Is the human self nonexistent?

[Laird]

Laird, given that, do you think the model we had been discussing earlier in this thread, for example with the Ford Model T analogy, is incompatible with your view?

Hey Ian: first, my view is that "the self" is at core that persistent, undifferentiated subjectivity at the heart of the "I". All sorts of layers can be imagined over and above that persistent, undifferentiated subjectivity, and one set of layers might even be replaced by a totally different, contradictory set of layers - nevertheless, so long as the underlying undifferentiated subjectivity persists, it is the same self.

In that sense, the Ford Model T analogy might be compatible with my view. That is to say that if the same persistent, undifferentiated subjectivity (i.e., core self) underlies both the marked Lego brick and the Ford Model T of which it comprises only a part, then, yes, they're compatible. I think, though, that whether this is truly possible is very questionable. For example, some might maintain that multiple Lego bricks can each share in the same self whilst having independent streams of phenomenal experience. I reject this possibility, per Titus Rivas's paper which I've shared several times already to this board.

So, I think the sense in which it is compatible with my view is that in which multiple Lego bricks sequentially incarnate and then "build up" around the same core self. Each Lego brick (incarnation) adds complexity to the same core self, which incarnates sequentially.

[Ninshub]

Thanks Laird, happy to know that! And it makes sense to me.

[Ninshub]

Although I'm now wondering if this is compatible also: the idea that the same self is bi-located simultaneously - located both as the experiencer of this current physical incarnation, and in a higher dimension at the same time.

For example, I was listening to animal communicator/medium Danielle McKinnon explaining the process to what happens when one of our pets crosses over. That pet is being received by ourself (among others), the part of us that's already on the other side. She asserts having this understanding through communication with the animal's soul.

I've expressed this before, and we've discussed/debated it in the past, but I feel it useful to express my disagreement again, here:

Your view that the incarnated human personality has a separate consciousness to that of its soul (i.e., its higher self, which is not incarnated) makes no sense to me. This implies two selves, which, obviously, then, are not identical. One's "soul" in this case would, then, be a distinct self, but this is inimical to the definition of a soul, which is one's own self, not some other, distinct self.

You're of course free to subscribe to this understanding, but, in my view, you breach with reason when you - whether explicitly or implicitly - identify this separate soul-self as that of the incarnated human personality. It is by your definition not identical - it is a separate self.

I identify the soul-self as essentially a different and separate self, having the accumulation of all the past experiences and learnings of all the previous lives (plus probably another element of true uniqueness), an essentially separate and more advanced being, that exists simultaneously with the limited incarnated human. A vastly more developed being that may appear to the deep NDEer as the perceived "Being of Light" theorized by NDE reseacher Kenneth Ring to really be the soul of the NDEer, obviously then existing separately from the human.

Although I'm now wondering if this is compatible also: the idea that the same self is bi-located simultaneously - located both as the experiencer of this current physical incarnation, and in a higher dimension at the same time.

For example, I was listening to animal communicator/medium Danielle McKinnon explaining the process to what happens when one of our pets crosses over. That pet is being received by ourself (among others), the part of us that's already on the other side. She asserts having this understanding through communication with the animal's soul.

And from my point of view, not bi-located, but multi-faceted, multi-location / multi-dimensional, multi-frequency.
From my own experience, each part is functional and independent, with separate and simultaneous awareness, thoughts, memories, emotions.
Not like the sense of multiple personality disorders, but from a necessity caused by dimensional / time / space / frequency contraints.
Think along the lines of the subconscious never really joining the conscious, yet there performing functions.
Think along the lines of sleep and dream awareness flowing at a different time rate. Ex.: 2 minutes of REM time here being 20 minutes of dream experience.

[Laird]

Although I'm now wondering if this is compatible also: the idea that the same self is bi-located simultaneously - located both as the experiencer of this current physical incarnation, and in a higher dimension at the same time.

Well, again, I accept the argument that there is a one to one correspondence between a self and a phenomenal stream of consciousness, so I would only accept your suggestion as compatible if the singular self simultaneously experienced - that is, in some sort of "multiplexed" way - both the phenomenal stream of its physical incarnation and that of its higher dimensional existence.

[Laird]

I identify the soul-self as essentially a different and separate self

And in this you abuse - in my view - the notion of a "soul". One's soul is, in my view, by definition the sole - and, indeed, core - self of a person. Again, you're of course entitled to your view. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I can't participate in any discussions predicated upon it other than to indicate my disagreement with that premise. [Edit: I wasn't thinking as clearly as I could have here. I clarified my view of what a soul is here. In summary: more strictly, I see the soul as a treasure-house of resources provided by God, and thus not actually the core self, but, more loosely, we might refer to ourselves as a soul, which in this sense includes not just the soul as a treasure-house but also its (our) associated consciousness and (core) self.]

[Ninshub]

For example, I was listening to animal communicator/medium Danielle McKinnon explaining the process to what happens when one of our pets crosses over. That pet is being received by ourself (among others), the part of us that's already on the other side. She asserts having this understanding through communication with the animal's soul.

This is the video I watched. (Of course she's not the only source of potential information I've heard this sort of thing about.)



---

p.s. I watched this after I found out my aged parents' (mother and stepfather) 14-year-old dog was going to pass away early this week, to which I'm attached also and am also grieving.

It's possible I had a premonition (or maybe some sort of communication). The dog was diagnosed with colon cancer (a tumor affecting his ability to go the toilet) a few months ago. He was still doing really well last week, though as for many weeks, if not a few months now, having a really hard time passing any stool. I saw him Sunday and he looked well apart from the fact that he was still having a lot of trouble passing his stool. My parents were talking about how he had so much energy still and had even been running after a squirrel the past week, which he hadn't done for maybe a few years. The thought came to me strongly, however, that I wouldn't be surprised if the next day I found out he was dying. That thought reappeared to me Monday in the AM. Early in the PM I received a text from my stepfather while I was at work, in distress, explaining how the dog was suddenly going down, barely conscious, and he was euthanized the next day.

I feel my grief as I'm writing this both because I feel a lot for my parents' loss, I know how the experience can be devastating, and my own hurt at the loss. At the same time, it is some comfort to me to believe he is OK. But of course it doesn't take away from the loss experienced here by us (or the aspects of us that are here, according to that understanding.)

[Ninshub]

Well, again, I accept the argument that there is a one to one correspondence between a self and a phenomenal stream of consciousness, so I would only accept your suggestion as compatible if the singular self simultaneously experienced - that is, in some sort of "multiplexed" way - both the phenomenal stream of its physical incarnation and that of its higher dimensional existence.

Thanks Laird, that makes sense to me also.

Would the following meet that understanding? The phenomenal stream of the physical incarnation that I feel is "me" right now, is not accessing the other experience that is occurring in a higher dimension, it is all the same "me", the same self.

[Laird]

Would the following meet that understanding? The phenomenal stream of the physical incarnation that I feel is "me" right now, is not accessing the other experience that is occurring in a higher dimension, it is all the same "me", the same self.

Nope. I was once open to a view like that, but you can blame @Titus Rivas (!) for having convinced me otherwise: that, analytically, if one self undergoes one set of phenomenal experiences, and one self undergoes a different set of phenomenal experiences, then, by definition they are different selves. That's why I would only accept them as the same self if they (it, in this case) multiplexed the two different streams of phenomenal experience into a singular (though multiplexed) stream of phenomenal experience: in other words, if both of their phenomenal experiences were identical though comprised of two "channels" of which the same self was simultaneously aware in both its physical incarnation and its higher dimensional incarnation.