1). Suicide - If one had choice and freewill, one should be able to commit suicide without any restrictions whatsoever; one should be able to end one's journey. Is it not one that "chose" to come to Earth? Can not one go to school and drop out of school if entering and exiting really is freewill and choice? How does a contract exist if physician-assisted suicide is permitted (see p 108 of http://www.afterlife101.com/Afterlife101.pdf)? Consider the following scenario - if one can't drive (analogously, this is like having no legs), if one can't find a job, if one lost all his/her money (say to gambling or just used it up in the process of finding a job and having to pay bills without a job), if one is forced to be homeless, why should one suffer like this??? Dr. Doreen Virtue states that ["they"] want us to be happy. But what if one is NOT happy? This is like saying you should go to law school even if you are miserable. How is this freewill? One cannot be forced to live a life that one does not want to live - not only is it a waste of time but also not much output and contribution to society can be given.

2). The Forcefield That Captures Souls - Doesn't the law of freewill permit one to not cross over? Does it not permit one to remain earthbound? Why does such a forcefield exist? Is it not a hypocritical enactment by the spiritual realm, the very same forces that talk about freewill and choice? See page 36 of http://www.afterlife101.com/Afterlife101.pdf to find out more of the forcefield.

3). The [spirits] that Captures Souls After Centuries of Dark Entity Incarnations (Medium Browne says this in her book "Phenomenon: Everything You Need to Know About the Paranormal"- This problem is similar to problem #2 - the act of "capturing" souls and take them back Home. Is this not coercion/force? Doesn't the law of freewill permit one to have eternal incarnations as a dark one?

4). The Creation of the Illusion of Choice and Freewill - to make it simple, let's say one has just been discharged from prison and is give the choice of "two hundred dollars" or a "one year discharge program giving them three meals a day, help with job search, and shelter for sleep." How is this even a choice? Is it not logical for one to choose the second option versus the first one? Point is - it appears like it is choice and freewill but it isn't because does it really look like you have an option? This is not different than telling someone "You have to do the one year program." Isn't the outcome or end-result still the same? The person (quotes) chooses (unquote) the one year program. How can one live or survive if one "chose" the first option? Two hundred US dollars won't even last one month's rent. This is similar to someone pointing a gun to your head and saying "give me your money or take this bullet into your head." Does it look like you have much of a choice?

5). The Reality of Limited Options/Opportunities - How can one take charge and/or make the necessary dramatic changes in one's life if such options are limited or opportunities doesn't exist? How can one see the glass half full when one can only see the glass half empty? Such a schemata may have no relation to though patterns at all but rather is due to repeated disappointing events and other circumstances that is outside the control of one. How can one truly fulfill what one wants then? Does this not set limitations and/or poke holes thought the law of freewill? Contrary to the common conventional thinking that one "can do anything if one puts his/her mind to it," that one should "engage in numerous trials even with repeated failures," that one "can make the impossible possible" - there is simply no substantial evidence to support these what my former AP English teacher calls "white lies" and my former developmental psychology professor would say "the DARE program does NOT work." It is true that every now and then, there are a few who "can beat the odds" and they even go on national television like the Montel Williams Show hoping to get across "If I can do it, then you can too" (which is essentially a white lie). But the reality is that most cannot beat the odds - It's like Larry Elder making it sound like everyone can be a lawyer - this is simply illogical and not rational as well as NOT statistically significant from a statistical perspective.

6). Mentalist and/or Other Entities Who Have The Power To `Manipulate' the Thoughts of Others - Is it not against freewill for one to possess a gift with the ability to manipulate the thoughts of others? Funny, such "entities" [humans] who are given such a gift with ability and act to "manipulate" - an identical act in which white entities accuse dark entities for doing "manipulation." If one had complete choice and freewill, then one should be free from the manipulation of these mentalists and/or other entities who can "manipulate" thoughts (aka thought process modification). Such entities like to use words like "inspire" or "encourage" but perhaps I was right all these years of talking to myself - that "inspiration" and "manipulation" really are synonymous. Therefore, it is perfectly a legal move for dark entities to "encourage" ungodly behavior and the means they go about doing it (through the use of manipulation or not) is indeed a legal move, a move that is the exact duplicate of white entities except they have different goals - one is for the purpose of the Light and the other is to deviate from the Light.

7). Power Differentials in Individuals - Such power differentials can lead to a deficiency in one's ability to totally utilize the law of choice and freewill. There is a fear of retaliation from position powered individuals if one were to take a certain course of action and hence, "chooses or don't chooses" the course of action. Simply put it, if someone has power over you (like the government) you do not possess 100% choice and freewill now do you???

Hi,

A choice can also be made to have all the answers served on a silver platter, yet it doesn't work that way, the mysteries have to be explored and experienced. Is that a breach of free will if one has agreed to experience the earth system? The earth system is too complicated to be compared to a mere game of chess, but at least this holds water for me: if one can move all the pieces however one would like it's not chess anymore. When/if you choose to start playing you will get better at it. With chess there are rewards like getting to be good at dealing with what is on the table and thinking ahead, with the earth system there are other rewards, even though restricted by rules like gravity.

Just by reading the word suicide I'm guessing it triggers lots of different emotions for different individuals, some of which may be difficult to deal with. I find light control techniques like guilt to be quite common. Even though someone loves you, does that mean that one have to prolong suffering to please them? Are they just as angry at the body when it gets cancer and take their loved ones away from earth?

When that is said.. dumping the body is dealing with the symptom of the despair though - one feels beyond miserable. I wish and hope for anybody being there to be able to deal with and heal the root of whatever their despair is. One doesn't ever really die or cease to exist anyways.

For someone feeling sorry for themselves and want attention, it may be that the numbers attending the funeral may very well be dictated by the weather.

"Therefore, it is perfectly a legal move for dark entities to "encourage" ungodly behavior and the means they go about doing it (through the use of manipulation or not) is indeed a legal move, a move that is the exact duplicate of white entities except they have different goals - one is for the purpose of the Light and the other is to deviate from the Light."

You nail issues with the polarities of light and dark, but the dark doesn't give a shit, and at least light gives a shit. Crude, but I like teasing the light restrictions of not being able to say this or that. ;) Unconditional adherence to either extreme of them doesn't do it for me.

What I like about people like robert monroe is that he encouraged one to become aware that one is more than the body, but if my memory serves me right, can't remember by his writing or videos that he said: you should, you have to, you must and so on. Maybe he'd say that if one asked for his advice? For me bob was more like, here's what I've encountered, do or don't do anything with my info/experiences as you like.

Greetings serenesam

and welcome !

With all those arguments to consideration, you don't seem so serene to me  :)

You seem to be dealing with a concept more related to moral philosophies than to afterlife explorations. Moreover it's your concept. Others might have different interpretations of what 'free will' is. For example I never felt it was a blanket concept that allowed anyone to choose anything at any time; I think it refers to having the freedom to choose when in a given situation.

Morals change in diffent cultures and perhaps even in differing circumstances. Moral philosophy is therefore full of relatives, not absolutes. Afterlife explorations deal with with life beyond cultures, beyond anything physical. I'm not sure that you'll get the answers you seek here.

On the other hand, if you would get involved in experiencing the afterlife, I believe you will find that all those answers will fall into place.

Best wishes, Betson

"I'm Spartacus."
"I'm Spartacus."
"I'm Spartacus."
lesson learned, problem solved...

"Problems with the Law of Choice and Freewill"


Who's Law...?

Who's Law?

Indeed, as Pauli alluded to, Personal Free Will is not a law, but a concept. A concept which is contradictive:

A person, as this term is commonly understood, is an entity which is defined through it's traits, it's ways and tendencies to behave, and these are dependant on this entity's history. Free will is not at all compatible with this, as the very point of "free will" is it's independence. If a will would be dependant on the history of an entity, and furthermore, dependant on the present situation and dependant on physical laws, as well as dependant on the law of cause and effect, the will just cannot be free.

The concept of "free will" therefore causes (unnecessarily) a plethora of problems, only because this concept itself is the problem.

An, at least a sort of, personal free will could be saved only if we'd change the definition of "person" into an entity without a history, and this can be done, in my opinion, only when we eliminate the past and the future as unreal, so that only the present is real, and this way there no longer can be any causal dependencies. Some people actually teach this.

Spooky

Volu wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 4:45pm:

Hi, A choice can also be made to have all the answers served on a silver platter, yet it doesn't work that way, the mysteries have to be explored and experienced. Is that a breach of free will if one has agreed to experience the earth system?

Yes, I agree it is a breach of freewill. I still don't understand why we can't drop out of "earth school." Doesn't complete freewill allow that?


Quote:

The earth system is too complicated to be compared to a mere game of chess, but at least this holds water for me: if one can move all the pieces however one would like it's not chess anymore. When/if you choose to start playing you will get better at it. With chess there are rewards like getting to be good at dealing with what is on the table and thinking ahead, with the earth system there are other rewards, even though restricted by rules like gravity.

Thank you for sharing this. I know lots of people that play chess everyday, they try their hardest and yes they do get better, but they still can't beat some of the better players.


Quote:

Just by reading the word suicide I'm guessing it triggers lots of different emotions for different individuals, some of which may be difficult to deal with. I find light control techniques like guilt to be quite common. Even though someone loves you, does that mean that one have to prolong suffering to please them? Are they just as angry at the body when it gets cancer and take their loved ones away from earth? When that is said.. dumping the body is dealing with the symptom of the despair though - one feels beyond miserable. I wish and hope for anybody being there to be able to deal with and heal the root of whatever their despair is. One doesn't ever really die or cease to exist anyways.

Oh, I know that, but the body is just too painful. I look at the world and I see a lot of suffering and pain. Why does God allow this? Why do people have to suffer?

PauliEffectt wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 6:01pm:

"Problems with the Law of Choice and Freewill" Who's Law...? Who's Law?

Oh, I am simply speaking about natural processes or natural law all to itself.

spooky2 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 8:00am:

Indeed, as Pauli alluded to, Personal Free Will is not a law, but a concept. A concept which is contradictive: A person, as this term is commonly understood, is an entity which is defined through it's traits, it's ways and tendencies to behave, and these are dependant on this entity's history. Free will is not at all compatible with this, as the very point of "free will" is it's independence. If a will would be dependant on the history of an entity, and furthermore, dependant on the present situation and dependant on physical laws, as well as dependant on the law of cause and effect, the will just cannot be free. The concept of "free will" therefore causes (unnecessarily) a plethora of problems, only because this concept itself is the problem. An, at least a sort of, personal free will could be saved only if we'd change the definition of "person" into an entity without a history, and this can be done, in my opinion, only when we eliminate the past and the future as unreal, so that only the present is real, and this way there no longer can be any causal dependencies. Some people actually teach this. Spooky

Yes, that is exactly why I question freewill. It just seems to me that many mediums say we have freewill both in the afterlife and in the corporeal world but I can't logically see this. Some people are placed in difficult circumstances that make them do things they normally won't do.

Yes, maybe they wouldn't normally do it, but they have the free will to choose otherwise ...or not. I suppose you can off yourself but then you just pick up where you left off next time most likely so what's the point...still you have the free will to do so.

Beau wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 9:00pm:

Yes, maybe they wouldn't normally do it, but they have the free will to choose otherwise ...or not. I suppose you can off yourself but then you just pick up where you left off next time most likely so what's the point...still you have the free will to do so.

One biologist says freewill is an illusion:
http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

I think you're referring to the idea that the brain reacts about 6 seconds before a choice is made as though it were predetermined, but you would have to hold the view that consciousness is a product of the brain, I think, to hold that opinion. The subconscious could easily be the reason there is a 6 second lag...I forget the exact interval. I'll read the article again.

Also these are the same people who don't believe anyone is actually conscious so ...I don't know. There are good arguments for consciousness being real.The reason this theory was developed is because consciousness can't be explained so why not just assume it doesn't exist.

“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.”

Jawaharlal Nehru

"The hand you are dealt is random; the way you play it is illusion of free will."

If there were no hand their would be no need for free will.

Take control of the game, change the rules and then change your hand if you don't like it...

Quote:

to make it simple, let's say one has just been discharged from prison and is give the choice of "two hundred dollars" or a "one year discharge program giving them three meals a day, help with job search, and shelter for sleep."

They see more possibilities than that. And an additional $200 will always be welcome. Others may indeed like the one-year-free-shelter.


Quote:

This is not different than telling someone "You have to do the one year program."

Yes, it is, in this case the majority of people would go for the $200.


Quote:

"give me your money or take this bullet into your head." Does it look like you have much of a choice?

What's the distance between me and him? Does he look nervous? How many people are within earshot?
Just to show you: there are more possibilities to chose from than these two.


Quote:

Mentalist  - Is it not against freewill for one to possess a gift with the ability to manipulate the thoughts of others?

Not if they allow him to do it. People chose to be dazzled.


Quote:

Simply put it, if someone has power over you (like the government) you do not possess 100% choice and freewill now do you

During a lifetime on earth it won't be 100%; but within reason, yes, I still do. At least once.

If you see the world as "option one or option two", then you are limiting your free will.
It all depends on how you chose to see the world.

take care,
Vagabound

P.S. So basically same as Calypso who put it all into one sentence while I was busy rambling on and on