08-20-2011, 07:28 PM
(08-20-2011, 02:32 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote:(08-20-2011, 08:33 AM)3DMonkey Wrote:I disagree. Going back to the example of being tortured...what if the person being tortured wished to escape? What if they wished to not be tortured? Or wished to die to stop the suffering? Simply wished not to suffer? None of these things would happen. Their free will is not honored in any sense. Being free to think "hmm...being tortured isn't so bad" is definitely not my opinion of free will.(08-19-2011, 11:44 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: The only free will they have is how they feel about the situation,
IMO, this is the one and only correct summation of what "free will" is. I think to go beyond that is folly.
(08-20-2011, 12:29 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: As stated, the balanced entity would not react in any way except to protect the free will of the other first, and their own body complex second. Let's say there is no escape, and the only options are to harm the other entity or to let it harm you (completely possible situation). Why is a choice like this necessary? The preferred choice, allowing the other-self to do as it pleases, would end in the cessation of incarnation. Can we really call it freewill when the preferred choice kills us? In my opinion, if we experienced true freewill, death would not be the only option for an entity wishing to preserve the freewill of an other-self.
Free. Free to choose whatever mental reaction. That's it. .... IMO, take death out of the equation because we will die, and that is that.
That's what I'm saying. Free will is only of the mind. Nothing else.
It might not be your opinion, but that's all it ever was, is, will be.