I would probably run with an insight that took some time. You can say something like there is such a thing as conservation of potential. For instance, I don't think Lex Fridman would agree that "Omniconscience" is a correct designation for Vlad's office. So what is the conservation of potential? A complex relation to omniscience. There is no problem in theory with any hypothesis. The problem is specifically the designation of a sort of categorical question. In what case is something not imperative? You're trying to observe something from the standpoint of equality. Most questions agree with the designation of a language-game. Ludwig Wittgenstein makes an interesting simplification when he says that language is the bound for the world. 'World' is a term deliberately resistant to qualification as either ambiguous or vague.
Evil is just chemicals, huh, Sam?
How much carbon does one molecule of justice have?
Do you tell your wife your love is simply a Darwinian desire to propagate our species?
Naturalistic explanations in a godless universe fail to explain the human condition.
Defense attorneys are taking notes…
On another note Arthur Schopenhauer wrote "You can do what you will but you cannot will what you will."
I would probably run with an insight that took some time. You can say something like there is such a thing as conservation of potential. For instance, I don't think Lex Fridman would agree that "Omniconscience" is a correct designation for Vlad's office. So what is the conservation of potential? A complex relation to omniscience. There is no problem in theory with any hypothesis. The problem is specifically the designation of a sort of categorical question. In what case is something not imperative? You're trying to observe something from the standpoint of equality. Most questions agree with the designation of a language-game. Ludwig Wittgenstein makes an interesting simplification when he says that language is the bound for the world. 'World' is a term deliberately resistant to qualification as either ambiguous or vague.
Prof Robert Sapolsky and a free will researcher discuss the free will answers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdgujEWbexQ&t=167s
Sam Harris is a national treasure