Brandyforandy t1_j3n814s wrote

Thank yourself, I am having a great time discussing this topic with you. Your questions really make me think in directions which I haven't considered before. My initial thought was very immature, some inspiration I had in the moment. As we flesh it out together it seems to have greater depth than I could have anticipated.

I believe it wasn't so much that we found our paths, as we subconsciously looked at the reactions of the people around us for answers and consequences. Instead of being told what to do, we had to think and gather information from a variety of sources.


Brandyforandy t1_j3g9g81 wrote

Isn't that because you were raised to find that you always need to find your own path, and nothing is constant? So your upbringing, up to 12, consisted of a lifestyle that required constant learning and growth. The reason I am asking is because my upbringing were similar, and I also have a similar mindset to you.


Brandyforandy t1_j3ba6jq wrote

A thought exercise - I've had a thought that upbringing stops at 12, when the child enters puberty. At this point they begin rebelling and take in new experiences. While rebelling they are in fact not 'rebelling', but testing if the knowledge they've gained from their parents hold up in the real world. If it does, they keep it, if it doesn't, it's discarded. They keep up until they're an adult, where they've formed their own opinions.

I believe this is why we 'grow up to become like our parents', but not until we are actual adults, and not exactly alike.


Brandyforandy t1_j39ge5b wrote

I find it curious that you see it this way. There was a study done a few years ago on what makes a creative individual.. creative. They found that it was not intelligence, nor brain size that mattered, but the ability to make absolutely random connections in the brain, seemingly unnecessary connections. In that way, creative people would be able to come up with the most absurd ideas, but not necessarily have the ability to judge the viability of them. Maybe be need both, some people who are 'open' and others who are 'closed'.


Brandyforandy t1_j39ffna wrote

It's not wrong to go astray, but to go astray and not reflect upon it would lead to repeated actions. There are many who are of the belief that practice makes perfect, I am of the belief that practice makes permanent. And so, if you repeatedly go astray you'll make a habit of it, instead of doing the right thing from the start. In the first place, these are all our perceptions, there is nothing which is right and wrong. So in an absolute nihilistic way of thinking we need to search within us to find what is right for you. In a human with proper upbringing this is often correlated with things which we view as positive values.


Brandyforandy t1_j39ef0h wrote

'The universe itself want us to explore it' was meant in a poetic and exploratory way. In a more factual way I would say 'We are the universe exploring itself, therefore the universe want to explore itself, because we are part of the universe' If that were not true we would not have the urge of curiosity and exploration, novelty. I am fully aware that we developed this through evolution, and i argue that it is not we as a species who have evolved, but the universe who evolved into a more advanced phase.


Brandyforandy t1_j374lt6 wrote

What if there are other consciousnesses in other parts of the universe? We might be just a perspective. You can't deny that we are part of the universe and that we are conscious. Our brains are said to be the only part of the human which is conscious, but we don't say that the brain is an entity of it's own. Our brain would not be able to survive without our bodies and we would not be able to survive without the universe. Because there isn't really a distinction between them.

I believe that saying we are a separate entity from the universe is incredibly arrogant and ooze of self-importance. It's like saying animals don't have consciousness when every indication point to that they do. We are just a small speck in this wide, wide cosmos. An unique speck, but a speck non-the less.