Intuition Amplifiers 2

An animal optimizes its intuition through rewards such as food I am not sure if your use of the word credible plays. (if not just ignore it) What I do see is the word assumption repeating. This is interesting on its own but I do see an assumption you may have made:

"In a world of ultimate uncertainties" This is a big statement that seems to based on the fact that our understanding of the world is valid enough to derive things, uncertainty can exist but it can also be the product of wrong information.

 

In my work the term “intuition" is normally used as an equivalent to “Intuitive Knowledge”; in other words, because the subject of my research is “Intellectual Intuition” it requires the establishing of the knowledge base to verify any of the intuitive conclusions produced by the process of Intellectual Intuition. This knowledge base becomes permanently associated with the established intuitions and forms the new entity – Intuitive knowledge. One of the fascinating subjects of Intuitive knowledge is “Self-Evidence - it is the most important characteristic of intuitive knowledge that we shall spend some time talking about.

The statement “The current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points” is not self-evident and it cannot be accepted intuitively. There is a huge difference between perception and intuition. Perception is an immediate cognition. I perceive the computer screen in front of me while I write these words. I have no doubt about its existence. I do not need to prove it. So my perception of the screen is not intuitive knowledge. An intuition only exists when our perception exceeds the self-evident facts. An intuition is a theory; it implies an extrapolation beyond the directly accessible information.

 

Interesting way to describe intuition is to refer to it as self-evident statements which exceed the observable facts. It should be noted that one of the most important features of self-evidence is its globality. Certain statements are accepted as self-evident only when they are structured as global, universal statements. The statement such as “market prices of securities fluctuate” is accepted globally as a structured, meaningful and universal. However, the statement “prices of stocks always retrace at least 50% of their rapid moves ” does not appear to be as an intuitive (direct, global) statement. As these examples show, the property of globality serves to distinguish intuitive and analytical thinking.

 

To be continued …

 

After a few years of digging into the notion of intuition it became very apparent to me that the concept of intuition simply expresses our fundamental, very consistent tendency of the human mind - the quest for certitude. Intuition is used by us for evaluating results, predicting outcomes and making decisions. Also, it became clear to me that our intuitive cognition is based on its self-evidence, extrapolativeness, and globality. These characteristics of intuition are the building blocks of my theory and devices that I call “Intuition Amplifiers”

 

Cognitions and realizations are inherent parts of our adaptive behavior. In order to create efficient behavioral patterns the information about the environment must be first filtered and processed to create well-structured, consistent, action-ready representations of reality. The world around us is the world of objects and events. Using information about those objects and events humans have developed ways of synthesizing knowledge and understanding about other objects and events that are not directly available to our senses or do not actually exist. These artificial information structures include language, logic and reasoning. We have created many information tools to increase the efficiency of that synthetic process that enables us to visualize those abstract objects and events to the level of perceiving them as undisputed reality. Using these tools we create the knowledge (mostly through aids of logic and reasoning) that is equivalent to the knowledge we obtain through our sensorial abilities. Mathematics and science in general deal with abstract (non-existent) objects and ideal operations on them. It uses abstract events, ideal means of verification of its objects and events that are totally determined by formally established definitions and rules (axioms and theorems). The usual qualities of real objects and events as they appear in our sensorial perceptions are totally absent from our scientifically created abstract entities. Instead of the intrinsic credibility offered by real objects science deals with imagination based type of certitude - abstract logic. Instead of concrete objects, science formally postulates the existence of abstract entities. Instead of empirical verification, science uses logical evidence and deductive checks to conduct intuitively accepted formal proofs. Proven evidence replaces realities and creates the abstract world that is fundamentally different from that of real objects and real events - the world of mental constructs. It is intended to function in an absolute abstract way: it produces its own objects; it relates them one to the other according to its own principles; it has its specific type of necessity - logical necessity instead of empirical causality; it has its own type of certitude, a kind of certitude which is reducible to formal rigor (and which may not have any practical relevance).

 

Although our intuition suggests that this abstract and self-contained world of science and mathematics could be as independent and complete as our real world the truth is that it is quite impossible.

This impossibility is based on two major logical discoveries:

1. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. This theorem logically and self-evidently proves that any abstract, logically designed system can never be absolutely closed and self-contained – i.e. it can never possess in itself all possible theorems. In Wilder’s terms: "This demonstrates that in any system broad enough to contain all the formulas of any formalized theory, there exist theorems (formulas) that can be neither proved nor disproved within the system". This conclusion is in fact true for every
formally designed abstract system of beliefs.

2. Psychological impossibility. There is enough experimental evidence in modern cognitive psychology today that suggests that no productive system possible that uses the formal or abstract means only. If a system of beliefs contains all the definitions, axioms, theorems, proofs, etc. it needs the system will never work by itself in any productive manner.

Intuition therefore is our method of utilizing the abstract systems we created productively.

 

The essential role of our intuition is to create efficient means for our intellectual endeavors to be productive in the same way our practical behavior is efficient in dealings with our objective realities.

 

Let’s take a look at the picture below. Without any knowledge of how this spectrum of NQ activity was created can you intuitively infer that there was a steady and somewhat persistent decline of this security today? Without looking at the NQ chart can you get a feeling of how energetic or how slow this decline was? Try not to analyze it logically, just use your gut feel and you intuition. Follow the very first impression you get from this picture. Can you make a overall conclusion of whether this is a short or a long market?

 

Very interesting chart, Maestro, especially considering I am shorting NQ myself here since it showed signs of serious sell off. But that gauge, does it show when market for example slows down in the decline before continues further?

If I didn't watch NQ today, would say decline was relatively strong, but not the panic. Angles of the arrow triangle somehow made me feel this way.