User talk:Natmanprime

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Willking1979 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Talk:Meaning of life
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you look at the top of Talk:Meaning of life you'll see a message that says, "This is not a forum for general discussion of what you think the meaning of life is. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to post your thoughts at the Reference desk, the Village pump, or the Help desk." I've moved your comments here, per that message. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of life according to Natmanprime
The meaning of life is EXCITEMENT, in it's proper sense of the word.

'Human' life has the following 5 forms of excitement:

Excitement=1) FEAR.

Why: will to escape what is percieved as harmful, for speed, maintenance of life.

What: Adrenaline combined with "bowel loosening", cold sweating.

How: Sensually and genetically induced, also sometimes intellectually induced e.g. fear of death, danger or harm to oneself or those who are genetically closest. (The intellect is the combination of 'memory' and 'reasoning ability'. Phobias stem from genetics, senses, sometimes memory but never reasoning processes.)

Excitement=2) LUST.

Why: will to take what is percieved as needed, for increasing ability to take it, maintenance and growth of life.

What: Adrenaline combined with bodily preparations to take object of lust.

How: Sensually and genetically induced, also intellectually induced in less extreme forms e.g. sex, food, air, drink

Excitement=3) JOY/happiness.

Why: Incentive. To inform that drives are being satisfied/ were satisfied when memory is used/ will be satisfied when possible satifaction is percieved physically or metaphysically(i.e. imagined).

What: Adrenaline with seratonin/dopamine caused by it.

How: Left over energy from achieving desired goal, if there happens to be any energy left, and pleasurable chemical sensation around brain (happiness is joy with the excitement taken out). Sensually and genetically induced, also often intellectually induced e.g.  progressing towards a desired goal, pride, satisfaction, anticipation of excitement

Excitement=4) ANGER/rage.

Why: will to destroy what is percieved as harmful, for strength to destroy it, for maintenance of life.

What: Adrenaline with muscle twitching, increased breath intake in preparation for strength.

How: Sensually and genetically induced, sometimes intellectually induced e.g. desire to destroy something or the idea of something you don't like, revenge

Excitement=5) CURIOSITY/lust for knowledge.

Why: Will to take knowledge, to either: gain power to achieve desires(masculine,testosterone) or to feel safe/protected(feminine,oestrogen), for growth and maintenance of life.

What: Adrenaline with increased reasoning activity(neurons firing, possibly dopamine/seratonin if future happiness/joy/satisfacion is imagined as possible outcome of inquiry).

How: ONLY sensually and intellectually induced e.g. wanting to understand or to know what's hidden, regarding something already intellectually decided to be meaningful.

One could argue that seratonin or dopamine is the purpose of life, whatever aspects of the universe are in a position to induce it, but I would say that adrenaline is the motivator for creating those aspects and environments. Also, one's meaning in life may be achieved without inducing any level of bliss/happiness at the end, (e.g. revenge) while excitement(anger) is still required at some point at least. Excitement is adrenaline acing upon the body, adrenaline is meaningless on it's own hence the meaning of life is excitement NOT adrenaline, while seratonin/dopamine (i.e bliss,satisfaction) is a common reward.

One may also argue that it's whatever we choose, i.e. any aspect of the universe that induces some type of excitement. The chosen aspect is not inherently meaningful, only when associated with the induced excitement. Conversely, it is impossible to have excitement without the environment being involved, so there is no point in mentioning it. So, excitement itself must be the meaning, not the event it is associated with.

One may argue power or submission as the meaning in life. While I recognize that our relationship to the universe can be divided into those 2 things, and that both are necessary in life (e.g submission to rules in a game, morality, drives, or power over environment to achieve rewards, satisfy drives, survive) both induce some sort of excitement.

No reference required because it's patently logical, by observation.--Natmanprime (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The biggest problem is that it violates the "no original research" clause, outlined at WP:OR. Without external references to back up your opinions, it's simply an essay or a statement of personal opinion. You could, on the other hand, create it as an essay via a user subpage. Click on User:Natmanprime/Meaning of life according to Natmanprime. This will allow you to create a visible page, but one off of the main article space. Hope this helps. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and hi
Hi Natmanprime, I'm so glad you consider of your interest the annotations I wrote. Thank you very much for your courtesy and for honouring me with your comment. Let me say I'm extremely empiricist and materialist concerning my observation of the world and my learning of the world. Believe me, I'm boringly empiricist and materialist. My personal approach to scientific literature is, firstly and mainly, a mere "terminological-notational" approach, complemented with the consideration of the mental signified objects (space objects, etc) that are strictly necesary for holding the terminology. And, in general, I don't need to be given proofs to stop believing in objects' existence; but, contrarily, I need to be given good empirical proofs to start believing in things (in short, for me, nothing exists, until (empirically) proven). Just a few words about my way of thinking. Thanks again for your courtesy and your consideration. I will be glad to converse with you on any subject. --Faustnh (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

thoughts
framework without a frame

absolutes don't exist

only the varying portions of each, anywhere along the "sliding scale" of the spectrum is metaphysically true, NOT the extremes.

for example anarchy and fascism.

the same for the physical realm.

for example nothingness and everything

existence and non-existence.

matter and percieved quantum matter

there is nothing absolutely static

nothing absolutely dynamic

Both are true, along a SLIDING SCALE, or a SPECTRUM.

"how was there something out of nothing?"

what we call "something" and "nothing" is not the same as existence and non-existence.

non-existence is NOT endless time and space, it is NO time and NO space.

existence is NOT absolutely real.

"something out of nothing" becomes a false question, because neither concepts are true.

The concept of existence becomes understandable.

The past WAS real, but therefore does not exist any more, only it's effects (in the 'near past' that we call the 'present' because of the limiting speed of light)

So the past is not AS real as it was.

The future is not real either, until we meet it, with perception, THEN it attains "maximum reality" before it fades into the past, reducing it's reality.

at the moment we occupy a position in quantum probability.

We do not attain maximum reality until we are percieved by matter in the past, (because of a constant delay because of the speed of light).

The relative past percieves the quantum future because they exist simultaneously.

This perception DESCRIBES time, when percieved from the position of matter.

This does NOT mean that everything is fixed and preordained, because 1)that would imply a creator "why fix it a certain way??" which seems unlikely to say the least and 2) because "everything" is not completely real, or completely non existent. Just in a state of probability.

Like a "sliding scale" of reality, once again.

Yin Yang is satisfied.

I have never been to university, just spent time alone, hence my reasons for acquiring my knowledge was was to fulfill no other agenda than my personal advancement, education and satisfaction of curiosity. Others who learnt under duress and influence of institutional syllabus and social influence may have other agendas... so please don't pre judge, just judge, justly. Question logically.

Then I will be satisfied.

response to Stephen Weinberg
your quote "if you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics". This is true, because one cannot treat it or undertand it as physics or mechanics. There simply are no mechanics to it. Quantum physics predictions use and refer to the RELATIONSHIP between the non-physical and the relative realm. Like boouncing a ball off a wall, you don't need to understand the make-up of the wall, just how the ball bounces off of it. The BALL can be analysed and manipulated and understood inside and out. The BALL'S behaviour to the wall, the way it bounces off it, can be analysed, and manipulated. The WALL, however, is just the WALL.

weird dream
alot of names popped into my head last night. I don't know where they came from. I made myself remember one of them, although there were many, and it was Roy Hattersley. This guy is a uk politician. Weird. --Natmanprime (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)