'tag on' - you (i.e. the conscious ego YOU) does.

 

[TheBramble]

I have found very little that runs contrary to the laws of Physics that is a tenth as provable as those things that align with said laws -

And as a classically trained Physicist, you'd agree I think that you'd be bound to take that view as a preference?

Consider this - if the CIA had developed an effective means of determining (let alone manipulating) the future, then would 9/11 have occurred?

Well, only if they felt it would in some way be useful to further supporting their agenda. I throw this in purely as a hypothetical position, without ANY information to substantiate it as factual in any way. Nothing to do with pre-cogging, but as we're here, why not have a little wander off through the bluebell wood of conspiracy theory....

 

[DaveJB]

I may be doing it wrong, but I'd like to check in case there's a subconscious hidden explanation that could perhaps have a bearing on how I trade the markets? (For info I tend to trade the SP500 Sep, and US Share Sep (eg AAPL Sep)' currently, I'll change to Dec spreads shortly) - this is via a spreadbet account.

Anyhow, my main query is whether my 'waking dreams' reflect some underlying and unconscious market bias - specifically, if your normal 'waking dream' revolves around a young Michelle Pfeiffer (think 'Ladyhawke') does this imply a bearish, bullish, boorish, or 'difficult to explain to the wife' stance on the market?

Dave
(oooops, sorry, 'perplexed of Aldershot')

 

[TheBramble]

if your normal 'waking dream' revolves around a young Michelle Pfeiffer (think 'Ladyhawke') does this imply a bearish, bullish, boorish, or 'difficult to explain to the wife' stance on the market?'

Only if she (your wife) returns unexpectedly early from shopping and finds you wearing her (your wife's) underwear.

Of course, if your wearing a young Michelle Pfeiffer's underwear, your wife is not an issue - any more.

NOW - THIS is what lucid dreaming is all about!!!!

 

[smileypete]

Hi,

(Someone pulled my previous post so I am reinstating it):

As far as trading psycology goes, IMHO it's a personal thing, some traders may not have any psycological issues at all, and some may have to delve deep within themselves to gain success.

But the same approach will not work for everyone, just as some people are long term traders, some scalpers etc etc.

cheers,
Pete.

PS could anyone comment on whether it is offensive in any way?

 

[DaveJB]

Tony.
Why is my wife shopping that early in the morning?

Confused of Dudley.

 

[DaveJB]

Pete,
if that's your original post repeated - darned if I ca see a problem!
(Gotta go, some Hollywood lawyer on the blower...)
Dave

 

[TheBramble]

Tony.
Why is my wife shopping that early in the morning.

She had to duck out for a bit...

 

[DaveJB]

Tony,
"And as a classically trained Physicist, you'd agree I think that you'd be bound to take that view as a preference?"
No - my training involved being taught how to set a fair test up, something that 99% of the population can't do... it's a real 'Mr Spock' thing because virtually anyone except a trained scientist will set a test up where more than one input changes, and if you alter more than one thing in the test you can never tell which of the inputs created the resultant effect. Human beings, for some odd reason, rely on 'common sense' even when it demonstrably conflicts with provable, repeatable cause and effect.

Also you are making a not uncommon assumption that 'all X (insert group to taste) think/act/are like Y (insert blah to taste)'... Physicists argue the toss with each other, as do most if not all other academics and professionals in other spheres. I'd be more than happy to go down in history as the guy who proved Newton/Einstein/Bohr etc wrong, talk about reputation! I was also not 'clssically trained' as I studied (13 years of it) with the Open Uni - as a result I find it quite common to discover my view of something is at odds with the norm.

Finally, 'established' figures in science who have not set the world alight, but who have carved a niche in bureaucracy and risen to dizzy heights, and their like, might well prefer the status quo - there is, I'd agree, some evidence to suggest that much of the 'establishment' prefer not to overturn the rules of science until you've more than proved the existing laws are wrong - but many discoveries push the boundaries out on a daily basis.... what is wrong with precog is that nobody yet has shown it to work in an environment where there were scientists to check that cheating did not occur, and where the test involved predicting something the test subject didn't know already which they subsequently pulled out of the hat significantly more often than chance would allow. It isn't a case of science setting impossible targets or silly restrictions, human beings instinctively want precog to exist and they're willing to accept 'proof' that it does so that wouldn't satisfy a kangaroo court who'd found a bag marked 'swag' in your sock drawer.

It is inconcievable, to me, that I would accept something as 'true' when that thing had been claimed for centuries with no proof it had ever been properly demonstrated. Intuition I'll accept - that's the brain making subconscious connections that the conscious mind is either unaware, or only partially aware of. Soc might well be able to 'see' the future due to a highly developed subconscious skill in TA, this is a more likely explanation than that he can alter the future . (If he in fact can predict that well - this isn't a jibe, I never witnessed anything like that personally so I genuinely don't know) .
Dave

 

[Trader333]

Dave

........if you alter more than one thing in the test you can never tell which of the inputs created the resultant effect

Have you ever heard of or used Taguchi or Design of Experiments (DOE) ? Because this is a commonly used approach that allows the changing of multiple inputs and still determine the main one having the biggest cause on the effect ?


Paul

 

[DaveJB]

Damn,
silly little extra button on the mouse - breathe on it and it swaps page and erases all your carefully crafted prose... mutter mutter... where was I?
Taguichi - estimate outputs for your group of inputs, shove your expected result into the loss function to see if you get an acceptable result, as I understand (or, quite possibly, don't understand) it? That, as far as I am aware, is a way of taken things where the effect is quite well known and then modelling the effect of taking several 'known' things and optimising the output when they're combined - for example we know that a conductor's resistance increases with length, we know it decreases with cross sectional area, so we could plonk typical values for each in to help us produce the 'best' design of a resistor.

In contrast, if we don't know that resistance increases with length then we take several different lengths of a conductor and measure their resistance. We ensure they are made of identical materials, that their cross sectional area is the same, that we measure their resistance at the same temperature, and make everything we can identical other than the length - that way we KNOW (beyond reasonable doubt) that it is the changing length that made the resistance alter.

You might alter x-area and length, and after a while be able to split out the effect due to one rather than the other, but my point earlier was that the average joe would come along and use 5 different lengths of conductor and decide resistance decreases with length because they totally ignored the fact that they had 3 different types of material and 4 different x-areas in their test sample.
I spend a good while every year teaching pupils to carry out and write up experiments as part of their examinable coursework, and it is common to find they need extensive coaching in preventing other factors swamping the effect they are supposedly investigating - they'll measure the voltage across a solar cell, happily leaning right over it (thereby casting a huge shadow on the light collecting surface) to get a 'better' reading.... put their parents in the room and they'll do the same. Put 6 trainee physics teachers in the room and I'd bet 2 or 3 would do that as well <g>

A bit like that 'millionaire' show with the coded coughing - if they'd just broadcast that as if it were a normal show, what fraction of the watching public would have accepted that the guy was answering the questions simply because he was an ace at general knowledge? I've yet to see evidence of genuine precog activity, if somebody could genuinely see the future (never mind controlling it) then it'd be quite obvious they could do so - call heads or tails 50 times on the trot, on camera, with a stranger tossing the first 50 coins from a bag of loose change.... that'd take maybe 10 minutes to turn science on its head, so why hasn't it been done yet if genuine precog exists?

Occasional flashes where you are so sure of the next few minutes - we probably all have them, I can remember several in the past year... I remember them mostly because they've actually proved incorrect at the time and I was quite surprised at that, you sort of expect your 'flash' to come true and add itself to your fund of spooky stores!

Dave

 

[TheBramble]

As always Dave, a carefully constructed and thoughtful post. I'm grateful.

I think the differences are in our respective perceptual filters. I'm interested in anything which adds to or builds upon the information I have and am seeking (i.e. instances or experiences of precog and prekinestic abilities) and you're, quite rightly suggesting these as there is currently no scientific evidence or support for this, it doesn't exist.

But if you had experienced personally or had witnessed an event of this nature - would you then believe it or would you require a full-blown scientific analysis of how, why and when under controlled conditions with repeatability as prime factor in accepting it?

 

[DaveJB]

Aha...
I'm not against these ideas actually, ie just because I can't see evidence to support them as yet that doesn't mean I consider them impossible, although 'unlikely' is a word I would tend to use. I'm well aware of countless occasions where science has been dead wrong, many people who should know better stick to ideas with religious fervour long past the sell by date... I'd like to think I'm not one of them, I'll certainly examine all sorts of ideas to see if they have merit. I mentioned Delta before, it's something I can't find logic for, and I don't actually trade based on it, but I do look at the charts now and then and they have a bit of a knack for occasionally (quite often) being bang on.
(As an example, looking at the S&P500 from march to end August I can see two dips hit to the day, a third is within 3 days or so of the prediction, the predicted tops do have tops right underneath - the Nasdaq chart fits the predicted turnpoints very closely indeed). Now that would come pretty close to your case of witnessing an event, I would suggest - ie Delta is often spookily correct, like a lot of charts it all becomes pretty obvious in hindsight. This hindsight issue means I don't trade Delta turns, as in practise I find that I don't consider it all half as obvious before the turns, as tit all looks to be afterwards!

I'm really pushing here in favour of developing skills that are definitely going to improve trading - better management and position sizing, effective stops, and so on. Until I'm pretty near perfect at that side of things, and believe I'm good at reading the charts to select my trades, it seems more efficient and sensible to devote my energies to this side of things rather than to hope I'll become a precog. If you have significant ability in the precog line then go for it, for all I know there's a subset of humankind able to do that stuff and one day science will presumably catch up, but I don't think it's a sensible use of time for a 'normal' person with no significant extra ability to attempt to gain such ability whilst still being incapable of deciding where to put a stop.

As for proof - if I witnessed it, then I would hope that the person involved would allow the apparent ability to be tested rigorously, to see if it's some sort of fluke or trick (they might be unaware that they are gaining clues somehow, I'm not suggesting deliberate fraud). It'd be pretty good to show that this ability existed, we could then look at how to encourage it!
(It'd also be a good time to short casino and gambling stocks).
Dave

 

[TheBramble]

Full Circle