The soul, suffering, healing, learning, and spirituality [Night Shift split]

Spontaneous cancers occuring due to uncontrollable internal biological factors aren't caused by evil human action, and these situations happened long before there was any capability to mercifully offer continuous coma or euthanasia.

Well clearly the reincarnation cycle requires that people die, and probably that the amount of life they have varies, so the fact that people get cancer in the way you describe, wouldn't be really relevant if doctors treated the situation in the most compassionate way. Whatever you think about euthanasia, you must admit that a lot of the more extreme suffering happens when all hope of recovery is gone, and only serves Big Pharma. In other words there really is a lot of blame to be shared around at the time of the life review.

A hundred years ago (say) doctors had a lot of freedom to act. Patients often died at home, and it was considered normal that doctors would gently help them on their way. Politicians got rid of that system, and I imagine that those responsible will feel the consequences of what they did when they die or undergo an NDE.

All of that is before you consider assorted non-materilaist treatments. For example there are just too many accounts of people with a cancer diagnosis visiting a shaman. When they get home they get re-tested and are told they are well. Those who help to hide such treatments would also share some guilt for the outcome.

David

Well clearly the reincarnation cycle requires that people die, and probably that the amount of life they have varies, so the fact that people get cancer in the way you describe, wouldn't be really relevant if doctors treated the situation in the most compassionate way. Whatever you think about euthanasia, you must admit that a lot of the more extreme suffering happens when all hope of recovery is gone, and only serves Big Pharma. In other words there really is a lot of blame to be shared around at the time of the life review.

A hundred years ago (say) doctors had a lot of freedom to act. Patients often died at home, and it was considered normal that doctors would gently help them on their way. Politicians got rid of that system, and I imagine that those responsible will feel the consequences of what they did when they die or undergo an NDE.

All of that is before you consider assorted non-materilaist treatments. For example there are just too many accounts of people with a cancer diagnosis visiting a shaman. When they get home they get re-tested and are told they are well. Those who help to hide such treatments would also share some guilt for the outcome.

David

Remember, I am positing various extreme cases, in physical fact terrible to the humans involved, which are and have been, given the nature of our physical world, possible though sometimes depending on contemporary circumstances either more or less probable. Nevertheless certainly possible to a significant degree. 

The problem is the undoubted existence of at least some of these extreme cases, rare or not, that if we are to take them seriously still need to be accounted for by the theory of soul choice. To use an old expression, to take the theory seriously it needs its nose to be held to the grindstone of brute physical reality as it sometimes comes about. Unless you want to simply throw them out from any consideration because they are rare. My view is that even just one such case deserves just as much consideration as a slew of them. The existential importance of actual physical human suffering should always be respected in my opinion. 

It would seem that even if there is in the process a large element of randomness or luck (or bad luck) of the draw, and souls do not outright deliberately choose terrible (to the humans) outcomes, that does not absolve the souls from having ultimate responsibility for these cases. They could instead simply not choose upcoming physical Earth lives having such possibilities, out of sheer compassion and concern to the probable cost to the human incarnation.

Even if the explanation of these bad cases is just bad luck in a physical reality incorporating a large element of chaos, the souls do not get off the hook for the bad outcomes.

Remember, I am positing various extreme cases, in physical fact terrible to the humans involved, which are and have been, given the nature of our physical world, possible though sometimes depending on contemporary circumstances either more or less probable. Nevertheless certainly possible to a significant degree. 

The problem is the undoubted existence of at least some of these extreme cases, rare or not, that if we are to take them seriously still need to be accounted for by the theory of soul choice. To use an old expression, to take the theory seriously it needs its nose to be held to the grindstone of brute physical reality as it sometimes comes about. Unless you want to simply throw them out from any consideration because they are rare. My view is that even just one such case deserves just as much consideration as a slew of them. The existential importance of actual physical human suffering should always be respected in my opinion. 

It would seem that even if there is in the process a large element of randomness or luck (or bad luck) of the draw, and souls do not outright deliberately choose terrible (to the humans) outcomes, that does not absolve the souls from having ultimate responsibility for these cases. They could instead simply not choose upcoming physical Earth lives having such possibilities, out of sheer compassion and concern to the probable cost to the human incarnation.

Even if the explanation of these bad cases is just bad luck in a physical reality incorporating a large element of chaos, the souls do not get off the hook for the bad outcomes.

What you said might be true if the soul that took the decision was not the same as the one that suffers. If they are the same then it seems unreasonable to take the stance that you do.

We don't know enough yet - I'd like to discover more - but I don't think the answer is to haggle over whether souls are guilty for this or that - there are just so many unknowns, I mean what does the probable fact that disembodied souls either do not experience time or (I suspect) experience 2 time axes?

Designing a physical world is which conscious entities do not have the ability to read each other's mental state (something that seems to me to be at the root of the struggle in this world) may be excruciatingly hard.

We probably need to drop this topic because we are neither persuading the other, and I do fear that the experiences of your family member may be colouring your viewpoint - I mean do you ever think of the rest of that person's life, which may have had exciting and fulfilling moments?

David

What you said might be true if the soul that took the decision was not the same as the one that suffers. If they are the same then it seems unreasonable to take the stance that you do.

I think @nbtruthman 's point is that in some sense these are two different people?

For myself I simply think the evidence that souls choose their lives occurs in enough accounts to be interesting, but not enough to be definitive or even likely.

At least not for all souls, which leads to the uncomfortable question of *some* souls using this reality as a playground...

I think @nbtruthman 's point is that in some sense these are two different people?

For myself I simply think the evidence that souls choose their lives occurs in enough accounts to be interesting, but not enough to be definitive or even likely.

At least not for all souls, which leads to the uncomfortable question of *some* souls using this reality as a playground...

Yes - I think this must be the case if soul choice is true or is a partial truth, because it is hard to imagine any sort of conscious entity deliberately choosing to itself suffer terribly for a subjectively very long time.

Yes - I think this must be the case if soul choice is true or is a partial truth, because it is hard to imagine any sort of conscious entity deliberately choosing to itself suffer terribly for a subjectively very long time.

Ah ok it's like the end of Total Recall where ultimately the guy who got his memories erased is now a different man than the one who chose to have said memories erased.

I sorta get what you mean, it does call into question the idea of a continuous identity to some degree...

Ah ok it's like the end of Total Recall where ultimately the guy who got his memories erased is now a different man than the one who chose to have said memories erased.

I sorta get what you mean, it does call into question the idea of a continuous identity to some degree...

Not so.

There was a hypothesis or indeed several hypotheses posited in this thread. Followed by lots of riffing on a theme for page after page.

It is not sound to after some prolonged time spent almost falling into believing that the hypothesis might really be true to then move into discarding of empirical knowledge. One does not get to discard facts simply on the basis of becoming held in thrall, hypnotized by an idea.

I've withheld from commenting in this thread to any great extent but exploration of the implications of a hypothesis crosses into self-delusion when such exploration starts to take precedence over the actual reality it is purported to relate to.

Not so.

There was a hypothesis or indeed several hypotheses posited in this thread. Followed by lots of riffing on a theme for page after page.

It is not sound to after some prolonged time spent almost falling into believing that the hypothesis might really be true to then move into discarding of empirical knowledge. One does not get to discard facts simply on the basis of becoming held in thrall, hypnotized by an idea.

I've witheld from commenting in this thread to any great extent but exploration of the implications of a hypothesis crosses into self-delusion when such exploration starts to take precedence over the actual reality is is purported to relate to.

I'm not saying I agree with the idea, just that I understand the position better when before it seemed inherently bizarre/contradictory.

Now that you have commented I am not sure what the bold parts are referring to? Which hypothesis and what empirical knowledge? Because it seems to me the question isn't the truth of whether people choose all the suffering of their earthly incarnation but whether this is something that should be seen as good/positive.

For clarity - I don't think souls choose every aspect of their lives, at least not most souls. Further I don't think we have any clear idea of what the afterlife is like or if it's the same for all, save that the experience seems pleasant enough for dead loved ones encountered in many to most/all evidential cases.

I think @nbtruthman 's point is that in some sense these are two different people?

For myself I simply think the evidence that souls choose their lives occurs in enough accounts to be interesting, but not enough to be definitive or even likely.

I agree that the evidence for souls selecting their next life is not that large - mainly I suspect because it is difficult to get evidence of what happens during the gap between lives. However the evidence for reincarnation as such seems good.

Without reincarnation the concept of what we do after we die is remarkably vague. No other model of how the greater reality is organised seems to come close.

At least not for all souls, which leads to the uncomfortable question of *some* souls using this reality as a playground...

We probably don't live in a perfect system! However, the problem is that a lot of our moral feelings depend on time scales. For example if you were to hit a child, leaving him with a nasty bruise, you might end up in jail. However, if you organised an adventure holiday for kids - climbing mountains or whatever - nobody would mind if one or two of them came back with bruises!

My impression is that when we die, our whole perspective changes in a radical way. Thus for example Steve Jobs' final words were reported as being "OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW".

I'd rather talk about that as a change in perspective, than talk about the person being in some sense two different people!

David

I agree that the evidence for souls selecting their next life is not that large - mainly I suspect because it is difficult to get evidence of what happens during the gap between lives. However the evidence for reincarnation as such seems good.

Without reincarnation the concept of what we do after we die is remarkably vague. No other model of how the greater reality is organised seems to come close.


We probably don't live in a perfect system! However, the problem is that a lot of our moral feelings depend on time scales. For example if you were to hit a child, leaving him with a nasty bruise, you might end up in jail. However, if you organised an adventure holiday for kids - climbing mountains or whatever - nobody would mind if one or two of them came back with bruises!

My impression is that when we die, our whole perspective changes in a radical way. Thus for example Steve Jobs' final words were reported as being "OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW".

I'd rather talk about that as a change in perspective, than talk about the person being in some sense two different people!

David

I think it helps to have had a change in perspective at some level like an nde or even an insight through meditation or a psychedelic. If ones only perspective is material space/time reality it may be difficult to believe or know of another possibility even if you found the data persuasive.