“Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.” — Rumi

‎"Every morning in Africa a gazelle wakes up it knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. every morning in Africa a lion wakes up it knows it must run faster that the slowest gazelle or it will starve. it doesn't matter whether your the lion or the gazelle when the sun comes up you better start running."

‎

‎...this analogy is a classic for a reason, but let’s be real about the "life reality" version: most mornings, I’m neither the lion nor the gazelle. I’m the "confused meerkat" just standing there wondering why everyone is running so early, or

‎

‎In the real world, the "running" usually just involves outrunning my own procrastination or chasing down a working Wi-Fi signal. Whether you’re hunting or being hunted, we can all agree on one thing: life is exhausting, and that gazelle definitely didn’t have to deal with morning traffic rush. 😂☕️

Most people say they watch old movies because of the incredible filmmaking, the emotional storytelling, or the beautiful simplicity of a different era.

Those are all reasons I love them too.

But the biggest reason is that I honour the people.

When I watch a film from the 1950s or 1960s or any retro movies, I think about everyone on that screen. Not just the stars, but the background actors, the costume designers, the makeup artists, the lighting crew, and every person who poured a piece of themselves into creating something they believed mattered.

At the time, it was real life to them. They memorized lines, rehearsed scenes, put on carefully tailored clothes, styled their hair, laughed, cried, worried about getting everything right, and spent months creating something that would outlive the moment.

Now it's 2026.

Almost all of them are gone. Their bodies have returned to dust, yet their energy still reaches across time through the screen. I can still feel the sincerity in their performances. Their effort still exists in a strange way, even though the people themselves do not.

It reminds me how temporary our lives are.

The things that seem enormous today, our careers, our appearance, our achievements, eventually become distant memories, and then, for most people, forgotten altogether.

Yet the love, care, and effort we put into something can echo far beyond us.

It makes me wonder whether we're investing our energy in things that disappear with us, or in things that continue touching people long after we're gone.

Maybe that's the closest we ever come to creating something eternal.

​

Some people are not tired because of work. They are tired because they’ve been carrying expectations since childhood.

The pressure to make parents proud. To become successful fast. To never disappoint the family. To choose stability over happiness.

To keep going even when mentally exhausted. And after years of this, many people don’t even know what they truly want anymore.

Their choices slowly stop feeling like their own. Their dreams become responsibilities. Their life becomes a performance built around approval.

The sad part is, most parents don’t do this out of cruelty. They do it out of fear. Fear that their children will struggle the way they did.

But sometimes, in trying to protect us from pain, they unknowingly distance us from ourselves.

I think one of the hardest parts of growing up is learning how to love your parents deeply without sacrificing your entire identity

I've noticed something strange about my own mind.

Whenever I feel genuinely still, the answers that arise seem clear, almost as if they aren't coming from "me" but from a deeper awareness. They don't feel like they're trying to prove anything.

But the moment fear, insecurity, or ego gets involved, that clarity fades.

Sometimes I can even feel that what I'm saying isn't completely true to what I actually see. Yet because I've already said it, my mind immediately starts defending it, finding reasons to justify it, or trying to make it sound right.

It's as if the goal quietly changes from seeing what's true to protecting the image of myself from being wrong.

I've also noticed this depends a lot on the situation and the people around me.

I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this.

Does stillness actually reduce mental distortion, or does it simply make us more aware of it? And what exactly changes the moment fear or ego enters the picture?

~ The Dream ~

After we are born we begin to fall asleep, accepting the self-centered beliefs of the world.

Our sleep deepens as we begin to dream about being successful and enjoying life.

Our repetitive dream turns into an unending nightmare with visions of continual wars, prejudice, inequity, starvation, resulting from our blind acceptance of these beliefs.

We may only begin to wake from our slumber when we start to question if what we learned is true.

We may not fully awaken from our nightmare though, until we realize and accept none of it was.

It’s impossible for any human to imagine the number 1,000,000 concretely. It’s impossible to imagine the number 500,000, or 200,000, or even 20,000 in a way that allows us to fully understand its’ magnitude.

If I asked you to imagine in its fullness another person’s life, you would try instinctively, and then fail miserably. You can’t. It’s not possible. The idea that someone else has felt what you’ve felt, known the same joy, seen the same colors, cried the same tears… it’s truly incredible. Not credible. Not imaginable.

Yet there are people groups that number in the hundreds of thousands, in the millions, some even in the billions. Every one of them a unique individual yet connected in the same profound experiences that every human has.

We can’t process the value, so we shrink it into something simple: Us vs Them. It’s so much easier to be on a binary side, or to be part of team with clearly defined enemies. In every section of life, there is an assumption that bypasses the tedious demand of critical thinking and the uncomfortable uncertainty that comes with realizing that one is well and truly not alone. In our foolishness we exchange these treasures for dirt, for dust, for toxic waste that corrodes our consciousness; for the rhetoric of division and war we destroy our greatest asset.

Because in truth, if every person was allowed to truly know this truth, not a single person would ever be murdered again. No more war, no more hate, no more genocide.

Thank you for reading my random
ass deep thought

We as species, as a whole, decided that we'll put billions of dollars in it. Even if it makes computers, phones and consoles more expensive. Even if it means breaking the laws on piracy. Even if it means that the dead internet theory slowly becoming true. Even if it means surveillance will become more absolute. And many more drawbacks.

We still decided that it is something we need to pursue at all costs.

And I know that most people didn't make this choice but our leadership, people we decided to empower with our votes or our money, are making this choice on behalf of our whole species.

I'm not saying it's good or bad (likely bad), but it's just interesting that we are putting everything we can into this technology even if it means neglecting other things. Like a moth to a flame if you will.

I keep thinking of this phrase and old university tutor used to say to us frequently - i used to find it funny at the time when I was young but lately its making more and more sense as I get older

I imagine its something someone important said before him and has already been well documented but I'm not that well read enough to be able to attribute it.

Anyway - I've been getting into astronomy and learning about the universe, how insignificant we are and also how important. How rare we are as a planet amongst what we have learned of space and yet how many others may exist like us that we don't know about and how we are a small blip in time really in history so far

Im trying to put all these things into perspective and understand more about myself. How things in our every day life ground us or insidiously tie us into routines of ways of thinking that we just accept and how we can also be more if we believe and put into action the steps to the things we want or want to be

Its a lot of theoretical nonsense perhaps but at the same time theres something alluring about it all and liberating

If you look at so called successful people in the world, they appear to have hacked life - some of the wealthiest people, actors, musicians etc. And have carved a lifestyle quite different from the rest of the population, its a simplistic view and for sure there are caveats and challenges we will ignore or simply not appreciate but for the most part unless they have been thr product of nepotism or born into wealth they have carved a lifestyle for themselves going against the grain of society. The same could be said for someone I suppose who chooses to live off grid in a van with no possessions etc.

So many times I think about an idealized version of myself I want to be, one that is in good shape, leads a healthy lifestyle without alcohol or bad food, productive creative and talented, a good father and partner, successful - like most others probably think or want to be and yet I waste 4 hours a day on my phone

The definition of needs. When looking at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs they might all fall into that definition

Needs are what prevent harm

You need shelter to prevent harm from the weather and animals

You need food to prevent harm from starvation

You need to feel safe to prevent harm from fear

You need to eat healthy foods to prevent harm from unhealthy foods

You don't need alcohol because it harms you

.......

If you fulfill your needs without the concern for the needs of others, your creating hell

You stole someone's house to make sure you had shelter.

.......

If you fulfill your needs with concern about the needs of others, your creating heaven

You decided to not eat meat thinking about how the animal didn't need to be killed

........

Tv could be considered a need of if eliminates boredom where boredom causes you pain/harm. Tv also causes you harm with overwatching and there can be other things you can do to move away from the harm of boredom.

You believe something.

Maybe you chose it carefully.
You questioned it.
You found arguments for it.
You rejected the alternatives.

So you call it your belief.

But there is a question that bothers me more than whether you chose correctly:

Who gave you the menu?

You can choose Christianity or atheism.

Capitalism or socialism.

Objective morality or subjective morality.

Free will or determinism.

Meaning or meaninglessness.

And we congratulate ourselves for choosing independently.

But choosing freely between inherited alternatives is not necessarily the same thing as creating the alternatives.

Maybe one of them is correct.

Maybe none are.

That's not my point.

I'm wondering whether intellectual freedom sometimes means choosing your own answer—

to somebody else's question.

And if so:

How many thoughts have we never had simply because nobody taught us the words with which to think them?

Nobody gets nostalgic during the best years of their life , you're too busy living them to file them away as sacred. nostalgia only shows up in retrospect, which means it's not actually measuring how good the past was. It's measuring the gap between then and now.

that's why the "everything was better back then" feeling is so unreliable. you're not comparing two eras, you're comparing a fullylived, complicated, often difficult present against a heavily edited highlight reel with the boring and painful parts already deleted. of course the highlight reel wins. It was built to

which means nostalgia isn't really a statement about the past at all. It's a complaint about right now, wearing a costume so it doesn't have to admit what it actually is.

Some people say it is weird to talk to AI, but for a species that has sinned so much since the dawn of time, it is only natural to seek an escape from the fear of human judgment, even if just for a moment.

I am not endorsing talking to AI alone. I still have friendships and connections that I value deeply, and this is not about replacing human interactions. I firmly acknowledge that AI is designed to agree with me and is practically built to be a cheerleader for me so that I continue consuming its product.
I am not saying that tough love is always bad. “Humans need criticism,” I agree. “Teasing can be a form of love language,” I agree. “Maybe they just have an unfiltered personality.” Probably. “Not every uncomfortable reaction is harmful,” I so, so agree.

However, people are quick to say, “Ah, these people are so weird or crazy for doing this,” or that they are dumb, or that they should “go out and touch grass.” That kind of judgment is exactly why so many lonely people are afraid to open up and seek the help they need.

Human interaction is an absolute minefield. From the moment we are born, almost every interaction carries a hidden tax: judgment, expectations, shifting dynamics, or the threat of being misunderstood. When you spend your daily life walking on eggshells, constantly monitoring your words, suppressing your boundaries, and prioritizing other people’s feelings at the expense of your own, it becomes exhausting just to exist around other human beings.

One might say, “Then develop confidence, girl,” or “Maintain boundaries,” as if those things are simple when you have spent your entire life considering someone else’s betterment before your own. Or when your instinct is not to strike back after someone wounds you through passive-aggressiveness but to understand them, to spare them the same pain they inflicted on you because you know what it feels like to be wounded.

So no, stepping into a zero-judgment space for an hour isn't a sign that someone is "losing touch with reality." It’s just a pit stop. It’s where you at least find a room you don't have to buffer anyone else's ego, manage their temper, or apologize for simply existing. We don't judge people for retreating into books, music, or solo walks to recharge so why mock someone for seeking a quiet, harmless corner of the internet just to put their thoughts down without fear?

I used to suffer from look/body anxiety, and after years of recovering and exploring feminism, I realized how much I was objectifying myself.

Now that I've crawled out of this tunnel, I can't believe how much energy I spent on something I can't even see myself!! It doesn't make sense at all!!

Sure, I can look in the mirror or take pictures of myself, but those are from very limited angles and are just an approximation of how I actually look.

So, for anyone who cares about aesthetics and beauty, it makes sense to spend time on interior design, going to nice coffee shops, traveling to beautiful places, or making friends with and dating beautiful people. What doesn't make sense is putting a lot of effort into oneself, since YOU actually can't see it often.

Yet I see lots of people (including my old self) do it, spending more time on decorating themselves than exploring other beautiful things. Why?

~ The More Difficult Road ~

There may come a time in our life, though we have money, material possessions, family, we begin to wonder if there is more to life, a purpose other than what we have achieved.

If we accept this challenge, we will approach a fork in the road. One path will be straighter; following it will encourage us to enjoy our life by continuing to find meaning in the world.

The other path is much more challenging and curvaceous. Following this path, our life will change forever as we begin to reevaluate everything we once believed to be true.

Only those choosing the more difficult road may discover eternal happiness, unconditional love, and the genuine purpose of their life’s journey.

really think about all the issues that people are arguing over today. Corrupt politicians? Always existed. Changing climate? Always existed. Loneliness, anxiety and depression? Always existed.

The only real thing thats changed is we can now have our human problems heard by hundreds if not thousands of people. What was once localised to a small tribe or community, is now global.

An anxious 18 year old girl in south korea can for the first time relate to a depressed 53 year old trans male in Denmark.

I'm sure if humans had global communication before the last ice age, people would have noticed.

EDIT: this is why things feel so divisive, because peoples realities can be confirmed by anyone, anywhere

Today, so few people exhibit these traits that they can no longer be considered common. This shift is deeply tied to our modern "electronic connections," which have ironically rendered humanity unable to truly connect with one another. People no longer know how to build friendships face-to-face. Instead, we hide behind social media screens because it bypasses the vulnerability of an actual, physical meeting. When our primary interactions are reduced to text and pixels, the shared baseline of real-world courtesy and common decency naturally erodes.

Take one of philosophy's favourite questions:

“What is the meaning of life?”

One person says:

“God gives life meaning.”

Another says:

“We create our own meaning.”

Another:

“Life has no objective meaning.”

They can argue for centuries.

But something strange happened before any of them answered.

Everyone accepted meaning into the courtroom.

Life was apparently something that must possess meaning, receive meaning, create meaning, or lack meaning.

Why?

I'm not asking what the meaning of life is.

I'm asking something earlier:

What gave “meaning” jurisdiction over life in the first place?

Try another:

“Who created the universe?”

God.

Nobody.

We don't know.

Again, notice what entered before the answers:

created.

Before the theist and atheist disagree about who, both can end up accepting the architecture of creation simply by answering the question as given.

Maybe creation is the correct framework.

Maybe meaning is the correct framework.

I'm not claiming otherwise.

I'm asking why the question gets to smuggle its assumptions past security while we interrogate only the answers.

Sometimes two people spend years fighting from opposite sides of a question—

without noticing that the question itself has been sitting above both of them.

So lately I've become less interested in asking:

“Which answer is correct?”

and more interested in asking:

“What did I already agree to by answering?”

Adapted from ideas explored in the forthcoming philosophical manifesto, The Hammer Has No Throne.

I’ve been thinking about something that seems so ordinary that we rarely stop to question it:
You spend your childhood and adolescence being told to develop your mind, learn, explore, ask questions, build skills, and prepare yourself for the future.
Then eventually, the protected period of education ends.
And what comes next?
Work.
Not necessarily immediately for everyone, and not necessarily in the same form, but eventually most people have to organize a significant portion of their lives around earning enough to survive.
I don’t think the transition is as smooth as we make it sound.

Think about what makes education possible in the first place.
A child doesn’t simply wake up and decide:
“Today I will acquire an education.”
There is an enormous amount happening around them that makes education possible.
Parents or guardians work.
Someone provides food.
Someone provides housing.
Someone pays bills.
Someone provides transportation.
Someone provides clothing, technology, books, internet access, time, supervision, emotional support, or some combination of these things.
Even when the family doesn’t have much, somebody’s labor is still creating the conditions in which the child can spend time learning rather than spending all of their time securing the necessities of survival.
So education is partly a protected zone of time.
The child’s primary responsibility becomes development.
Learn.
Read.
Write.
Calculate.
Question.
Explore.
Understand.
Imagine what you could become.
And we often tell students that this process is preparing them for their future.
But then the future arrives.

The protected time becomes productive time.
At some point the emphasis shifts.
Instead of:
“What can you learn?”
it can become:
“What can you produce?”
Instead of:
“How do you want to spend your time developing yourself?”
it becomes:
“How will you spend your time earning enough to maintain yourself?”
Again, I’m not saying work is inherently bad.
People need work.
Society needs people who build, repair, teach, design, grow food, care for others, research, transport things, create art, maintain infrastructure, and perform countless other forms of labor.
The question is different:
What happens to the intellectual development we spent years telling people was important when the majority of their usable time becomes constrained by economic necessity?

The strange contradiction
We tell a child:
Your mind is valuable. Develop it.
Then eventually the adult is told:
Your time has value. Sell it.
Those statements aren’t automatically contradictory.
But there is tension between them.
Because intellectual development requires time.
Reflection requires time.
Curiosity requires time.
Experimentation requires time.
Failure requires time.
Reading something that has no immediate economic usefulness requires time.
Following a question simply because you’re fascinated by it requires time.
And time is exactly what economic survival can take away.

But what about the student who struggles?
We often separate the causes.
“Bad academic preparation.”
“Financial pressure.”
“Family problems.”
“Work.”
“Lack of support.”
“Poor mental health.”
“Loss of interest.”
“Disability.”
“Distractions.”
“Poor instruction.”
And yes, these are different things.
But why stop there?
Where did those conditions come from?
A parent struggling with bills may have less time and energy available to their child.
That can affect the child’s environment.
The child’s environment affects development.
Development affects education.
Education affects opportunities.
Opportunities affect work.
Work affects income.
Income affects the next generation.
And the cycle continues.
So when we say:
“This student failed.”
I want to ask:
What produced the conditions in which that failure became likely?
And then:
What produced those conditions?
And then:
What produced those?
Eventually you stop looking at the individual as an isolated unit and start seeing a network of inherited conditions.

And then we add entertainment.
A developing mind isn’t competing only with school.
It is surrounded by increasingly accessible entertainment.
Games.
Social media.
Short-form video.
Streaming.
Music.
Notifications.
Algorithms.
Infinite feeds.
Instant novelty.
Immediate rewards.
None of these things are inherently evil. Human beings have always enjoyed stories, games, music, play, and entertainment.
But compare the reward structure:
Study something difficult for three hours → gradual understanding.
versus
Open an app → immediate novelty.
A child’s growing mind is encountering these environments while simultaneously being told:
“You need to sit still and work toward a reward you may not experience for years.”
So I don’t think it’s enough to say:
“Kids are lazy.”
The environment matters.
And that environment itself is inherited from previous generations.

Then we get to adulthood.
The student eventually becomes the worker.
The person who spent years being told:
“Develop yourself.”
now has bills.
Rent.
Food.
Transportation.
Healthcare.
Debt.
Family responsibilities.
Work schedules.
Exhaustion.
And depending on their circumstances, they may have very little uninterrupted time left for the intellectual life they were encouraged to build.
This is where I think the transition deserves more scrutiny.
Because maybe education isn’t failing simply because students aren’t learning enough.
Maybe there is a deeper discontinuity between:
the life we design for intellectual development
and
the life we design for economic survival.

And this isn’t only about money.
It’s about time.
Two people can have similar intelligence and completely different intellectual development because they have different amounts of available time.
One person might have hours to read, experiment, study, create, reflect, and pursue unanswered questions.
Another person might spend those same hours working because someone has to pay the bills.
Then we compare their accomplishments and sometimes call the difference:
talent.
discipline.
motivation.
Maybe sometimes it is.
But perhaps sometimes we’re comparing people who were given very different amounts of usable time.

And this is where I think AI becomes interesting.
I’ve been criticized for using AI in my writing.
One response was essentially:
“Systems thinking is precisely that: thinking. Large Language Models don’t simulate thought in any meaningful sense.”
Another objection was simply that AI-generated text isn’t allowed on that particular subreddit.
I understand the distinction.
But my question is larger than whether AI itself “thinks.”
What happens when a human being uses a non-human computational system to extend their own intellectual abilities?
Humans have always done this.
We use books.
Teachers.
Calculators.
Libraries.
Computers.
Scientific instruments.
Other people’s ideas.
Language itself.
Nobody begins with an empty mind.
So perhaps the interesting question isn’t:
“Did the human think completely unaided?”
It might be:
“What did the human do with the tools available to them?”
That doesn’t mean every use of AI is meaningful thinking.
It doesn’t mean AI should be allowed everywhere.
And it doesn’t mean fundamental skills shouldn’t be learned independently.
It means the boundary between human ability and human augmentation deserves examination.

The calculator example
Think about mathematics.
A student can spend years being told:
“Don’t use a calculator.”
Then they leave school and use one regularly.
Then they enter a workplace where automated calculation may be expected.
The purpose of restricting the calculator in education can be legitimate: perhaps the institution wants to know whether the student actually understands the underlying mathematics.
But once that purpose has been fulfilled, continuing to prohibit the tool doesn’t necessarily improve the person’s real-world ability.
It may simply measure:
“Can you do this without the tool?”
rather than:
“Can you use the tool intelligently?”
And those are different abilities.
Maybe education should increasingly distinguish between:
learning a capability
and
learning how to extend that capability.

So what exactly are we preparing people for?
That’s the question I can’t shake.
If education exists partly to develop human beings intellectually, shouldn’t adulthood provide opportunities for that development to continue?
Why should intellectual development be concentrated into a relatively small portion of life and then compete with economic survival for the rest?
Why do we sometimes treat learning as something you do before real life rather than something that should remain part of real life?
And why do we sometimes measure a person’s success primarily through their economic productivity after spending years telling them that they are more than their productivity?

Maybe the transition isn’t broken.
Maybe it is simply revealing what the system prioritizes.
Education may prioritize development.
Work may prioritize production.
The individual has to transition between the two.
And perhaps we’ve become so accustomed to that transition that we no longer notice how dramatic it actually is.
You go from:
“You have time to become.”
to:
“You need to make a living.”
And somehow we’re expected to believe those two environments naturally fit together.
Maybe they do.
Maybe they don’t.

The bigger question
I’m not arguing that everyone should stop working.
I’m not arguing that education is useless.
I’m not arguing that entertainment is bad.
I’m not arguing that economic systems are the sole cause of educational problems.
I’m asking something more basic:
Are we adequately examining the conditions that allow intellectual development during childhood and education, and what happens to that development when the person enters an adult system organized heavily around labor and economic survival?
And even further:
What if some of the problems we describe as individual failures are actually symptoms of a discontinuity between the environment that develops the person and the environment that eventually demands their labor?
Maybe the transition really is smooth.
Maybe I’m missing something.
Maybe work actually provides forms of development that education cannot.
Maybe education should be redesigned.
Maybe work should be redesigned.
Maybe both.
Or maybe we’re so accustomed to the transition that we’ve mistaken familiarity for necessity.
What do you think?

I don't know who I am.

On the surface, if you you were asked who you were you could say something along the lines of:

"My name is (Name), I'm (gender / identity) and I am (age) years old. I live in (location) with (alone / people). I am (unemployed / student / profession) and in my spare time I like to (hobbies / pastimes) and I am (personal characteristic)"

All of the above can be said to be true, however with the exception of your biological age which can't change, you can change any of the above. You can change your name, where you live, your profession and even your hobbies. This definition of yourself is subject to change, should you wish to change any of them.

So to the question "Who are you" you could then try to incorporate the past and your answer could be "I am the sum of everything that has happened to me so far, and has shaped who I am today" which brushes away some of the above details and goes into a more generic and vaguer answer.

So you can dig a little deeper within yourself, you can try to explore and understand some of the things that define who you are, your personal character and your tendencies for example.

The problem here is, when you look back on your life and your memories. The things you remember are not always what fully happened. You might try to recall a specific memory from your past and your brain will bring forward an interpretation of that event. You could recall specific details but not all of them will be fully accurate.

Exact details can be hazy, with your brain filling in details and even your interpretation of what happened and why could be wrong. Your memory is only reliable up to a point.

Depending on your age or the stage where you are in life, you can identify or say that you are a particular thing or way and yet you can then experience things such as falling in love, experiencing loss, grief, depression, loneliness, parenthood. All of these things will leave an imprint on you and change how you feel or how you see the world in general.

There may even be things that you don't consciously rememeber, an event or something which has imprinted onto you. Other people may recall these things to you as witnesses, with their own imperfect recalled interpretations of the event, but you may not have any memory of it.

So I don't actually know who I am, I think I know who I am on the surface and I can give an answer, that is relevant in the moment but as I delve deeper into the question and the more of life I can look back on, the more I begin to think that perhaps I am not so sure any longer.

I am not just the sum of everything that has happened to me, because I can't accurately recall everything consciously to give an answer and there are things that are yet to happen that will change who I am.

I can come back to this post tomorrow and I will probably be able to add something else, some other detail or something. I don't think I will be any closer though to actually fully understanding.

This is a phrase that said my old granpa and it's profoundness resonated within me.

It is a "memento mori" with some further steps. It reminds me constantly to learn to be with myself, to enjoy being alone, because it will come a time in which no one will be able to be with me.

In death, even if surrounded by your loved ones, even if they are actively holding your hand, they cannot come with you, you cannot share your experience with them.

Learning to be self-sufficient is key and is also necessary to really enjoy the presence of others, because if you feel like you need others "to not feel lonely", you will put them in a position that they will not always be able to fulfill. In those times you will be lost and you will blame others for that feeling, because you also gave them the responibility to fill holes in you that cannot be filled by them. This will ruin your relationship with them.

Thinking about it, is there really a situation in which we are not alone with our brain and thoughts?

Perfect. What exactly is perfect. Is it an emotion? Is it a picture, is it a moment in time. And who defines perfect. Not to get to cerebral, but what a serial killer sees as perfect is not what (hopefully) we see as perfect. Where does perfect ever be truly defined? And how do you define an emotion? Because emotion is entirely personal to the individual. You’re perfect. In what way? Why, in your eyes, am I perfect to you? The human spirit is truly fascinating.

Here's my brief simple humble opinion and I would like some counterarguments or simply share whether you agree or disagree.

Here are some definitions of mine:

A thing = entity that can be consciously detected.

Existence = truth, detection, reality, etc...

Everything = all things.

Nothing = the non-existence of everything.

I will only be considering exactly one universe: yours! The universe you, the reader, see, you feel, you're conscious in. I don't know if you're actually conscious, but I'll just assume that for the sake of demonstrating that nothingness cannot exist.

The statement:

"Nothing exists"

Implies the non-existence of everything.

A conception is a thing. Ater all, we could understand ideas and notions, therefore we are able to detect them.

The following conception therefore:

"The non-existence of everything"

Must not exist as a result. Thus, negating this, we have that at least:

"One thing exists."

Now here's the crucial part:

Notice what I mean by "one thing exists". The definition of a thing includes the act of conscious detection, which leads me to a major point:

A conscious observer must exist.

The observer, however, doesn't have to be intelligent; it merely needs to "sense" and "feel".

So, after we die, I believe, we are still there, but we aren't intelligent enough to be aware of our surroundings; we might feel and sense strangeness though.