Reincarnation and Murphy/Persinger

4 Replies, 1011 Views

Been a bit since I made a thread, but I've been wanting to. Anyways, this is a very interesting twist on reincarnation ala the late Michael Persinger and his associate Todd Murphy. It's lengthy so settle in: https://wakeup-world.com/2017/01/15/rein...selection/

Now I'm not very fond of people who constantly try to constrain what they are talking about within Darwinian terms, but hats off to them for making a stab. Murphy is just too far down the "God Helmet" rabbit hole for me. See what you all think. 

A neat little sum up of his ideas I guess...
Quote:While this is truly an incredible theory, it still stands as such; but the cohesive line of information that this cross analysis of “neurotheology” thus far represents is truly astounding and intriguing, and deserves further development, consideration, and scientific studying. An afterthought to this concept challenges the reader to take this information beyond the confines of their “ego.” It is considered by Professor Murphy, and all ancient ideologies that believe in reincarnation, that while the cognitive “soul” does survive death, it survives as a repertoire of karmic brain states, and that it does not carry any individualized traits that would be considered as an “ego.” Instead, the individual characteristics of the ego represent the context of each soul’s life cycle.

The idea of reincarnation is one of the oldest theological beliefs of all humankind, but still the question remains: Is it a belief, or a matter of physics? The hypothesis at hand suggests it is a combination of both.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Desperado's post:
  • Mediochre
Quote:It is considered by Professor Murphy, and all ancient ideologies that believe in reincarnation, that while the cognitive “soul” does survive death, it survives as a repertoire of karmic brain states, and that it does not carry any individualized traits that would be considered as an “ego.” Instead, the individual characteristics of the ego represent the context of each soul’s life cycle.
Why place oneself in relation to ancient ideologies? Why not consider present-day research into actual cases, as well as the everyday experiences of many people? Ancient ideologies here are not the measuring-stick. Present-day facts are.

Quote:The idea of reincarnation is one of the oldest theological beliefs of all humankind, but still the question remains: Is it a belief, or a matter of physics?
Why pick on physics as the one truth in this context? Surely there are other possibilities - unless one believes in physics as being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?

I only skimmed through the article, but it seemed absurd that while there are some references to NDEs, there is no consideration whatsoever given to reincarnation studies. As a minimum, I would have expected it to pay lip-service to such people as Dr. Ian Stevenson or Dr. Jim Tucker. But no, nothing at all. Truly astonishing.
(This post was last modified: 2018-11-27, 08:32 AM by Typoz.)
[-] The following 4 users Like Typoz's post:
  • Kamarling, Desperado, Raimo, Doug
(2018-11-27, 08:31 AM)Typoz Wrote: I only skimmed through the article, but it seemed absurd that while there are some references to NDEs, there is no consideration whatsoever given to reincarnation studies. As a minimum, I would have expected it to pay lip-service to such people as Dr. Ian Stevenson or Dr. Jim Tucker. But no, nothing at all. Truly astonishing.

Yes, part of what I meant by "Murphy is too far down the God Helmet rabbit hole". He's a little too bent on explaining everything in the context of his EM field pet theory that he's kind of narrowed his perception of what he's trying to explain. In this case, reincarnation. 

I'm not sure how up he is on Stevenson and Tucker's work, but he ought to know anybody familiar with it knows reincarnation is definitely a little more complex and different then the "traditional" religious models of it would teach. So he's definitely a step behind in that regard, trying to piece apart ancient forms of reincarnation rather then what modern day cases and research suggest
[-] The following 1 user Likes Desperado's post:
  • Typoz
(2018-11-27, 04:40 PM)Desperado Wrote: He's a little too bent on explaining everything in the context of his EM field pet theory that he's kind of narrowed his perception of what he's trying to explain. 

Now that rings a bell. Reminds me of someone else but help me out here - who could that be?
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kamarling's post:
  • Typoz
(2018-11-28, 05:02 AM)Kamarling Wrote: Now that rings a bell. Reminds me of someone else but help me out here - who could that be?

Eh, don't lure him in here. He never has seemed to be too big on talking reincarnation anyways  Wink I'd be surprised if he didn't know anything about Persinger's work, even though he never references him much in his own "model".
(This post was last modified: 2018-11-28, 05:46 AM by Desperado.)

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)