Definitely, but you have to learn correctly from the beginning and really put the work in. Get the theory down to a millimeter and keep reading it as you work on the actual motor skills.

Don't pressure him into being weird

Two words, earwax buildup.

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.

I, as well, am similar to you that I always found my own path from a young age, so as a teenager there was no rebellious phase for me because whatever I had learned was already tested and true. I believe you are in a similar position.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

'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.

Awesome

I don't think it was ever said the universe as a whole is conscious, only that we represent the consciousness of the universe.

I can imagine being too open would impede your ability to form coherent beliefs. Openness could also be called naive in the way you are explaining, it's important to use critical thinking so that you are not led astray.

Why do you not think consciousness, and life is the part of the universe looking back at itself?

Oh! a growth mindset?

Not be as finite? But, still finite? What do you mean exactly by saying this.

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.

Why do you think it's similar to cars moving in a city?

We are part of the universe, and conscious.

Why don't you think the universe want something?

So they are saying to accept the fragmentation would make you a stronger person?

Consciousness is the universe looking back at itself! Always loved this quote. Why? Because if that's true then the universe itself want us to explore it.

A well written paragraph is worth a thousand pictures.

Make it sound like other people might react but you are fine with it because you love the person. This creates a stronger bond and adress the problem.

This is the way.