User:Natmanprime

This is my user page!

I am 31 yrs old and a sentient being of human male heterosexual type living in London u.k.

I say sentient being because 'human', 'male', 'heterosexual' are generally agreed, subjective terms where it's impossible to 'draw the line', as it were. Sentient being is alright though.

My personality: I have a low blood pressure and no previous traumas in life, so my unremarkable intellect is not short-circuited by fear nor coloured by anger. I am of jamaican/arabic/greek/indian appearance, although my father is 'white' and half jewish/english and my mother is 'black' and ethiopian, I say this to describe my cultural background and influences on my character. To this end, my father is an unreligious intellectual mainly specializing in maths and chemistry, with a broad open mind and a narrow heart because of emotional pain in life, and a my mother with a narrow mind but kept a broad, more open heart despite emotional pain in life. I am apparently of medium attractiveness, varying up a little and down a lot from day to day, so that is my ego. I am extremely short sighted and fascinated by creating, people, and certain comics. All the above is sufficient for the discerning and thoughtful reader to divine my personality, and hence know what they're dealing with.

Natmanprime (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

NOW, to answer the "unanswerable qustions". I find pure mathematics disagreeable (I respect those who do it alot), and I lack the money and means to research into scientific questions, so I am left with philosophy. Please, if you regard this as egotistical, you may be right, but please do not prejudge. I would rather you judge. Upon your judgement, I crave your logical argument if in disagreement. Anything else would be a waste of your time and mine. I do this for everyone's benefit as well as my enjoyment. I not only INVITE you to reply, I INCITE you to reply, because the agreement of someone who didn't want to is worth more.

The Future

The universe will apparently be unable to sustain biological life in the far future. This should be fine, as long as people understand the biological dynamics that create meaning in life by then, which they should do. This means that they can replicate or discard those things, while maintaining the one aspect of humanity NOT driven DIRECTLY by genetics, curiosity, which is driven by the intellect, (which is grown from genetics). By this point our biological life forms should have achieved knowledge of themselves and mastery of the universe, i.e. awareness, energy, movement and mortality. This would mean that, curiosity of the nature of the universe being satisfied, the only meaning left in life, save the meaning they idly choose to have, the games they choose to play, to submit to, being the knowledge of the existence of other intellectual life forms, because of their inherently different perspectives from their points within the universe. This is the knowledge that they are not alone, and that they have beings to play with. Hence the only true meaning would be the preservation of other sentient or potentially sentient beings, and an intellectually driven one. Creating life would not achieve the same end because it is the positions that the other beings occupied in space/time up to that point that would be just as important as the fact that they are alive and sentient.

I am NOT talking about our natural need to care about others. This IS genetically driven, and is structured by what I call a 'locus of caring'. This means we care the most about who's genetically closest, and then care less and less the further and further back we go to the most recent common ancestor. In other words, in this order: ourselves or genetic progeny, then immediate family i.e. siblings/parents, then humans, then mammals, then fish, then insects, then plants, then viruses, then bacteria. This is proven by the decreasing difficulty in allowing oneself to kill them, as you go down that 'order'. As men we instinctively care about women and children in general, not just our own.

The mind

Our intellect consists of two things: 1)premise and 2)logic(the ability to se the relationship between premises). 1)Premises consist of a)genetic programming, and b)memory. Genetic programming provides our drives, fears, irritations, lusts and some of our aesthetics and phobias.  Memory consists of sensory input and 'reminders' for emotions, retained as coded information in the brain, as electrical impulses and brain cells.  2)Logic, the ability to 'make connections', increased in capacity relative to other mammals because of an increased ability in being able to observe and understand cause and effect, which was developed from the ability to make things.

The ability to make things came from the development of the opposable thumb.

Other intelligent life

What type of sentient life could exist elsewhere/when in the universe? The lifeform must possess an intellect developed from an ability to willfully change the environment around it, be it an opposable thumb in which case it's going to be humanoid -(ish!) or be it via some other method, in which case...what??? something carbon-based, at least, according to scientists.

Nature of the Universe

The nature of existence, physical and meta-physical, is yin and yang, opposites. This itself is the 'flip side' of the 'coin', the other side is chaotic probability. Both, in turn, are the flip side to a bigger 'coin', the other side being non-existence. Each concept has, at it's core, in the relatively infinitessimal minority, the essence of that which is opposite. All these things are described in the symbol for Yin and Yang.

What does it mean to be human

'Human' is a subjective term because it cannot be defined. The nature of life is that it it is always undergoing genetic mutations, and as a life form the 'human' is always changing. The variety will increase as the population grows, increasing the chances of a 'locked away' genetic code becoming prominent, and technology to preserve life improves. For example there are 6 people in existence with completeley hairy faces, and there are about 6.9 billion people. Some have photographic memory, some have tails. Should one draw the line? Where does one draw the line? Some cannot reproduce. Some do not have common sexual organs. Our 'adam' and 'eve' were born thousands of years apart. We call them the first 'humans', could they not be considered the same species as their contemporaries who they could mate with? By the same token, can we exclude people who are born with deformed sexual organs who cannot have sex? 'Species' as a concept becomes as arbitrary as 'race'. It can only be defined subjectively, hurtfully, as 'what is commonly agreed'.

The meaning of life and existence

So:

The meaning of the universe is Yin and Yang.

The meaning of life is pro-active movement.

The meaning of 'human' life is excitement. This is 5 basic drives, in varying portions from person to person: Fear, lust, anger, curiosity, joy/bliss.

The meaning of sufficiently advanced sentient life: enjoyment of power and submission with respect to excitement. The preservation and creation of sentient life.

Religion in the last 2000 years

There was a time long ago when religion was at the forefront of scientific discovery. Here I am referring to ancient asian religions, and 'pagan' religions, believing various deities affected the things around them, combining this with culture and morality, philosophy.

I am NOT referring to christianity. This was brought to the world by the romans under the title roman catholicism 2000 years ago, concocted as an altered version of jewish religion/culture with a little Babylonian and other middle eastern religions thrown in, designed to manipulate the nature and morality of people at the time to keep them submissive once conquered. This was done by appealing to the current morality and nature of the people, then twisting it, e.g. No one particularly wants to kill, (see locus of caring, above) but then to say 'Thou shalt not kill' implying 'at all'. Even if one's life is in danger? Survival? Rebellion? Then bringing in the New Testament introducing the ideas of unavoidable fear(heaven and hell) and unavoidable guilt (jesus died for you, you are born sinful) playing on the pagan's knowledge of Man's 'dark side'. The advanced knowledge of astronomy and calendar with the gaelic peoples was eradicated. All of this was for the singular purpose of submission to rule. Subsequent conquered generations, in order to get a measure of power, went along with this, perpetuating the whole thing, pulling in fearful people, trusting people and un-trusting power hungry folk alike. 'Good' and 'evil' are religious terms, derived from 'god' and 'devil'. To assist in breaking free from this mental coertion we should stick to 'right' and 'wrong'. 'Satan' means 'to resist' in hebrew.

When Rome was sacked by the Goths (germans) the Roman rule ended but the Roman catholicism stayed, and as The gothic empire swept across northern europe, the religion broke up into various denominations, welcomed by the conquerors, allowing 'divide and rule'. The roman institutions were made use of as well, the German royal families taking control of various northern european territories. The angles and the saxons were both originally germanic tribes, and the saxon rule of england was carried over to north america, where roman institutions were set up. This is now known as 'the west'.

Islam is similar and came several hundred years later than christianity, probably very similar to christianity at the beginning, during medieval times. However, while christianity was breaking up into it's various denominations and was being revised as power struggles and power through technology improved, islam stayed pretty much the same. There are many medieval characteristics to it today. This has been a limiting factor in the development of middle eastern countries, over the last several centuries, despite magnificent invention in renaissance times, and very old civilizations and empires, along with the turmoil of conflict, the lack of a stable environment, while the west developed the printing press, expanded power and wealth, industrial revolution. All modern industry was sold to them by the west. This is now known as 'the middle east'.

Dynamics of our existence

Power is the extent to which one can control surrounding environment.

Influence is the extent to which one affects the surrounding environment.

Everyone influences everything infinitessimally.

If you control alot of things a little or a few things alot, you have medium power.

If you affect alot of things a little, or a few things alot, you have medium influence.

This is dependent on judging within a given sphere of power/influence.

Submission is serving someone or something, allowing it power over you e.g. morality or love, or submitting to the rules of a game.

Love is a willing submission of power, for reasons of either the intellect or instinctual compulsion, or both.

Slavery is an unwilling submission of power.

Power is necessary to live, and to protect and enable oneself during greater acts of submission than would otherwise be possible, without damage to one's life.

Submission is necessary for appreciation in life, hence providing meaning in life, e.g. submitting to rules in a game, love, gaining excitement through lack of knowledge of what happens next, the unknown quantity or perspective of another sentient being, excitement of mysteries, incitement to curiosity, etc.

Morality, Power and Freedom

Both Submission and Power are necessary concepts for any sentient being to have a life of any meaning. One cannot live with only one of those things. Whatever it's drives, it needs power to implement them and submission to obey them, enjoying both dynamics.

Morality is at greater risk the more power one possesses, because with great power comes great responsibility. With that comes less freedom. A slave to morality. It is harder to stick to being moral, because the more power you have, the more you are obliged to do more moral things, hence morality is at greater risk. A three way dynamic: Morality, Power, Freedom. An increase in two of them must cause decrease in the other one. People tend to be lazy, so power almost always corrupts.

Money is a common indicator to denote power, so money almost always corrupts. For example, choosing to save your money in a big bank account when it could have been spent to save lives. The more money, the more lives neglected, the more corrupt.

However, taking power when it is offered is a moral duty, otherwise you are choosing to neglect potential sufferers. The only way out of this is to virtually eliminate suffering, so that the one in power will not be 'run off his feet' every moment of every day (how can he justify even taking a day off if it means allowing a hypothetical victim who he knows may die because he wouldn't be around when he knows he COULD have been around), or give everyone the power to correct their own misfortune without causing unconsenting suffering to others.

This latter option is anarchy with a fascist core, in other words each man doing as he will, but maintained and created by a law that must not be broken, i.e the law of consent earlier mentioned. This is one half of yin and yang, the anarchy being the large curvy bit, the fascism being the dot, being that which is opposite to anarchy, at it's core. The other half of yin and yang is the universe the society operates in. The large curvy bit is therefore fascism i.e. the fixed laws of relativity which must be followed, and the dot being anarchy i.e. quantum probability, doing as it will, at the core of relativity. Yin and Yang is satisfied, so this society is viable, and could be true.

Art

What is art? Art is that which fascinates the intellect VIA the instinct/urge VIA the senses, and is artificial.

So, if someone doesn't 'get' art, it's because either they are already aware of the intellectual perspective intended to be engendered by their instincts, or they are of a different emotional make-up (which is rare), or the art isn't powerful enough to 'turn on' those instincts. It cannot be because they haven't thought about it enough. There must be a process of communication for the possibility of it being of any worth as art.

Humour

Humour is the taking of excited pleasure from an observed event. The event can be physical, or metaphysical. This can be cruelty if the event is unpleasant, unless the observer is the sufferer, in which case it is a useful mechanism to cope with unpleasantness. Such events often elicit laughter in the observer. This does not mean laughter has to be cruel. We have the ability to take excited pleasure from observing fascinating, strange and pleasant events, and other people!

Mathematics and language

Maths is a tool for using that which we do not understand. It does NOT help us understand it. Only language and observation can do that. Language is used to refer to something that has been observed, thus facilitating understanding. Take the example of throwing a ball. Formulae cannot help someone understand what it is if he's never seen it. However, if he is told it is LIKE, for example, 'moving a ball through the air without your hand attached to it, by pushing it upwards and forwards quickly and letting go', it helps. 5 dimensional space for example, cannot be understood unless it is able to be pictured. We understand things completely only when we can picture them, either as a still or moving picture. Only then can it become a premise, rather than a logical sequence, requiring less effort from the mind to hold it, freeing up more energy and capacity to think, increasing the mind's capability. In this way there virtually no limits to our mental capability and capacity for knowledge, and there is, potentially, virtually limitless SPEED with which we can take in the information, if we have an increasingly concise, mutually understood language increasing the speed of the 'uptake'.

The truth

What is truth? Some say it is simply 'what is' but that isn't very helpful. In fact it's not even true. It's what WAS. Quantum probability implies this, more on this later. Anyway, the truth seems to be that which can be percieved, quite correctly, in many different ways. If truth = reality/maximum reality, then truth is made up of a network of different points of view, taking the form of a structure with great integrity, like a diamond's atomic structure for example, such that any point within the structure can be correctly observed from many different points. There is, or was, only one truth, however, just different sides to it. It would be illogical for different physical truths to exist, and truth's existence is defined by the fact that falsehoods exist. Physical truth consists of logic. Meta-physical truth consists of hypothetical premise and logic. So, a symptom of the truth being in front of you as opposed to a falsehood, is that it can be correctly observed in many different ways. In this way, we can say that: truth is synonymous with integrity, ONLY truth is a many splendoured thing, and you'll be lucky to get one 'splendour' out of a lie.

Quantum Probabiliity

What is it? It is the future, it is not true, just probable, and it is infinite. It is where we reside, in a state of 'quantum flux'. First you must accept that we are chemical reactions, that is, mind, body, intellect, emotions (if you believe this belittles us, then that is a value judgement on your part. I do not think it does, quite the opposite in fact). This is "true", and resides in the 'einsteinian', relative, maximally true universe(The term 'Maximally true' will be explained later on). All that we percieve is a past event, e.g. the sun as it was 8 mins ago, things on this planet we see a fraction of a moment ago. Even our mind and body, operate at a delay, thoughts moving electrically from one node to another, things affecting each other at the speed of light or slower, therefore not at the same time. Hence our very consciousness, minds and bodies are in a constant arrear of time, in the past, while the 'perspective', or 'position' in the unverse that we presently occupy is in a state of probability, as is the future. The distinction between that 'present' and the 'future' becomes obsolete, therefore we exist in the future, and the 'present' does not exist, rather it is not absolutely real, only the maximum amount of 'realness' before it becomes the past, retaining 100% probability, but disappearing from reality. Only the EFFECTS of what was percieved as 'present' remain. Only by observing these 'effects' such as the electrical imprinting on the memory, the physical evidence, can we understand the concept of 'past'. The reality of the past reduces as it becomes metaphysical, but the probability of it remains 100%. Conversely, the concept of the future is metaphysical but with a boundless probability, only given bounds by perception of that which is more 'real', the 'present'.

I submit that matter and non matter in the relaive universe has a basic perception, in that it recieves information and the information has an effect on it. The quantum universe of probability must also percieve the relative universe, in a reciprocal relationship, dependent on each other. We know that static and dynamic depend on each other at all times, nothing is absolutely dynamic or static, so the 'true' relative universe cannot be ABSOLUTELY so, just a maximum level of reality/trueness, subjective to the point of observation, the level of reality decreasing as one metaphysically percieves further into the future or the past. I submit that there cannot be any absolutes, in the physical or metaphysical realm. The nature of existence is described in the symbol of Yin Yang. The future is boundless because it is not 'true', only probable, and there is no reason for the concept of boundaries, hence it is infinte, and decreasing in reality the further into the future BUT is depndent on the past, or the einsteinian universe, which is finite, the big bang leading up to the point of our relative perceptions, and is at a maximum level of reality, hence more real than the future. The 'absolute' reality of the moment of perception in the relative world is not absolute because there can be no fixed 'moment'. It is therefore 'maximum reality', subject to whatever is arbitrarily decided IS the moment. Similarly, the future cannot just become less and less real further into the future to infinity, because when something is infinitely unreal it does not exist. There instead must be an increase until a point of 'maximum unreality' is reached at the furthest point in the future metaphysically percieved. This cannot be "ABSOLUTE unreality" because it is metaphysically percieved, just a "MAXIMUM unreality". This would be the only concievable "end" to the universe if you like, only in the metaphysical realm. It cannot absolutely end because it does not absolutely exist. This would fit in with why the universe is accelerating and not decelerating back into a "crunch". Also, the increasing atomizing of probability as one percieves further and further into the future would have to increase until non-existence. It is like a sliding scale where the 2 poles are nonexistent. This would explain "something" from "nothing".

The 'present' is an arbitrary term, what ever is commonly agreed. Truth and probability need each other, because they are defined by one another. The fluctuation in the future may not be infinite, just extremely vast, bound by logic, i.e. all POSSIBLE realities, hence giving us freedom to choose. Or we may have only one future, that we are bound to carry out by our nature and hence by inevitable circumstances arisen from nature. The future may only fluctuate between existence and non-existence. Or all 3 theories may apply: 1) A finite number of possible futures, No time/space or physical laws apply yet, so 2) each future is boundless infinity, which must 3)fluctuate between infinite existence/possibility and non-existence.  No cause and effect applies, so these 3 stages are ever present.  This may be regarded as a basic 'perception', which gives the possible futures a reality to be possible FROM.  This reality is einsteinian relativity, within which life resides, always in the past, 'bordered' by the speed of light. By perception I mean that it recieves information and the information has an effect on it.  Differing types or 'tunnels' of perception are dependent on the life form, each type of consciousness existing as a more complex structure of perception founded on this fundamental perception, be it plant, bacteria, or human consciousness/sentience.

Information

This is the mathematical theory describing the universe as that which informs and that which is informed, or information. This is a descripion of perception, whereby all matter and non matter must have a position and a perspective to percieve the quantum universe, and the quantum universe is informed by the relative universe in the same way. This information is said to be digital in nature, which I believe is probably fluctuation between existence and non-existence, 1s and 0s.

Veganism

This is not eating meat or dairy produce. In other words nothing made from an animal.

1-you'll feel, be, and look healthier so you don't need it

2-it's more efficient and therefore moral use of the world's nutrition resources

3-it's moral.

4- it's just as tasty!

1-The main stuff we got from it was calcium and protein. Calcium is high in greens and a little in all veg, high percetage of protein is in beans, reasonable amount in wholemeal bread+rice, and a little in almost everything else, even salad. Youl'll also get good stuff along WITH the protein, unlike with meat.

We do not need milk from an animal as it was developed genetically to feed it's own offspring. Alot of people, especially north east europeans or of germanic origin, have developed a a tolerance to the lactose in milk. I am also aware that modern cows have been manipulated genetically to produce more suitable milk for humans. However, we have initially evolved without the need for this, there's excess fat and undigestable stuff in it that produces more phlegm, and those germanic peoples (i.e. english, scandinavian, german) that have developed tolerance are a little more bovine in nature than other breeds of people. By this I mean the reduction in difference in width between the hips and the chest/shoulders, increase in hip width, thicker bones, less agile more sedentiary in nature, the coining of the insult "cow" when referring to a female because of some unconsciously observed similarity with people in general in such societies to cows. This probably extends back to india/egypt/middle east, the origins of the indo-european peoples, when cows were first used in this way. Greater intakes of Vitamin D, calcium and phosphorous all contributed to such people's physical development.

Dairy product is unnecessary and distasteful, with possible effects as mentioned above. These effects may not be a BAD thing, but let's keep genetic manipulation and food as separate things, so that we are in full awareness of what we are doing instead of affecting our bodies unknowingly by blindly following our hunger. Anyway, we do not need it.

2-The energy taken from meat is taken from the land by the animal, after being partly used by the animal, so to eat the animal is to consume less of the resources from the given amount of land required to support you. It is more efficient to take the nutrition directly from the land, alongside the animal. By extension, this efficiency towards the world's energy resources is logical with respect to life, therefore moral, given that the resources are limited.

3-Animals have a sense of self, regardless of how developed their consciousness is. It is given by our relative position in the universe, even viruses. Consciousness is just awareness, and as limited or different as it may be, it's life is just as valuable to it (with respect to it's own purpose in life) as your's or mine. They kill because they are compelled and cannot intellectualize: we CAN, therefore we are morally wrong to eat meat. With our greater power comes our greater responsibility. This is unavoidable if we are to be moral beings. Morality is based on logic. It is logical to appreciate other conscious beings because they are all that provide meaning in a universe that cannot be absolute, or absolutely REAL. If we kill a sentient being it can only be because it was trying to kill you, or you truly percieve it was trying to kill you. Common consensus and corroboration with other sentient beings is that which puts the universe at maximum possible reality. We may even kill if it is to save other life, but one MUST weigh up the complexity of consciousness on the side of that which one saves, and that which one kills. In all above cases, killing must be a last resort.

4-flavour in meat comes from spices not the meat. Any inherent flavour in meat is masked wherever possible.

It is therefore logical and pleasurable to be vegan.