Or maybe you’re way the fuck in right field.
Sure there is and there has been for a long time, it’s called consciousness. Everything is instinctive due to change. Even the unconscious aspects, are still instinctive, appearing sessile or not. A participle only stops what it is doing because it is both nothing and everything. It is literally like rewinding time which time is change all the way back to it’s beginning and then asking “why are we at nothing, what is it? Why isn’t the particle moving or doing anything?” I don’t know, why don’t you try pushing pause on a film and tell me why there isn’t any moving in your observing it. The beginning has to be nothing so something can be anything/everything. It isn’t a unity in the way of which you may be implying it is, it’s a string of unconscious and subconscious or instinctive changes/experiences of which evolved into complex overlapping states of being. Usually when something comes from nothing, it can be turned back into nothing or consciously paused and does not act as something but appears as nothing.
Unconscious > subconscious > conscious
Don’t say there has been no alternatives to explain the movement and what not when there has been answers sitting around forever.
You think that there is no self? Do you not have any ideas that come to your own mind? Creativity?
The self is a layer of the subconscious/unconscious mind and it is immortal, it has no discretion and has no attachment to ego/identity or individuality other than when existing in dualistic/trinity form with such. The self isn’t temporary, the ego is. The self is the string of which the ego is attached to and the body the receiver of such. Do you deny being attached to a string of instinctive change that is an infinity, that became complex and conscious of itself?
So are you saying we are not more complex than a single neuron being fired in comparison? Are you saying mankind understands the full mind and the full extent of consciousness? I am more than a neuron and so are you, so are trees. Cells exist sure, observable sure, does it mean we, a collection of multiple functions and trillions of cells changing, is explained by how a single neuron functions? No, I don’t think so, I think we are more complex than the single observable or collection of neurons and how they react, is a neuron conscious of itself and it’s instinctual nature?
You attribute value to standing up for why you would or wouldn’t do such, which requires conscious decision, the consciousness couldn’t exist without the subconscious/unconscious evolving each other, which the immortal self is buried in and one has to be choosing to be conscious of.
.
Then how did we get here? Even the unconscious aspects have instincts and are technically “alive”. Everything moves already because everything vibrates, does it not?
Obviously not, because something came from nothing which nothing is in itself, something solo, so what was external to it then? So then tell me, what compelled nothing? Something, which is instinctual and also not external to nothing, which is why your physics particles display as nothing and doing nothing when consciously observed, because we are still attached to what we may observe and can revert back to, which is nothing.
What compelled itself, which was nothing, to move? Unconscious instinct and objective value. Which evolved and became more complex in a series of ever changing and overlapping contrasts.