Michael Sudduth's critique of the Leininger case as reincarnation or psi evidence

OK, just reading back through the comments that have been made in the past day or so, it seems that people are aware of this possibility that not everyone need reincarnate.  Maybe I should read all comments before I comment myself!

Hmm, Keith Augustine isn't polite to me. Although, I did publish a negative review of his book on my blog that incensed him.

Regarding reincarnation. I'd like to point out here that just because reincarnation might happen, that needn't entail that everyone reincarnates. It might be that some people only have one life on earth. Indeed, it might be that some souls don't have any lives on earth, but simply subsist forevermore in the beforelife/afterlife realm or one of those realms. And some people might reincarnate much more frequently than others.

What precipitates the reincarnation process?  One very plausible possibility is that it is our underlying expectations, beliefs, yearnings and so on. A belief and desire to reincarnation might well ensure that we quickly reincarnate.  Contrariwise,  an antipathy towards reincarnation and a disbelief in it will forestall the process.

Maybe. But in NDEs the experiencer often very much resists going back into body, but apparently is forced back against his/her will. Indicating that the "system" has other things in mind than the wishes of the personality.

Maybe. But in NDEs the experiencer often very much resists going back into body, but apparently is forced back against his/her will. Indicating that the "system" has other things in mind than the wishes of the personality.

The ones that weren't forced back we would never hear about.  Anyway, it might be the case that the reincarnation process is sometimes forced, and sometimes it's a result of a yearning, desire or the belief that one will be reincarnated.

[Ninshub]

Maybe. But in NDEs the experiencer often very much resists going back into body, but apparently is forced back against his/her will. Indicating that the "system" has other things in mind than the wishes of the personality.

Is this true of all NDEs though? A fair amount recount not being forced back, but having a choice to make.

More importantly, though, someone having an NDE and returning to the body is a separate matter from a completed discarnate choosing or not to reincarnate into another body/human life.

But yes it's an open question as to "who" decides to reincarnate. (An automatic system process? The personality? The higher Self in which the personality is encased? A community of evolved discarnates?)

Hmm, Keith Augustine isn't polite to me. Although, I did publish a negative review of his book on my blog that incensed him.

Now I'm reading the comments, I realise tim wasn't referring to Keith Augustine!

Hmm, Keith Augustine isn't polite to me.

No, but I didn't say that, I said the guy in the video. As regards Keith Augustine, he isn't polite to me either. He's called me a troll and I've tackled him about that (rather too politely, I regret to say). He wouldn't say that to my face, twerp that he is.

Regarding reincarnation. I'd like to point out here that just because reincarnation might happen, that needn't entail that everyone reincarnates. It might be that some people only have one life on earth. Indeed, it might be that some souls don't have any lives on earth, but simply subsist forevermore in the beforelife/afterlife realm or one of those realms. And some people might reincarnate much more frequently than others.

What precipitates the reincarnation process?  One very plausible possibility is that it is our underlying expectations, beliefs, yearnings and so on. A belief and desire to reincarnation might well ensure that we quickly reincarnate.  Contrariwise,  an antipathy towards reincarnation and a disbelief in it will forestall the process.

 
I have nothing particularly to argue with about these two paragraphs. It may be so and then again it may not be. I'm hoping that down the decades, enough data will emerge to give us more pointers as to what is actually going on but I won't be here then so it won't matter much to me. Hang on though, I probably will be.

nbtruthman


Well, as I have made clear, I entirely disagree with all of this.  If my conception of the self is problematic, then people would need to advance arguments showing where it errs. 

But if you accept such a materialist's conception of personal identity, then you also wouldn't persist after a few alcoholic drinks, as this can have a significant effect on one's personality. Although, of course, your original self would snap back into existence when you wake up sober the next morning. Personally, I've never felt I am literally a different person when I am drunk compared to when I was sober.  Nor do I feel I cease to exist and am replaced by a different self when a bad mood is suddenly transformed into a good mood on hearing some good news. Nor even my present adult self compared to when I was a child.

In regard to brain damage caused by a stroke or whatever, which radically alters one's personality.  This is something the vast majority of us haven't experienced. We would need to ask those who have undergone such brain damage, i.e "do you feel you suddenly sprang into being at the moment you had your stroke"?  OK, that's a bit flippant, but they would need to feel that they literally only came into existence, that there is no link whatsoever to their previous self.


I think our lives and the Universe are wholly mysterious, that I know virtually nothing.  But, I don't feel the same way about what the self is.  To be honest, the choices seem to me to be between my conception of the self, or the materialist's conception that a persisting self is an illusion. If the self is intrinsically linked to current memories and personality, then it seems to me that there cannot be an afterlife in a meaningful sense.

Your conception of the self as you describe it in your link was not convincing to me as something that is reassuring in any way. This concept you outlined is basically that the essence of the self is essentially simple, the sense that "I am me", unattached to any of its "properties" as you term them, personality characteristics, memories, body identification, etc. which in other words are everything that makes us human individuals, defining our individuality.

Actually, I think that may very well be the case.

An unidentified commenter on this link you furnished I think hits the nail on the head and confirms your definition, with the following further analysis:

....for anyone to experience anything phenomenally, they need to remain substantially the same (the same substance the same substantial self) for the duration of that phenomenal experience. If they are 'gone' immediately, they would not be able to experience anything whatsoever. They need to be there as long as the experiences lasts. In other words, if there weren't at least a minimal persistence over time, nothing at all could be experienced phenomenally. Even if someone else took over the stream of consciousness after a minimal experience (as in Kant's rather silly thought experiment of a series of Selfs), the same would go for that new Self. Experiences that aren't the experience of a substantial, persistent Self are analytically impossible. This means that the very existence of phenomenal experiences is incompatible with an anti-substantialist notion of Self (in the sense of experient).

But the crucial point is, I just don't think that this lowest most basic or elemental "self" is itself a carrier of any of the qualities that we as humans associate with being ourselves in any meaningful sense, our unique individuality. One person's core "self" is just like anyone else's, they are literally "one" in the mystical sense, and this probably shows the source of the teachings of the ultimate oneness of all humans. Sure, we can attempt to identify ourselves as this simple core "self", but since the current life's unique human properties are replaced by another set of properties unique to the next reincarnated lifetime, then there is no survival of anything humanly meaningful from life to life. Our unique human individuality has been snuffed out and replaced by another. (Edit: That is, there is no survival from the strictly human point of view. The soul entity increases its complexity and depth and wisdom.)

Several possibilities relevant to this have recently been explored in this thread, that may alleviate the apparent injustice of this state of affairs. There is reason that perhaps reincarnation may not be forced, but instead is a knowingly made decision, a choice of the soul (or of the last unique incarnated human personality, made before merging with the soul). In that case the soul or the last personality may knowingly choose to snuff out its previous persona having its unique individuality, in favor of another physical life. A knowingly judged and assessed tradeoff decision based presumably on a lot of factors we can only imagine or perhaps not ever imagine from the human standpoint. (Edit: One possibility comes to mind - say the previous life was one of a serial killer.) Another issue here would be the apparent injustice when a just transitioned into death human personality makes an uninformed unsophisticated decision to reincarnate immediately because of some pressing need. In that case he/she has apparently not considered the inevitable cost of the snuffing out of his/her personal individuality. This latter scenario has been the case in a number of the reincarnation cases investigated by Stevenson, Tucker and others.

Something from another thread (https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-p...-and-karma) caught my attention since it is directly relevant to this subject of what is really the self.

From https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...-and-karma:

"Stevenson, Matlock and Tucker all emphasize that while good actions are not necessarily rewarded, or bad actions punished, there certainly is psychological continuity across lives. Note: i.e. data does not support either life to life learning, or even the karma of reward and punishment.

A central category of signs sought by researchers is behavioural memories: correspondences of behaviour between subjects and previous incarnations. These can be skills, habits, preferences, interests, aversions, mannerisms, posture, retained cultural or religious customs, phobias, attachments, sex roles, language, post-traumatic stress disorder and others. Thus, both choices and harms suffered in past lives can influence the current life by simply persisting into it. In a nod to Western notions of karma that incorporate these carryovers, Matlock introduced the term ‘processual karma’:
........................
It would make sense that we would see signs of such ‘processual karma’ if what passes from life to life is a continuous stream of consciousness which is duplex in its nature because the subconscious would preserve the memory, behavioral dispositions, elements of personality, and so on, that comprise a person’s identity."

This brings up an interesting aspect of this issue of determining the true nature of the self. If, as theorized by the researchers above, the self that is carried from life to reincarnated life consists of the "continuous stream of consciousness which is duplex in its nature because the subconscious would preserve the memory, behavioral dispositions, elements of personality, and so on, that comprise a person’s identity", then in a theoretical sense the personal identity is not really snuffed totally out in the reincarnation process, just suppressed below the conscious level in the subconscious.

Then the issue becomes whether the persistence of such buried memory information actually constitutes continuity of the individual complex self.

I tend to the opinion that it doesn't, since these memories are not consciously available to the person, and are therefore not any conscious determining factor in their behavior. Consciously, the person's personal self is still limited to his/her memories from childhood, personality characteristics, and body identity.

Surely, if the memories of having made some very serious mistake in the past life are not available to the conscious self (so hopefully to avoid repeating it in the current life), then this buried memory information on the past life experience is as a practical decisional matter not part of the present life self. It's ineffectual and impotent. Example: say you were a serial killer in the immediate past life. Apparently, since the memories of these terrible actions and their terrible consequences to your previous persona and others are completely buried way below the conscious level, they will not affect your predeliction to repeat that pattern of behavior in this life. For all important practical purposes and your personal human awareness you are the isolated personal self defined by your current personal characteristics and memories and body. 

It is your soul that is consciously aware of this long and sometimes sorry history and depth of experience. But it's not your soul that makes the decisions of the physical life.

Something from another thread (https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-p...-and-karma) caught my attention since it is directly relevant to this subject of what is really the self.

From https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...-and-karma:


This brings up an interesting aspect of this issue of determining the true nature of the self. If, as theorized by the researchers above, the self that is carried from life to reincarnated life consists of the "continuous stream of consciousness which is duplex in its nature because the subconscious would preserve the memory, behavioral dispositions, elements of personality, and so on, that comprise a person’s identity", then in a theoretical sense the personal identity is not really snuffed totally out in the reincarnation process, just suppressed below the conscious level in the subconscious.

Then the issue becomes whether the persistence of such buried memory information actually constitutes continuity of the individual complex self.

I tend to the opinion that it doesn't, since these memories are not consciously available to the person, and are therefore not any conscious determining factor in their behavior. Consciously, the person's personal self is still limited to his/her memories from childhood, personality characteristics, and body identity.

Surely, if the memories of having made some very serious mistake in the past life are not available to the conscious self (so hopefully to avoid repeating it in the current life), then this buried memory information on the past life experience is as a practical decisional matter not part of the present life self. It's ineffectual and impotent. Example: say you were a serial killer in the immediate past life. Apparently, since the memories of these terrible actions and their terrible consequences to your previous persona and others are completely buried way below the conscious level, they will not affect your predeliction to repeat that pattern of behavior in this life. For all important practical purposes and your personal human awareness you are the isolated personal self defined by your current personal characteristics and memories and body. 

It is your soul that is consciously aware of this long and sometimes sorry history and depth of experience. But it's not your soul that makes the decisions of the physical life.

It seems at least 1 or 2 NDEs have a review of past lives as well? It seems difficult enough for people with memories of a past life to hold onto them as they grow up, so knowledge of even prior lives would seem near impossible to access...and of course likely to be unverifiable.

That said maybe we usually do only keep some core personality aspect from our past life, but it is not such a burden that we are bound to what happened in the prior life. If we have to live forever, this might be the only way to keep ourselves sane.

 For all important practical purposes and your personal human awareness you are the isolated personal self defined by your current personal characteristics and memories and body. 

It is your soul that is consciously aware of this long and sometimes sorry history and depth of experience. But it's not your soul that makes the decisions of the physical life.

I cannot disagree more!!!!  Is this isolated personal self - isolated from the minds of both physical and immaterial environments?  Cut-off from the love and wisdom they contain as moral influence?

Some people report their souls do remember pre-life instructions as well as post-life moral review.