Is the human self nonexistent?

I strongly disagree about the value of rationality or rational thought.

My point was that whilst rationalising is a useful method/principle/tool, we wouldn't have attempted to shape the world the way we have if we'd applied it strictly. Flying was irrational until it wasn't (only birds can fly). Resuscitating dead patients was irrational but now it isn't. 

I'll pass on the other if I may.

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.

An outright attack aimed at the secure core of information science.  Evidence of structural relations having outcomes in reality - that are fixed - is proven by logical outcomes being real and natural.  Guess what, logic works predictably and as proof -- look at modern computation.  Logic has been found to be a natural outcome of quantum processes.  (citation avail if curious - by the way, Anton Z. just won the Nobel)

Modern information science has a very pragmatic and cohesive handle on all these issues.  There are logical configurations that handle real-world circumstances with excluded middles. (see S. Kauffman)  Same with identity.

 In first-order logic, identity (or equality) is represented as a two-place predicate, or relation, =. Identity is a relation on individuals. It is not a relation between propositions, and is not concerned with the meaning of propositions, nor with equivocation. The law of identity can be expressed as, where x is a variable ranging over the domain of all individuals. In logic, there are various different ways identity can be handled. In first-order logic with identity, identity is treated as a logical constant and its axioms are part of the logic itself. Under this convention, the law of identity is a logical truth.

In first-order logic without identity, identity is treated as an interpretable predicate and its axioms are supplied by the theory. This allows a broader equivalence relation to be used that may allow a = b to be satisfied by distinct individuals a and b. Under this convention, a model is said to be normal when no distinct individuals a and b satisfy a = b.

One example of a logic that rejects or restricts the law of identity in this way is Schrödinger logic.

wiki

If you fear logic relations are flawed for you in your personal environment, then reality has gotten away with you.

An outright attack aimed at the secure core of information science.  Evidence of structural relations having outcomes in reality - that are fixed - is proven by logical outcomes being real and natural.  Guess what, logic works predictably and as proof -- look at modern computation.  Logic has been found to be a natural outcome of quantum processes.  (citation avail if curious - by the way, Anton Z. just won the Nobel)

Modern information science has a very pragmatic and cohesive handle on all these issues.  There are logical configurations that handle real-world circumstances with excluded middles. (see S. Kauffman)  Same with identity.

wiki

If you fear logic relations are flawed for you in your personal environment, then reality has gotten away with you.

This allows a broader equivalence relation to be used that may allow a = b to be satisfied by distinct individuals a and b. Under this convention, a model is said to be normal when no distinct individuals a and b satisfy a = b.

Please elucidate. Let's establish as a premise that two distinct and different human persons a and b exist, and there are no other persons at all who are =, that is, absolutely identical, to person a. How does this violate the first principle of logic that a is necessarily, absolutely, = a? In fact, this is still true whether or not there is, against all probabilities, another person b who is absolutely identical to person a.

One example of a logic that rejects or restricts the law of identity in this way is Schrödinger logic.

I might point out that the behavior and properties of elementary particles may not relate much to the behavior and properties of macroscopic objects (especially living persons) in the macroscopic physical world, the world where the reasoning and logic of these discussions takes place.

Please elucidate. Let's establish as a premise that two distinct and different human persons a and b exist, and there are no other persons at all who are =, that is, absolutely identical, to person a. How does this violate the first principle of logic that a is necessarily, absolutely, = a? In fact, this is still true whether or not there is, against all probabilities, another person b who is absolutely identical to person a.

Two distinct people could be imagined to be physically identical.  Not possible for them to have identical states of mind and still be distinct.  This is so clear, when the phenomenal fact of an informational environment is used as a space for analysis.

Ps: I am only an unwashed fan of logic and have little formal background.

 I might point out that the behavior and properties of elementary particles may not relate much to the behavior and properties of macroscopic objects (especially living persons) in the macroscopic physical world, the world where the reasoning and logic of these discussions takes place. 

Surely a sensible claim if one is a materialist.  But in a different worldview perspective that is Psi friendly - the world of physicality is not where logic is sourced.  The informational structures determine and parse logical activity.  This why logical computation works out future outcomes, without the physical lead-up.  Information is enough.

You constantly doubt materialism - yet are still immersed with its false framework.  Matter doesn't have a property of logic - logic and intentional communication order and organize the events of materiality.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/featur...000219.pdf
I don't know if I should had put this here or in the Skeptic vs. Proponent thread.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/featur...000219.pdf
I don't know if I should had put this here or in the Skeptic vs. Proponent thread.

Without getting into the question of Psi and NDEs, seems to take some studies that are curiosities, then tries to assume way too much from them.