What does Leo mean when he says "the way our brain is wired"

[daemons]

I've been listening to Leo's episodes for a while now.

 

In a number of them, he will make reference to people having talent, or ability. Sometimes it's just general ability or skill and in other episodes it may also relate to paranormal ability. Whether it is normal or paranormal is beside the point here, but he says this for both examples.

 

He will say something like "maybe some peoples brains are just wired a certain way" or "their grey matter is structured a particular way". This is not word for word quoted but it is the gist of what he says. 

How can we have idealism on the one hand whereby everything is an illusion of consciousness, and then have the ability to do things limited by [what I'm assuming is] the ""physical"" or chemical makeup or the ""wiring"" of a human's brain (materialism) on the other?

If idealism is truth, shouldn't that mean any person, with enough mental effort, is able to achieve anything?

 

I like mostly all of Leo's content, but I keep hearing him saying this about the human brain and it's begun annoying me.

 

[Megan Alecia]

Check out his video on free will VS determinism I think it will answer most questions you have.

[Consept]

If you're born with no arms you can't catch a ball with your hand 

[SBB4746]

I don't think it should be something too difficult to wrap your head around... everyone has their gifts in life. Some people are super smart while others are more athletically gifted. Obviously some people will just naturally be more aware than others. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, daemons said:

If idealism is truth, shouldn't that mean any person, with enough mental effort, is able to achieve anything?

Why would you attach such an absurd assumption to idealism?

Just because Super Mario is a video game character does not mean he can walk through walls or do whatever he wants.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

If you're born with no arms you can't catch a ball with your hand 

But mah IdEaLizm!!! *surprised Pikachu face*

[StarStruck]

Idealism and realism is a spectrum depending on the situation and person.

Edited April 16, 2021 by StarStruck

[Enlightenment]

Leo is not an idealist cause idealism still assumes other people exist 

[Epikur]

17 minutes ago, Enlightenment said:

Leo is not an idealist cause idealism still assumes other people exist 

More like a solipsist. Everybody is me.

[Mason Riggle]

"Brains do not exist. And if you're like most people, operating under the Materialist paradigm, this is a problem because you believe that brains are real." - Leo Gura

"Most serious spiritual teachers are exceptionally gifted. They do not have a normie brain or neurochemistry." - Leo Gura

 

[Phyllis Wagner]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Why would you attach such an absurd assumption to idealism?

Just because Super Mario is a video game character does not mean he can walk through walls or do whatever he wants.

Not anything, but I had similar thoughts like this myself. The brain seems much more fluid if you are not thinking about it from materialism. It is not like if you get hit into the head you stay dumb forever because your neuron-matter is damaged and thats the end of the story. Idealism at least opens the door of possibility to crazy things, look up savant syndrome for example. 

[Reciprocality]

On 16.4.2021 at 7:52 AM, daemons said:

How can we have idealism on the one hand whereby everything is an illusion of consciousness, and then have the ability to do things limited by [what I'm assuming is] the ""physical"" or chemical makeup or the ""wiring"" of a human's brain (materialism) on the other?

If idealism is truth, shouldn't that mean any person, with enough mental effort, is able to achieve anything?

That reality is confined to/as the merging of [form and being] is the very idea which does NOT make people capable of anything, if you by anything speak past the merging of form and willing. 

If everything emerging is an illusion of consciousness then one is a, yes bear with me: realist, i should even say materialist and reductionist, now i know these things are at odds with some or many written documents on the matter if looked only at the surface (and many times deeper), this is a linguistic problem more than conceptual. (in that we assume so absurdly the meaning of those very words we by the nature of the discussion are supposed to define)

Now most of these isms are partially true, but fundamentaly wrong and hillariously absurd, you would be better of thinking by unlearning most of them aleady. The fact that they are (in the context of their history) given credit to academicaly is amusing, in this sense there is no wonder the sciences are eating philosophers alive.

Synthesize instead for yourself the implications of there being material form causing being with the "absurdity" of being causing the real world existence. See how i decide not to call it the real world, although that would easily be a suitible description? It is because of the asumptions you make of the set of words which will be rooted right back to 'the material world' AS AN IDEAL.