Is the human self nonexistent?

I disagree that Sci's point was reasonable.

I fully respect your right to disagree, Ian !  Just to be clear, I certainly don't think I have the answers. I don't know anymore than you do, or Sci or Brian or anyone. I would argue no one actually knows but some guesses seem to be look more plausible than others. Some say they know like Nanci and Natalie, maybe more Nanci come to think of it. But then you have other NDErs who say differently so it's hard to take a position. 

I sincerely hope that through decades more of really difficult research and analysis of reliably obtained samples, we will eventaully get a rough idea of what's going on.

You're allowed your views or hypotheses, Sci, but your take is completely and utterly insane to me, and it's not supported by the information we receive, from NDEs for one thing. Do NDEs report that the souls they encounter are "selfish entities" and less enlightened than their human incarnations and "cruel"?

Do selfish people generally think of themselves as selfish?

I would say my take is quite sane?  If a bunch of people got together to talk about how one member should damage their body to the point of injuring their eye most people would say that's madness?

NDEs are valuable for their veridical reports, IMO, moreso than the varied and competing claims (think on the long history of NDErs who see Hell, and are told there is one religious path that can help them avoid this eternal fate).

Even if we grant the possibility there may be dark souls, Sci's point seems more to be that souls in general are cruel entities for what they put their incarnations through, like Natalie Sudman's that was deciding on which injuries here body would sustain from the bomb explosion. Bonkers.

Surely this bolded part is bonkers, as I said in my last post?

Though my point isn't that particular incident is proof of cruelty, but rather taking advantage of the physical state to play such games when there seems to be a great deal of suffering in this world (and possibly, in some areas, the next one).

If we knew there were incorporeal entities in this world, and that their hobby was being born into different mothers so they could damage the bodies given to them for fun...that still seems like frivolous insanity/ingratitude to me?

NDEs let us know Survival is the best hypothesis, and that loved ones are still out there. As for what the afterlife is really like, not sure they tell us that much.

Regarding this part:

I am tempted to think people who experience hellish NDEs are in the very beginning of the transition and are manifesting their own human, fear-based reality. I say this in part because I've heard NDErs like Nanci Danison who have reported going further, right into Source, and having this knowledge. She specifically mentions Howard Storm's NDE, which she's analyzed in one of her books, as an example of this.

I am not sure about this. There seem to be varied people who seem to want to negate the NDEs where someone goes to Hell or is shown a vision of Hell. But why are some of these people told that a particular religion will save them? Not only that, but the actual religion that saves is actually different across different times/places in history - for example the NDEs where it's Jesus who saves versus the ones where Pure Land Buddhism is the path to avoiding Hell?

Another, I think deeper, aspect of this debate is the issue of why there is so much suffering in this physical reality, assuming it was created by the Deity or at least very powerful and knowledgeable spiritual beings? Why should the Deity (or very powerful spiritual beings) create such a very imperfect physical reality that automatically invokes this suffering?

It seems to me this world is very much what you'd expect if somebody dropped the ball somewhere but wasn't a total screw-up either.

The imperfection of this reality suggests whoever was involved lacks some quality we might want to associate with a Creator - whether that's omnipotence, omniscience, or Goodness...perhaps he/she/it/they lack all of these but have some degree of power/knowledge/goodness.

There's also the possibility there is some greater design at work but personally I find all those explanations - even from spiritual entities and NDErs - to be a lot of rationalization + excuse making. At best they might be true for some entities who've decided to make use of this world.

Personally, and this is just an opinion, I would decline to use terminology such as "these beings" and "blame". I see that it is an attempt to understand suffering in this world, and to accuse someone somewhere of causing it is convenient. The real problem I have with such ideas is the way they position us all as victims. I'm not willing to cast myself in the role of victim, it doesn't help me in my daily existence to so so. Somewhere there has to be a more positive role for humans, a better way for each of us to look at ourselves and our relationship with everything else.

The more positive self-description is something that could be worthwhile to seek. As someone said a long time ago, rolling in the mud is not the best way to get clean. I'll add that the latter phrase is something I've considered when looking at myself.

Some being or beings of exceedingly high intelligence and power must have created this system. As ID theorists and scientists have found in their research, it is impossible that the extremely great amounts of intricate interacting functional complex specified information (FCSI) comprising our physical reality (including the laws of physics fine tuned for life, the origin of DNA and of life itself, and human beings themselves) could have come about through the random and meaningless fluctuations and motions of matter and energy. Intelligence of some sort is the ultimate creator of our reality. Certainly not the blind, meaningless and purposeless machinery of random variation + natural selection that comprises the modern secular religion of Darwinism.

Therefore, this Intelligence, whatever it is or they are, must be and is responsible for our existence in our present very imperfect and suffering state. As Harry Truman said, the buck stops here (at His or Their desk(s)).

It seems to me this world is very much what you'd expect if somebody dropped the ball somewhere but wasn't a total screw-up either.

The imperfection of this reality suggests whoever was involved lacks some quality we might want to associate with a Creator - whether that's omnipotence, omniscience, or Goodness...perhaps he/she/it/they lack all of these but have some degree of power/knowledge/goodness.

There's also the possibility there is some greater design at work but personally I find all those explanations - even from spiritual entities and NDErs - to be a lot of rationalization + excuse making. At best they might be true for some entities who've decided to make use of this world.

I guess that your hypothesis is at least a possibility, I hope a remote one, that the "great tradeoff hypothesis" is actually an ex post facto rationalization, an attempt to make rational sense out of something that is more a combination of incompetency and/or as you put it, lack of Goodness, and the luck of the draw. I think, however, that it would be interesting to try to explain all of the convenient cases where the tradeoff theory explains various imperfections in this world. And it is hard to ascribe incompetency to whatever intelligent agent put our physical reality together, since it is impossible (as I commented just previously), that the extremely great amounts of intricate interacting functional complex specified information (FCSI) compromising our physical reality (including the laws of physics fine tuned for life, the origin of DNA and of life itself, and human beings themselves) could have come about through anything but exceedingly high Intelligence of some sort as the ultimate creator of our reality. Of course, that leaves your suggestion of "lack of goodness", but at least that runs against the testimonies of very numerous NDEers and mystics in their impressions of their contacts (however imperfect) with the Deity.

I guess that your hypothesis is at least a possibility, I hope a remote one, that the "great tradeoff hypothesis" is actually a post facto rationalization, an attempt to make rational sense out of something that is more a combination of incompetency and/or as you put it, lack of Goodness, and the luck of the draw. I think, however, that it would be interesting to try to explain all of the convenient cases where the tradeoff theory explains various imperfections in this world.

I have to admit I think trying to square observed reality with some incredibly wise and loving beings [creating this world] is likely farcical.

My one caveat is it is possible that "God" gave a variety of entities with different levels of creative power their own agency, and these beings ("gods"?) are the ones who've made something of a mess.

Of course this invites further inquiry - why can't "God" fix it all? Again, one possibility is that "God" cannot do so without erasing some act of creation, another is that "God" may have knowledge of Good/Evil but no real interest in such designations. "God" may only care to observe/experience what agents do with their will, because there's nothing else for him/her/it/them to do.

The ideal possibility, IMO, is that "God" doesn't have total onimpotence but does possess omni-benvolence (love for all entities). This doesn't exactly let "God" off the hook, but it seems to at least posit a "God" that isn't just a lunatic or evil.

The ideal possibility, IMO, is that "God" doesn't have total onimpotence but does possess omni-benvolence (love for all entities). This doesn't exactly let "God" off the hook, but it seems to at least posit a "God" that isn't just a lunatic or evil.

I think it needs to be mentioned that the Christian perspective, that "god" intervened by becoming human and then getting himself nailed to a cross, a belief that has sustained many of the inhabitants of this world for two millenia, can't be ignored. 

I personally do not believe the orthodox interpretation of it, that "god" required the sacrifice of his "son" to appease him. That makes no sense to me. But as a messenger who knew he would pay the ultimate price for speaking the truth, I do accept that personally. 

What I'm saying is that many people are quite satisfied that "god" has intervened and explained as much as he can. I'm not suggesting others neccessarily agree with this, though. I do know some very content religious people and although I'm not, I can't see much of a problem if one chooses to embrace this simple faith, like the peasants that Tolstoy envied.

I think it needs to be mentioned that the Christian perspective, that "god" intervened by becoming human and then getting himself nailed to a cross, a belief that has sustained many of the inhabitants of this world for two millenia, can't be ignored. 

I personally do not believe the orthodox interpretation of it, that "god" required the sacrifice of his "son" to appease him. That makes no sense to me. But as a messenger who knew he would pay the ultimate price for speaking the truth, I do accept that personally. 

What I'm saying is that many people are quite satisfied that "god" has intervened and explained as much as he can. I'm not suggesting others neccessarily agree with this, though. I do know some very content religious people and although I'm not, I can't see much of a problem if one chooses to embrace this simple faith, like the peasants that Tolstoy envied.

Yeah I don't want to begrudge people their faith, I'm just thinking from an evidential perspective we're going to have to incorporate the actual state of the world we are in with all its imperfections.

That said, I do think the Gnostic perspective that this reality is just a prison or farm for spiritual parasites or whatever is also too extreme. The world is not that bad and the evidence from Survival cases doesn't seem to indicate this sort of option either. [Specifically spirits of dead children telling their parents not to worry or wallow in grief, if the communications from the afterlife were parasites faking it you'd expect them to take advantage of this loss most of all IMO.]

I assume you're making a general point about the unavoidable ghastly nature of some aspects of our existence. I can only address you to the general principle of how else could it be ? Being frivolous, one could imagine how it might be if we were created (bodily) out of material that can't be damaged. But then logically, wouldn't that would ruin the game/experience/adventure/task whatever life here is?


Once again, I disagree. Rationality is such a limiting, restricting principle. Nothing out of the ordinary would ever be achieved if we were always rational. And the soul that chooses to experience a terrible life (for a change of perspective) is not masochistic because he (the soul) is not being damaged ultimately. He's getting into a temporary vehicle for a miniscule period of time (cosmically) to find out how it feels to be in that predicament. 

He returns home, leaving the vehicle behind and rejoins his fellow souls to tell them about his experiences this time, which were in direct contrast to his last life, where everything went well (by earth standards).

I'm not saying that this is how the universe is set up. It (that) may be completely wrong but I get the sense both from my own memories and other's experience that it is likely at least, on the right lines.

I strongly disagree about the value of rationality or rational thought. The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules on which rational discourse itself is often considered to be based. Laws of thought are rules that apply without exception to any subject matter of thought. These laws of logical thought, of reasoning, are the law of identity (everything is identical to itself) , the law of contradiction (no thing having a given quality also has the negative of that quality), and the law of excluded middle (every thing either has a given quality or has the negative of that quality).

If these laws aren't followed, the sequence of thoughts are incoherent and meaningless.

Concerning masochism: this is defined as the self-imposed condition in which gratification depends on one's suffering physical pain or humiliation. There is nothing here about the masochist also needing to be damaged. What is important to the masochist is experiencing the actual pain and suffering. Being also damaged might be icing on the cake, but isn't absolutely necessary for the masochist.