Lauris,

some have described states where, as they said, there were no time. Yet their descriptions were full of notes which require time. Without time there is no now...then, there is no cause and effect. Most confuse the full meaning of "no time" with no aging or to have no dates or something like that as far as I can see.

You said you're of the opinion that there is only the present, because if there was a predestined future it would negate free will.
   This opinion of yours of course is a decision coming from what you like and/or dislike.
   The free will turns out to be a theoretical construct which is contradictive in itself not only when we suppose a predestined future, but even when we suppose linear time only, no matter if "open" or not, as long as there is cause and effect there is just no space for free will, as everything we do then is preconditioned by our past, and that cannot be called "free". A person with free will is a contradiction, as to be a person you have to have a history, traits, something which endures time, something others can recognize. If one had free will, this one's will and acts were totally unpredictable due to their independence of any personal (and otherwise) history, which would be required to be called "free". And, can someone imagine that something happens with absolutely no reason? As this as well would be required if something happens truely freely.

Let's not make a big debate around this. Let's just admit that "personal free will" is a concept which is just plain contradictive and therefore silly, and bury it as Immanuel Kant did over 200 years ago.

Spooky

This is it! This is the answer. It says here... that a bolt of lightning is going to strike the clock tower at precisely 10:04pm, next Saturday night! If... If we could somehow... *harness* this lightning... *channel* it... into the flux capacitor... it just might work. Next Saturday night, we're sending you back to the future!

Really enjoyed reading this thread this morning...all the posts are understandable with lots of humor, which is not always the case on some threads...or at least I am not smart enough to follow some threads and enjoyed this one. One thing is unarguably clear anyway: Now is always all there is. Our buzz of activity in life is all efforts to make Now nicer than it was a minute ago. Wait a minute...did I just say minute? There's that darn time thing again..Vee

Recoverer, if you don't open up to the full potential of your mind, I guess you're the one who gathers the appropriate karma. I don't think it is appropriate to counter a philosophical thesis with phrases like: "I believe...", "...rationalizations", "defeatist", without even touching the matter. Open up, and leave obviously senseless phrases behind you.

Sigh, I know we had that before. Sorry.

Spooky

Reply @ Vee

You said how with time "now" is what's important and I do agree but it's interesting to consider how Humans are one of the few forms of life capable of understanding not just "now" but three facets of time:

1. What was.
2. What is.
3. What will be.

Furthermore, could there be some other unknown, non-understood facet of time? Or perhaps our own perception of these facets could in fact be an incorrect illusion?

Regardless.....

This knowledge is a double edged sword as it is both a blessing and a curse. Humans have the benefit of truly knowing and planning life with some degree of accuracy for how much time we have. However, we also have the burden that time is always ticking away, working against us.

I think it is safe to assume scientifically that the majority of humans on Earth only begin to  understand (1. "what was") when language is comprehended. At this point the biological human brain begins to retain information. Some people say that children can remember past lives, but, since it is almost impossible to prove that this information was not fed to the child, I cannot trust such information. Furthermore, such assumption that children remember past lives most likely only exists in a minuscule fraction of children. The only way to verify this information as being factual is to perhaps raise test tube children in a fully enclosed, controlled, laboratory environment under 100% constant video and audio surveillance.

(Obviously humans rights and the general public will frown upon such a test, therefore I suggest the statement that past lives will never be scientifically proven to any trustworthy amount.)

2."What is" well, duh, I mean, I could blab on about what we experience in consciousness and even present theories and conjecture that perhaps what we perceive as consciousness is in fact an illusion or a small fraction of reality. But who knows? ::Shrugs shoulder:: This is pseudoscience and most likely unprovable from current day to the end of the world.

3. "What will be"
Oh boy, this is the one. This is the grand daddy of them all. You will die. I will die. This is what happens. If you are cremated, ashes will remain. If you are placed in a box, well, gross stuff will happen. Consciousness, memory, the active you as we perceive it, has scientifically ended.

But does it? That is the question. I assume that all of us are here because we "hope" "think" or "believe" there is more to death than ceasing to exist.

My personal standpoint on this is that death is most likely the end of consciousness, memory, and self existence. However, I do entertain the theories that the afterlife does exist, so I am here in the hopes that it does.

Finally, I end with the statement that the afterlife is not something that can be proven on a mass scale.

Proof of the afterlife must be received on an individualized basis. Some people require less proof than others. For me, a personal NDE would fail to prove the afterlife, unless said NDE contained pages of verifiable data. Let us say I have an NDE and when I wake up I instantly recall 5 complex forms of data which I can then check on in real life. Such as, while NDE, a friends dog is hit by a car, another friend dies from a heart attack, another friend dies in an airplane crash, and so on. If I could obtain roughly 5 forms of data such as this, I would than accept the NDE as proof of the afterlife. Simply seeing loved ones and Jesus / God would NOT BE SUFFICIENT data for me. I can DREAM something like that, I need something I can verify and it must be something I do not already know.

I have meditated but I can explain away all of the effects scientifically as being mental illusions and psychical effects. Meditation and higher levels of consciousness will require the same type of data I spoke of in the NDE's. Information, and A LOT OF IT, I do not know, must be obtained and later verified. Frankly, this is highly unlikely to happen with me. In fact, it is so unlikely the final test seems the most relevant:

Testing Psychics that claim to have abilities mediums/clairvoyants etc. I think this is the best bet for a scientific test, and I know it has been done....

But, Like I stated, proof needs to be on an individual basis. Therefore I need to test this possibility personally.

Phew! Sorry I got off on a tangent there!

I believe Doc's example is a good one.

I believe it is a matter of our souls learning what possibilities exist, and then choosing the possibilities that are most fulfilling and beneficial not only for ourselves, but also for others.

I figure a soul will believe and feel that the needs of others are important once it learns the importance and value of loving others.

I'll say there isn't freewill to the extent that there isn't something better than love. If you want to have the best existence possible, there is no choice but to choose love. I'm not complaining.

I figure there isn't anything wrong with being souls who acquire knowledge until the most fulfilling existence possible is found.

Yes, Recoverer, this is a good approach to people and life. But you said it yourself, you (or your soul) has learnt to act this way, it's a process. And that's what I'm saying, too, the will of a person depends on what this person consists of, what this person has learnt, this person's history. This implies therefore, the will of this person isn't free, but bound to this very person,  it's experiences, insights etc... . Therefore, the will isn't free. It's within time, within cause and effect. I'm sorry but, you said it yourself. Let's just throw away this "personal free will"-phrase and I'd agree to what you've said.

Spooky