To you point about self-sufficiency, indeed, Aristotle noted over two thousand years ago, “Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient…is either a beast or a god.”
I've personally found comfort in the Tao. Everything is just kinda wishy-washy, and fluid. I don't think there are "rules" that "govern" humans or the universe per se. It just *is.* We're just kinda here, like a wave. Waves come, and go, and crash, and flow. I've found comfort in the fact that we are *all* the Tao, we are *all* a part of not only our temporary existence, but this wave we call "reality." I think despite having no purpose per se, the fact that we can create our own purpose is wild and beautiful.
Some people search for an absolute, immutable foundational thing that can't be divided into other parts and exists forever in its unchanging state. I'd love to know what that thing is but I'm also concerned that it might explode my brain.
Happy New Year, Professor Moore. Wishing you and your family well. Thanks for thoughts on life and we appreciate your humor as well. I'm glad to be here and will continue to muddle along. Eager to see future videos from you and hear your thoughtful views.🎉
Re: impossibility of complete self-knowledge: I think that the project of self-knowledge isn't an individual one per se. We figure out who we are within a shared *context*; A profession, a family, a community, a piece of land, etc. I believe a gestalt form of self-knowledge (within a context) is sufficient to qualm the restlessness of that question.. The question (self-knowledge) is intractable in my own mind disconnected from everything else.
8:04 About what "natural" even means: I find it easy to make sense of if it's framed as "nature vs. nurture": Something is natural if you didn't need to be raised/convinced to do it. But to deal with some particular issues you raised: 1. 8:30 "to act against our nature": I think this is equivocating the two meanings of "someone's nature". On one hand, there's "nature" meaning "before human influence" (so what I named above), and on the other hand, "your nature" can mean "your essence". Acting against your nature in the former sense isn't paradoxical at all, you just need to be inspired by something that you or another human did on accident, and then you'll be acting unnaturally. In the latter sense, I agree that acting against your nature is a paradox, even though people sometimes actually say that. But there, you might as well say that someone is just "acting against their habits", which again makes perfect sense. 2. 8:46 "they might say it's natural to want children": This is something that my definition above covers pretty well. There is a societal pressure to have children that makes me question whether it really is a natural drive (after all, if it was, why would I still need to be raised/convinced to need children?), but on the other hand, it seems plausible to me that at least many people would still feel that way without anyone's influence. The nature vs. nurture debate is a controversial one for a reason. 9:23 At this point, you just seem to be confusing law with morality. Social and legal rules come about through the actions and dynamics of the society as a whole, and those really are the rules that everyone must follow. Moral law is much easier to disobey, especially when it's not connected to social or legal rules. But then still, many people (even if not all, disqualifying it from your "human limits" discussion) feel compelled to follow their own moral beliefs. Two simple ways in which I can explain this are: 1. People get trained from childhood to follow existing rules. A proper education will instill an intrinsic motivation to follow them. A person can then generalize these rules to a moral principle, meaning that the intrinsic motivation will be attributed to this principle, rather than the individual rules. For example, a child might be scolded after throwing rocks at other children, and praised after helping their parents with doing the dishes. The child might learn and commit itself to the principle that it is good to please others. 2. There is an evolutionary advantage to altruism and empathy. Basically, if everyone in a group prioritizes each other, then each individual will have better chances than if everyone only helps themselves. And empathy is very useful in other regards, like making communication and deduction in social settings a lot easier. And because there exists an evolutionary advantage to these things, humans will be naturally inclined to be able to develop these traits. Note that neither of these explanations serve as a DEFINITION for morality, but rather, as an explanation for why it is that humans can be bound to follow moral law. To define morality, I would simply state that "morality" DESCRIBES behavior that intends to help other people. So I first decide what morality means, and then look for explanations for why it is that humans follow what I just described. 11:47 I wouldn't say mortality is a standard we can all agree on. Sure, *I* think you actually die when you get killed, but a lot of faiths don't accept this tautology. They think a ghost version of you exits your body and then gets killed again or gets reborn or gets transferred to some other realm, all so you don't actually die. About restlessness, I'd like to point out what I think is a bias in how we remember and talk about periods of rest and restlessness: When something doesn't change for a long time, the entire process is easy to describe quickly. In contrast, when it keeps changing for a long time, an adequate description of the process would take a long time. So if both are described to the same quality, then most of the time was spent talking about the period of change. I would say the same about our memory. In this way, our perception of those two things would naturally be biased towards thinking that nothing ever stays still. But this is false, and many humans are perfectly content with what they have. As for how to be content with what you have, the distinction that currently gives me the most hope is that while it's true that Augustine can't possibly keep loving forever until the end of time, it is instead possible that it will always be true that Augustine has accomplished his search. For me, that means that my accomplishments will always be. That doesn't mean I'll stop trying to do more at any particular point, but this would be a question of my state of mind at any time, which I find has to be managed through different means entirely.
It seems like you argue that it's hard to describe the "laws that govern human conduct" as natural in part because wisdom is violable but gravity isn't and in part because people have conflicting concepts of human nature. I'm not very convinced by either argument, though. For the first point, not all laws of nature are deep physical facts like magnetism or gravity. Some are probabilistic tendencies. For example, you might argue that natural selection is a law of nature. However, does this mean it's a violation of natural law for poorly adapted organisms to exist? No, it just means over time, poorly adapted organisms will tend to not survive. Similarly, the laws of probability don't entail that you can never flip a fair coin and get heads 10 times in a row. They just entail that as you flip that coin an arbitrarily large number of times, the average will tend towards 50-50. I think wisdom is like natural selection and probability. It is wise to look both ways you cross the street. This is rooted in natural laws - from the physical laws that govern collisions between bodies in motion, to the anthropological laws that dictate how societies with lots of automobiles organize their activity. However, it is not a defiance of nature to cross the street recklessly. It's just behavior that's likely to get you in trouble eventually, like how being a black mouth on white snow is likely to get you eaten. I also don't think it's a problem that people disagree about what's natural. I mean, some people might just be wrong. People also disagree about what's wise, right? But beyond that, why does wisdom or nature have to be homogeneous across people? Maybe it's natural for some people to want kids but not others. Even Aristotle agreed that horses and goats have different natures. Why can't Sally have a different nature. than Jane?
It seems like this video posits that people should pursue things that are durably satisfying, and that creates constraints, like how the desire to win imposes constraints on how you play chess. You are free to make any move you want, but some moves are better than others. In other words, the human good teleologically superordinates our lives. I think that's a beautiful idea, except I'm skeptical that good exists. It's easy to say that hedonism is shallow. But is God really deep and durably satisfying? Is Love? The public good? I'm skeptical because I've met a lot of deeply committed believers, and they don't seem to me to have found real succor from anxiety or physical suffering. Physical suffering especially is bad. The most faithful Christian I've ever known had his faith founder when he developed ALS because the physical suffering of that disease was too much for him to maintain practical hope for tomorrow. This goes beyond just Christians. My parents are deeply in love and have built a wonderful family, but that's also entailed a lot of anxiety and conflict for them, and someday one of them will die before the other. Love is NOT a durable source of peace. Even in literature, people like Augustine or Dostoevsky or Kierkegaard seem notably full of anxiety and suffering. At best, they *hope* for a better future, for heaven. But while hope is beautiful and even necessary, it's not the same as being really at peace, and if heaven isn't real, then there's an emptiness to that hope because it was false. So what does this add up to? Well, I don't think we should assume that the point of life is to find the ultimate goods that are durable and give life meaning. It's possible that life is meaningless and that everything is unsatisfactory, and we should try like Buddhists to make peace with that. Or it may be that satisfaction is less about the nature of the good we find and rather our attitude towards it. Maybe the secret is less to find the best fruit that exists and more to find joy in whatever fruit we happen to have today. Or maybe meaning and depth are overrated, and we should try to be like cats - just enjoying the sun and the rats that happen to find us without overthinking it. Basically, there are ways of looking at life besides trying to find durable satisfaction from pursuing the best good, and I don't know if this video does them justice
My opinion is that the word "rule" implies that either the individual will self-enforce the rule or someone else will enforce the rule. In other words, the word "rule" implies that somehow it will be enforced either internally or externally or both. So if there is no enforcement of the rule then the rule has little to no power. You could call something a rule that is really nothing more than a hope or a wish.
If education is about uncovering individuality, then it utterly fails. If education is about teaching people things they didn't know before and which might be useful in life, its at best variably successful.
Hello friend, I liked this video, not despite of, but because of its disorganized nature. One of the questions raised, if I understand correctly, is "Why are we bound by these rules or limits?". It is important to understand that every "why" has two answers, one materialistic and one is teleological. Understanding the difference between these answers is very important. The material answer may go something like "We are all born because Life is a self-replicating chemical process, and this process becomes more complex over time as it faces new environments. This culminated in human life, and we are just an aspect of life. This explains why we are born in the form we find ourselves in. The fact that the processes of life are not perfect and infinitely complicated, leads to wear and tear as time progresses. At a point, the body is simply incapable of supporting itself, leading to death, and that is why we are mortal." The answers to the other two rules or limits are too enigmatic to describe in a youtube comment. But it is very obvious that humans aren't satisfied by such answers. We often look for teleological answers, and a conscious reason or motivation for things happening. This is why the initial instinct is to appeal to a capital G god, it somewhat neatly grants a conscious actor making things a certain way, which also is beyond our understanding, hence relieving us of the burden of trying to understand. I also wanted to share that I have a very personal and intimate struggle against my innate "restlessness". I found myself also trying to fill this gap in myself with pleasures of the world, but was never successful. I changed my ways for what felt like was for the better at that time, cleaning my act, furthering my education by completing a phd, and becoming a professor. I sought a sense of satisfaction and validation from embracing some form of higher virtue, something about empowering our future generations with the knowledge I possessed, with my exceptional ability to teach and inspire. I helped many people who were ostracized from society for their immutable characteristics, specifically gender, providing them a place of acceptance and love that I wish I had when dealing with similar pain in my youth. While this was not a selfish act for my own benefit, I can't deny that I wanted something for myself from it. But I never could find this ephemeral sense of satisfaction. While I wouldn't say, I wanted "more", I definitely felt that I needed something else, something I didn't have, and somehow knew I would never have. I found Blaise Pascal's hypothetical a good way to describe this. A person spends their days gambling. If you offered the gambler all the winnings they could've ever made, but restrict them from playing their game, they would not take the deal. Okay, you say, what if you offered to let the gambler play the game, but be guaranteed to never make any winnings, they would also not take the deal. What the gambler needs is an object of desire, along with the illusion that having it will make them happy when they achieve it, but one that will never be able to get. Through the years, I found this gap to grow into a gapping maw that was eating me from the inside which led me to take a drastic and irreversible action. I now find myself crippled, unable to help anyone with much, and a shell of my former self. The process of eternal self-discovery is one I am familiar with. Throughout my life, I tried to define my identity with various things. My unique gender identity, my physical attractiveness, my intellect, my strong adherence to my principles, and so on. But now, I can't even answer "what do I want?". This New Year's celebratory fireworks made me reconsider many things, and I chose to help whoever I can, with my numbered days. All I can hope is that the world is better off for having me in it.
I like to compare everything to the most ultimate goal I could ever think of or the most ultimate state of consciousness I would never want to be stuck in. For example, I would not want to be stuck in eternal and endless suffering. OK, so how would I avoid that? I don't know for certain. But if I compare everything to that, it feels like something absolute that everything else is relative to.
Rules are essentially enforced memes. Just like any other memes, they must compete for their own existence in the minds of conscious entities, or data storages as the extension of consciousness.
We did not design, configure, and program our own brain. And even though we have a great capacity to learn, we cannot go inside of our own brain and change parts of it. I can't go inside of my own brain and change the part of my brain that controls my sight. The point is that there are some things we can control and some things that we cannot control. I don't know what causes consciousness. I know that I'm conscious, but I don't know how my mind is capable of experiencing consciousness. I can't create a brain in a laboratory and cause it to become conscious. I'm sure that some people would like to be able to do that.
Degradation of the physical body and brain that causes the brain and body to cease to function is a limit that has not been overcome. No amount of free will seems to be able to cause us to choose to not die. The point is that free will, or the ability to choose, is needed in order to obey. The death of the body is not something that people voluntarily obey by choice and free will. So I wouldn't use the word obey in the context of the inevitability of the body dying. There are systems inside our body that cause or allow the degradation of our body to the point of death that we do not understand and have little to no control over. Death is not something we obey as a rule, but it is a consequence of systems working inside of our body that have consequences.
To you point about self-sufficiency, indeed, Aristotle noted over two thousand years ago, “Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient…is either a beast or a god.”
I've personally found comfort in the Tao. Everything is just kinda wishy-washy, and fluid. I don't think there are "rules" that "govern" humans or the universe per se. It just *is.* We're just kinda here, like a wave. Waves come, and go, and crash, and flow.
I've found comfort in the fact that we are *all* the Tao, we are *all* a part of not only our temporary existence, but this wave we call "reality." I think despite having no purpose per se, the fact that we can create our own purpose is wild and beautiful.
Hank Green energy coming from this video 🔥
Some people search for an absolute, immutable foundational thing that can't be divided into other parts and exists forever in its unchanging state. I'd love to know what that thing is but I'm also concerned that it might explode my brain.
Weak apart, strong together. Organize/Unionize.
Happy New Year, Professor Moore.
Wishing you and your family well.
Thanks for thoughts on life and we appreciate your humor as well.
I'm glad to be here and will continue to muddle along.
Eager to see future videos from you and hear your thoughtful views.🎉
@@michaelmisch3780 Happy New Year! Thanks for this. I’m excited to get to work!
Re: impossibility of complete self-knowledge:
I think that the project of self-knowledge isn't an individual one per se. We figure out who we are within a shared *context*; A profession, a family, a community, a piece of land, etc. I believe a gestalt form of self-knowledge (within a context) is sufficient to qualm the restlessness of that question.. The question (self-knowledge) is intractable in my own mind disconnected from everything else.
0:00 DIO when he wants to stop time
8:04 About what "natural" even means: I find it easy to make sense of if it's framed as "nature vs. nurture": Something is natural if you didn't need to be raised/convinced to do it. But to deal with some particular issues you raised:
1. 8:30 "to act against our nature": I think this is equivocating the two meanings of "someone's nature". On one hand, there's "nature" meaning "before human influence" (so what I named above), and on the other hand, "your nature" can mean "your essence". Acting against your nature in the former sense isn't paradoxical at all, you just need to be inspired by something that you or another human did on accident, and then you'll be acting unnaturally. In the latter sense, I agree that acting against your nature is a paradox, even though people sometimes actually say that. But there, you might as well say that someone is just "acting against their habits", which again makes perfect sense.
2. 8:46 "they might say it's natural to want children": This is something that my definition above covers pretty well. There is a societal pressure to have children that makes me question whether it really is a natural drive (after all, if it was, why would I still need to be raised/convinced to need children?), but on the other hand, it seems plausible to me that at least many people would still feel that way without anyone's influence. The nature vs. nurture debate is a controversial one for a reason.
9:23 At this point, you just seem to be confusing law with morality. Social and legal rules come about through the actions and dynamics of the society as a whole, and those really are the rules that everyone must follow.
Moral law is much easier to disobey, especially when it's not connected to social or legal rules. But then still, many people (even if not all, disqualifying it from your "human limits" discussion) feel compelled to follow their own moral beliefs. Two simple ways in which I can explain this are:
1. People get trained from childhood to follow existing rules. A proper education will instill an intrinsic motivation to follow them. A person can then generalize these rules to a moral principle, meaning that the intrinsic motivation will be attributed to this principle, rather than the individual rules. For example, a child might be scolded after throwing rocks at other children, and praised after helping their parents with doing the dishes. The child might learn and commit itself to the principle that it is good to please others.
2. There is an evolutionary advantage to altruism and empathy. Basically, if everyone in a group prioritizes each other, then each individual will have better chances than if everyone only helps themselves. And empathy is very useful in other regards, like making communication and deduction in social settings a lot easier. And because there exists an evolutionary advantage to these things, humans will be naturally inclined to be able to develop these traits.
Note that neither of these explanations serve as a DEFINITION for morality, but rather, as an explanation for why it is that humans can be bound to follow moral law. To define morality, I would simply state that "morality" DESCRIBES behavior that intends to help other people. So I first decide what morality means, and then look for explanations for why it is that humans follow what I just described.
11:47 I wouldn't say mortality is a standard we can all agree on. Sure, *I* think you actually die when you get killed, but a lot of faiths don't accept this tautology. They think a ghost version of you exits your body and then gets killed again or gets reborn or gets transferred to some other realm, all so you don't actually die.
About restlessness, I'd like to point out what I think is a bias in how we remember and talk about periods of rest and restlessness:
When something doesn't change for a long time, the entire process is easy to describe quickly. In contrast, when it keeps changing for a long time, an adequate description of the process would take a long time. So if both are described to the same quality, then most of the time was spent talking about the period of change. I would say the same about our memory.
In this way, our perception of those two things would naturally be biased towards thinking that nothing ever stays still. But this is false, and many humans are perfectly content with what they have.
As for how to be content with what you have, the distinction that currently gives me the most hope is that while it's true that Augustine can't possibly keep loving forever until the end of time, it is instead possible that it will always be true that Augustine has accomplished his search. For me, that means that my accomplishments will always be. That doesn't mean I'll stop trying to do more at any particular point, but this would be a question of my state of mind at any time, which I find has to be managed through different means entirely.
I can imagine Professor Moore parsing ideas out with his students in class.
I would even argue you can not know you'll die. I mean it's absurd statistically to think otherwise, but until you do you can't be sure
It seems like you argue that it's hard to describe the "laws that govern human conduct" as natural in part because wisdom is violable but gravity isn't and in part because people have conflicting concepts of human nature. I'm not very convinced by either argument, though.
For the first point, not all laws of nature are deep physical facts like magnetism or gravity. Some are probabilistic tendencies. For example, you might argue that natural selection is a law of nature. However, does this mean it's a violation of natural law for poorly adapted organisms to exist? No, it just means over time, poorly adapted organisms will tend to not survive. Similarly, the laws of probability don't entail that you can never flip a fair coin and get heads 10 times in a row. They just entail that as you flip that coin an arbitrarily large number of times, the average will tend towards 50-50.
I think wisdom is like natural selection and probability. It is wise to look both ways you cross the street. This is rooted in natural laws - from the physical laws that govern collisions between bodies in motion, to the anthropological laws that dictate how societies with lots of automobiles organize their activity. However, it is not a defiance of nature to cross the street recklessly. It's just behavior that's likely to get you in trouble eventually, like how being a black mouth on white snow is likely to get you eaten.
I also don't think it's a problem that people disagree about what's natural. I mean, some people might just be wrong. People also disagree about what's wise, right? But beyond that, why does wisdom or nature have to be homogeneous across people? Maybe it's natural for some people to want kids but not others. Even Aristotle agreed that horses and goats have different natures. Why can't Sally have a different nature. than Jane?
It seems like this video posits that people should pursue things that are durably satisfying, and that creates constraints, like how the desire to win imposes constraints on how you play chess. You are free to make any move you want, but some moves are better than others. In other words, the human good teleologically superordinates our lives.
I think that's a beautiful idea, except I'm skeptical that good exists. It's easy to say that hedonism is shallow. But is God really deep and durably satisfying? Is Love? The public good? I'm skeptical because I've met a lot of deeply committed believers, and they don't seem to me to have found real succor from anxiety or physical suffering. Physical suffering especially is bad. The most faithful Christian I've ever known had his faith founder when he developed ALS because the physical suffering of that disease was too much for him to maintain practical hope for tomorrow. This goes beyond just Christians. My parents are deeply in love and have built a wonderful family, but that's also entailed a lot of anxiety and conflict for them, and someday one of them will die before the other. Love is NOT a durable source of peace.
Even in literature, people like Augustine or Dostoevsky or Kierkegaard seem notably full of anxiety and suffering. At best, they *hope* for a better future, for heaven. But while hope is beautiful and even necessary, it's not the same as being really at peace, and if heaven isn't real, then there's an emptiness to that hope because it was false.
So what does this add up to? Well, I don't think we should assume that the point of life is to find the ultimate goods that are durable and give life meaning. It's possible that life is meaningless and that everything is unsatisfactory, and we should try like Buddhists to make peace with that. Or it may be that satisfaction is less about the nature of the good we find and rather our attitude towards it. Maybe the secret is less to find the best fruit that exists and more to find joy in whatever fruit we happen to have today. Or maybe meaning and depth are overrated, and we should try to be like cats - just enjoying the sun and the rats that happen to find us without overthinking it.
Basically, there are ways of looking at life besides trying to find durable satisfaction from pursuing the best good, and I don't know if this video does them justice
My opinion is that the word "rule" implies that either the individual will self-enforce the rule or someone else will enforce the rule. In other words, the word "rule" implies that somehow it will be enforced either internally or externally or both. So if there is no enforcement of the rule then the rule has little to no power. You could call something a rule that is really nothing more than a hope or a wish.
If education is about uncovering individuality, then it utterly fails. If education is about teaching people things they didn't know before and which might be useful in life, its at best variably successful.
Hello friend, I liked this video, not despite of, but because of its disorganized nature.
One of the questions raised, if I understand correctly, is "Why are we bound by these rules or limits?". It is important to understand that every "why" has two answers, one materialistic and one is teleological. Understanding the difference between these answers is very important.
The material answer may go something like "We are all born because Life is a self-replicating chemical process, and this process becomes more complex over time as it faces new environments. This culminated in human life, and we are just an aspect of life. This explains why we are born in the form we find ourselves in. The fact that the processes of life are not perfect and infinitely complicated, leads to wear and tear as time progresses. At a point, the body is simply incapable of supporting itself, leading to death, and that is why we are mortal."
The answers to the other two rules or limits are too enigmatic to describe in a youtube comment.
But it is very obvious that humans aren't satisfied by such answers. We often look for teleological answers, and a conscious reason or motivation for things happening. This is why the initial instinct is to appeal to a capital G god, it somewhat neatly grants a conscious actor making things a certain way, which also is beyond our understanding, hence relieving us of the burden of trying to understand.
I also wanted to share that I have a very personal and intimate struggle against my innate "restlessness". I found myself also trying to fill this gap in myself with pleasures of the world, but was never successful. I changed my ways for what felt like was for the better at that time, cleaning my act, furthering my education by completing a phd, and becoming a professor. I sought a sense of satisfaction and validation from embracing some form of higher virtue, something about empowering our future generations with the knowledge I possessed, with my exceptional ability to teach and inspire. I helped many people who were ostracized from society for their immutable characteristics, specifically gender, providing them a place of acceptance and love that I wish I had when dealing with similar pain in my youth. While this was not a selfish act for my own benefit, I can't deny that I wanted something for myself from it.
But I never could find this ephemeral sense of satisfaction. While I wouldn't say, I wanted "more", I definitely felt that I needed something else, something I didn't have, and somehow knew I would never have. I found Blaise Pascal's hypothetical a good way to describe this. A person spends their days gambling. If you offered the gambler all the winnings they could've ever made, but restrict them from playing their game, they would not take the deal. Okay, you say, what if you offered to let the gambler play the game, but be guaranteed to never make any winnings, they would also not take the deal. What the gambler needs is an object of desire, along with the illusion that having it will make them happy when they achieve it, but one that will never be able to get.
Through the years, I found this gap to grow into a gapping maw that was eating me from the inside which led me to take a drastic and irreversible action. I now find myself crippled, unable to help anyone with much, and a shell of my former self.
The process of eternal self-discovery is one I am familiar with. Throughout my life, I tried to define my identity with various things. My unique gender identity, my physical attractiveness, my intellect, my strong adherence to my principles, and so on. But now, I can't even answer "what do I want?". This New Year's celebratory fireworks made me reconsider many things, and I chose to help whoever I can, with my numbered days. All I can hope is that the world is better off for having me in it.
Uffda, this video is chaotic! But made me want to revisit your Necropolitics video.
@@er... I’m kind of proud of that video, which, truthfully, is also a little bit chaotic. 🤣
@@GreatBooksProf That's the video that I stumbled across and sub'd. I need to rewatch the Foucault and Arendt ones again, too.
I love that Arendt quote, and the whole thought inquiry it leads to
@@janeet8227 Thanks! I love that one too.
I like to compare everything to the most ultimate goal I could ever think of or the most ultimate state of consciousness I would never want to be stuck in. For example, I would not want to be stuck in eternal and endless suffering. OK, so how would I avoid that? I don't know for certain. But if I compare everything to that, it feels like something absolute that everything else is relative to.
Rules are essentially enforced memes. Just like any other memes, they must compete for their own existence in the minds of conscious entities, or data storages as the extension of consciousness.
We did not design, configure, and program our own brain. And even though we have a great capacity to learn, we cannot go inside of our own brain and change parts of it. I can't go inside of my own brain and change the part of my brain that controls my sight. The point is that there are some things we can control and some things that we cannot control. I don't know what causes consciousness. I know that I'm conscious, but I don't know how my mind is capable of experiencing consciousness. I can't create a brain in a laboratory and cause it to become conscious. I'm sure that some people would like to be able to do that.
Degradation of the physical body and brain that causes the brain and body to cease to function is a limit that has not been overcome. No amount of free will seems to be able to cause us to choose to not die. The point is that free will, or the ability to choose, is needed in order to obey. The death of the body is not something that people voluntarily obey by choice and free will. So I wouldn't use the word obey in the context of the inevitability of the body dying. There are systems inside our body that cause or allow the degradation of our body to the point of death that we do not understand and have little to no control over. Death is not something we obey as a rule, but it is a consequence of systems working inside of our body that have consequences.
Humans have rules. The world doesn’t.
Sure, there are limits.
Truly!
No
as soon as someone starts explaining how they make a vid and how difficult it is, im out
@@quallude1 Thanks for stopping by! 👋