Is the human self nonexistent?

[Ninshub]

I find it hard to believe that she would have deliberately chosen such a severe injury to herself. To me the behavior of those other collaborative souls seems sadistic.

A very naive view in my opinion, that doesn't take into account the different perspectives that are routinely expressed by NDErs as to how the incarnate human views things and the discarnate soul. And "hard to believe" smacks of being fully absorbed in a human-only perspective.

Sudman's NDE and her writing about it are one of the most articulate and profound out there.

The specific part of her NDE dealing with the decision over the injuries occurs at 1h11 and yes Rick and Natalie laugh at how "sadistic" this may appear from the human perspective. (But of course it's her choice, for herself, so how could it be sadistic?)

I am assuming (based on the vastly most common human experience) that the human self is separated by a great experiential gulf from the soul, even if the human is ultimately in some esoteric sense, of the same substance.

That's an interesting assumption. It happens that I assume there is no such gulf, that they are simply the same. (Based upon my own experience).

A very naive view in my opinion, that doesn't take into account the different perspectives that are routinely expressed by NDErs as to how the incarnate human views things and the discarnate soul. And "hard to believe" smacks of being fully absorbed in a human-only perspective.

But isn't the desire to believe we have control over reality a very human perspective as well?

It's possible she really had the experience, just as possible she imagined it. That I think is Raimo's point that NDEs have a divide between the veridical components and the experiential reports. Admittedly this applies to other Survival claims, though as Raimo points out reincarnation can track birthmarks to prior life wounds.

There just seem to be many conflicting reports about control when we look at not just Survival but other paranormal encounters. It's nice to think we can plan things out even to the point the injuries we suffer are somehow chosen by us or are part of God's plan or Destiny...but it seems rather doubtful.

That's an interesting assumption. It happens that I assume there is no such gulf, that they are simply the same. (Based upon my own experience).

I'm curious. Do you still have the same POV when you are also experiencing the passing of a kidney stone?

I'm curious. Do you still have the same POV when you are also experiencing the passing of a kidney stone?

Good question. Though I can't answer on that literal situation since it hasn't happened. But what I think you're getting at is whether I perhaps have some idealised view of life which might not stand up to a collision with the hard facts of everyday existence here on this planet. Not a lot I could say to that, except to say that I do live in the same world as everyone else. I'm not communicating from some distant astral plane or something.

This conversation is (inevtiably I suppose) taking us into the problem of 'meaning', evil, nihilism, Christianity. It's very difficult to actually say anything useful without annoying someone, appearing to offer cliches or trite panaceas. 

Could the world (assuming it wasn't created in eight days) have unfolded and functioned in any other manner than it did? To eventually churn 'men' out of the 'meat grinder', which I'm assuming (that might be wrong of course) was most likely the ultimate goal of the creator (according to the words of Christ, if you believe in his words, that is) 

It would appear (many say it only appears and is in reality illusory) that there is an answer. 'Light' at the end of the tunnel (literally) although nihilists quite understandably refuse to conceive of it. I think they are wrong but I suspect "god" is an extremely hard taskmaster. 

So that that statement doesn't look like my 'pat' offering (it isn't) I'll just chip in about kidney stones as a diversion. Yes, been there, got the tee-shirt. Absolute purest of agony.

[Ninshub]

Back a bit to the topic of the thread and the notion of the self.

I'm liking this NDEr interview. Rynes was an agnostic-atheist and a science writer strongly buying into the materialist paradigm before her NDE completely changed her views.

When she recounts the experience of getting hit by a car on her bicycle, she had an experience of dual awareness - what she feels was the human or personality awareness going on in the person undergoing the accident, and the observing part of her at a distance with its simultaneous awareness.

This is around 22 minutes that it starts.

[Ninshub]

When she talks about the "soul" part of the consciousness popping out (and the rest remaining), that does intimate a combination/merger that was existing beforehand. She explains how it reintegrates back in at some point when her body under the car starts screaming. So our everyday, incarnate consciousness is likely a merger* of that higher and the human body consciousnesses (some of which could be generated by the brain). (*or they are co-sharing the body and "its" consciousness).

[Ninshub]

The big question is whether this soul perspective is morally or ethically or otherwise humanly justified given that it is the human that does the suffering, that has to climb into the trenches and get shot up and mutilated, etc., so to speak.

In one way, I would say "no". In the sense that as you have said, to use your words, you're talking about what is "humanly" justified. From the human perspective, probably not.

I get the sense that human morals are not soul morals, not in the sense that soul morals are antithetic to them (NDE life reviews keep emphasizing empathy, to give an example), but the perspective is so large that the picture is a lot more complex from that angle.

When she talks about the "soul" part of the consciousness popping out (and the rest remaining), that does intimate a combination/merger that was existing beforehand. She explains how it reintegrates back in at some point when her body under the car starts screaming. So our everyday, incarnate consciousness is likely a merger* of that higher and the human body consciousnesses (some of which could be generated by the brain). (*or they are co-sharing the body and "its" consciousness).

I can only state that I've heard/read this many times before and have no reason to disbelieve her. I personally prefer very defined NDE/OBE's; not this dichotomy of some consciousness still in her head, with the rest stood seventy feet away watching the whole thing unfold. Can't sell that to the sceptics