Well if it's "absolutely self-contradictory", then you should be telling the majority of all respected neuroscientists that they are incompetent and that you know better than them. Why don't you write an angry email to the guy interviewed by Vice to inform him that his views are nonsensical? I haven't seen any credible explanations of how free will works, and in any case, it's your job to find that, given that you're the one who ardently defends the concept of free will.
Sounds like more of your hysterical tendentious framing.
Free will works by our brain taking in external inputs, processing them and making decisions based on our traits and preferences. What you haven't seen is any credible explanation for "consciousness", and the concomitant joy, suffering, satisfaction, value, etc. They just "are" and described (and debated) at this stage.
But anybody who first states highly controversial and criticized interpretations and opinions in highly tumultuous fields as fact and then tries to use it for political purposes is some combination of incompetent and crassly dishonest. Especially in attempting to use it against religion, as the level of ineptitude just demonstrates fundamental ignorance of religion and gives the faithful more strength, and ammunition against "atheists".
Taking a page from your pamphlet -
nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/a-neuroscience-finding-on-free-will.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=wI3cXbIlA0gor, more apt for your preferred medium -
If they have a terminal illness, of course. If they are deranged, then we have no way of knowing and no business assisting in their doom.
We were speaking of acute cases where they are afflicted with some overwhelming tragedy or guilt. They are not handwringing about stays in a mental ward.
I can't fathom the narcissism of someone who wants to involve other people in his demise when he's not already physically rocketing toward death.
So what was your other bullsh!t about it not being a crime ergo others should be able to legally assist?
It's as much an illusion as free will.
Consciousness as well. And the nonexistence of an integral part of successful survival is more crazytime. Much as expecting "organic robots" to act any differently than what they were already preprogrammed to do at the onset of the
Great Clack.
But back to sanityville, the blast of this existence that they can easily choose to step out of outranks the possibility of suffering by orders of magnitude, as evidenced by the relative dearth of suicides.
1) By your belief, it could not be any different. 2) By rational belief, we continue to raise things for everybody, hopefully in an accelerative manner, not end the species.
Hawking seems to be having a good time. In any case, your idea that any risk, however small yields that no gift can be accomplished is still firmly rejected as nonsense. As is the attempt to bounce between extreme cases and "autonomy" for anyone who wants to get it from the state.
You only see your own miserableness and cannot see the great happiness and satisfaction that parents can facilitate for their children. Also, combined with your other beliefs, it is deranged.
How can you possibly bring about a more
anything outcome than is already firmly set in the path of antecedents set from the beginning? The
best you can do is say something like the unbalanced
"I understand that no matter what I do I can't actually effect any deviation from whatever is already fated, but I am compelled to feel and act like I do", to the positively demented state of not even recognizing the inherent self-contradiction.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
