This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs Start‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Philosophy: Mind Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of mind

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2008) Archive 2 (2009–2011)

• Info-Psychology (revised from Exo-Psychology) By Timothy Leary (one of Leary's complete final works on the Eight-circuit model)

Note there are differences in page numbers between prints! (found difference in page numbers between 3rd printing(1992) and 7th printing(2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpowell787b (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exo-Psychology by Timothy Leary. (First major work on the Eight-circuit model of consciousness)
• Evolutionary Agents by Timothy Leary. (one of Leary's last works completed on the Eight-circuit model)
• Game of Life by Timothy Leary with contributions by Robert Anton Wilson
• Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson
• Quantum Psychology by Robert Anton Wilson
• Angel Tech by Antero Alli. Forward by Robert Anton Wilson. (with reference to Info-Psychology as Leary's work on the Eight-circuit model)
• The Eight-Circuit Brain by Antero Alli (one of the most recent books published on the Eight-circuit model)
• Neurologic?
• Neuropolitics?

"Info-Psychology" from Leary, "Prometheus Rising" from Wilson, and "The Eight-Circuit Brain" from Alli, should be the first reference from each author. Each of these works are non-fiction and have the largest content of the Eight-circuit model in each of the books to the corresponding authors. There is no story, characters(only for examples), or other elements to claim they were written in fiction.Dpowell787b (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Basic description - all 3 stages for each circuit
• Where is the suggested imprint in ontogeny?
• When is the suggested period in evolution where the circuit emerged?

This list is similar to structure in Leary's books on how he made points on each circuit. Each author mentioned does suggest 24 stages for the circuits. 3 stages for 8 circuits. This should be highly noted.

Wilson and Alli had other takes on the circuits, with different chapter structure to each circuit. For example, a chapter for each circuit included base description, compare and contrast, examples, suggestions, and exercises.

The following list were points to be covered were based on someone's interpretation of Wilson's work. If we were to ask "What methods activate it?" Each author would answer differently. Alli did not suggest drugs for "circuit activation", and contrary to belief, Leary does not suggest a particular drug for each individual circuit. He suggests some drugs for reception of some circuits. Example: Stage 16 neuro-electric drugs (Game of Life, pg 191 or Info-Psychology, pg 124)Dpowell787b (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Basic description
• When is it imprinted?
• What imprints are possible?
• When did it evolve?
• What methods activate it?

Unresolved

 – The article is based entirely around a primary source bolstered by non-specific references to other questionable sources. It makes outlandish claims without any regard for scientific consensus.=February 2012.

You know this kind of science is technically unethical? (considering that it involves illegal, harmfully addictive drugs?) Surely there is criticism of Leery SOMEWHERE. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Leary and Leary's stance on mind-altering drugs would be different than criticism of the model. The purpose of the model itself was never to encourage the use of any drug at all but rather to outline the different stages of consciousness in primate evolution and their biological foundations and advancements throughout time. The only reason drugs were mentioned in the model at all was Leary and Robert Anton Wilson theorized certain chemicals provoked such forms of consciousness mentioned in the model. The model was never intended to be pro-drug or anti-drug. If you want to criticize Leary's stance on drugs, do it in the Timothy Leary article.72.240.112.36 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of the moment, I cannot find any criticism of this model at all. In the past, this article had criticism incorporated in it, but it was always removed because it contained original research.72.240.112.36 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps mainstream psychologists/neuroscientists consider it unworthy of their attention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion for improving the article, not a forum for you to express your opinions. If you have anything else to say, it should be directed at improving the article.72.240.112.36 (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, in its present form, is proselytizing a non-verifiable contrivance, and alluding to it as a "theory". It is not a theory, as it is not a structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations; what observations could possibly concern "information from beyond ordinary space-time awareness which is limited by the speed of light"?

The sentence, "Leary may have received the basic idea for this system from an anthropologist" attempts to lend scientific credibility through hearsay.

The sentence beginning, "The 8 Circuit model seems to provide a conglomerate model of a series of preceding and interconnecting models within some of the human and medical sciences..." attempts to connect the construct to accepted scientific fields, where there is no connection. Citations should be provided if there are any available.

This article is pseudo-science; it has no supporting evidence, contradicts itself, falls far short of meaningful modeling, and many components are flat out non-verifiable. Recommend deletion as complete bollocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.219.192 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the the article smacks of psudo-science, but so does Freud's tripartite model of consciousness, astrology, phlogiston etc. While Leary's model, Freud's, astrology, and phlogiston are generally ignored by the scientific and academic community today, they have been influential for various fringe or non-academic groups. Thus, the article should certainly not be deleted. Also, this discussion section appears to be a call for references to published criticism of the model. I'd be very interested if any such criticism exists as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Actually, all of those ideas were very influential in academic and non-fringe circles for their memetic lifespans, too. Many scientific and quasi-scientific ideas are questionable but influential and lead to improved ideas. E.g., I'd rather have an ancient Greek doctor who thought in terms of leeching, "bodily humours" and "bad air" than a tribal shaman who saw everything in terms of the will and influence of various spirits and totem animals or a Dark Age exorcist who thought my ailments were the work of Satanic possession or my own witchcraft. Human wisdom is a perpetually step-wise process (sometimes backwards for a bit as my examples indicate). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over two years later, most of this is no longer applicable, since the article text has been improved. I'm marking this as {{resolved}}, though not archiving it yet, in case someone wants to read through it and re-examine the article to see if they feel all the issues flagged here were legimitate problems and have all been fixed (seems that way to me on both counts). I'd suggest posting a new thread about any perceived problem. The vast majority of editors & readers with an issue or two about this article have made article improvement (the actual purpose of talk pages at Wikipedia, which is not a forum) difficult because their posts have mostly been prefaced with or buried under attacks/complaints with regard to Leary, drugs, and/or the validity of his consciousness model as science (I've yet to see anyone cite him saying it was science, actually...), leading inexorably to rancorous debates about pseudoscience, the counterculture, etc., and everything but article improvement. So, please raise issues in a focused manner so they can be more quickly resolved without flamey off-topic arguments about dope, epistemology and spirituality, please. I've moved the bulk of that noise to the archive pages. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am again marking this as unresolved because I just read half of a sloppy article. That's all there was to read: a non-npov, non-cited mess. A criticism section alone would be insufficient to remedy these deficiencies. Links to evidence of claims, language clearly identifying the context of the claims, and neutral (tertiary) analysis - all of these need to be incorporated into the lead and body of the text. Next would be an spov criticism section. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources in physics journals to completely discredit at least half of the claims mentioned in this model. Spiritual components and stipulations in addition to literary works based on the model must also be treated to yet another section. A good treatment of Leary's work would also benefit from page references, perhaps quotation notes. I am sorry to say that the problems in the article are systemic. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that what you are asking for here is broadly outside Wikipedia's remit. It is not for editors to find and cite primary material that might discredit various aspects of Leary's theory. That would be original research by synthesis. If there is no secondary literature criticising the model, for whatever reason, then there cannot be a criticism section. We cannot fill in the criticism ourselves, only report what others have said about the theory, and this does not include things that other people have said that we might think relevant to the theory unless the connection has been drawn in a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.37.177 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that this article has huge problems with NPOV, citations, and original research that is not from any of the authors. Beyond the first paragraph, the entire article needs to be fact checked. With that being said, I've just reversed an edit added to the page about the validity of this model being scientific. Leary has stated that this model is of scientific theories "based off of empirical findings" in various areas of science. (Info-Psychology, pg. 8) Again, a large portion of the content on the page is not his work at all. Please add content with citations from the authors, not criticism and opinions. Dpowell787b (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – Article still badly needs copy editing as of date=August 2011.

Largely for clarity, style, and good old intelligibility. Neutrality remains a problem for this page, IMO, as the only references are from those who propose the 'model' themselves. There also a biased undertone in favor of the use psychedelic drugs, NLP, and what I would call (generously) 'alternative philosophies.' Claims about related 'techniques' are problematic. Why isn't religion included, of which 'Crowleyan magic' is just one form? I'm not even sure how I got to this page, but I'm pretty sure the article I linked to it from has almost nothing to do with Leary's 'theory.' If the authors re-edit this page, please resist using idiosyncratic language and punctuation, particularly capitalization. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the capitalization some, but this entire article badly needs copyediting even further than I've gone. There are innumerable cases of grammar errors, poor logical sentence flow, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – No source provided.

Leary did not create the Eight Circuit Model (http://deoxy.org/8origins.htm), as it comes from Hindu Tantra philosophy. Therefore, you can call Leary's theory "pseudoscientific" just as much as you can say that Tantra is pseudoscience. Of course, saying this would be nonsense, because these things are completely unrelated to Cartesian science, both in space and time: which means that you can't say that they pretend to be it. I've seen this kind of discussion happening in several articles, and it resulted in the deletion of the Timewave Zero article - because, you know, the I Ching, which was invented 2800 BCE, does not meet the methods of a guy who was born on the 16th century. If anything, this reveals some cultural bias in Wikipedia users. 187.54.91.216 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leary's 8 circuits are a PHILOSOPHY. They may be applicable in psychology, but philosophy's what they are. I agree with the user's comment above mine. The 8 circuits can also be mapped on to the days of the week. 1 Moonday (everythings new and magical, what do i need?), 2 Tuesday (teuton tribe, the Teus, god of the tribe Toutatis, let's gain some power/status by joining a gang/tribe), 3 Wodensday (Woden/Odin, the all-father, 'the Word was god and the word was with god' etc, let's rationalise everything with respect to our tribal chief, believe in the leader/law, for personal gain and stability) 4 thorsday (The god Thor, male sexuality, moving heaven and earth for sex, I'll be sensitive to your needs and rational, as long as you don't touch my ego), 5 freiaday (Goddess freia, mature female sexuality, empathetic, I'll be attracted to you if you look like you can take care of my yet to be born child, i'll take care of your ego as long as you can take care of my child), 6 Saturnday (the god saturn, the sober judge, the philosopher, scientist, the one who understands both masculine and feminine perspectives and thinks with clarity), 7 Sunday (The Son/sun, the mystic/magician/shaman, the true artist communicating with a magical effect, spreading the enlightenment gained on previous circuit, wearing different egos, is everyone to everyone, iconic). the 8th circuit is Gaia consciousness, and you don't need to worry about days if you're the earth itself spinning on it's axis, night/day is happening at the same time. Hence non-local. this makes sense to me, because it fits in with so much ancient stuff, yet Leary's concept of what the circuits mean doesn't quite seem to align with this interpretation, which tells me that he probably got this stuff from a source that DID make more sense, as opposed to 'virtually creating' the thing.

Natmanprime (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That some nice original research we can't use. Even the suggestion that Leary was inspired by chakras and yoga has yet to be sourced. We can't be adding more such stuff without it coming from independent, reliable, published sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell he was just paraphrasing Prometheus Rising. Not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false claim for origin, yet still holds some relevance. The Deoxy website (http://deoxy.org/8origins.htm) has parts and chapters in the book "What does WoMan want", which is a work of fiction from Timothy Leary. This is the main resource used in this confusion. Leary does show inspiration from the Hindu system, chakras, yoga, and various other sources in the book "Game of Life" on pages 18, 34, and 46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpowell787b (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – Editorial & sourcing suggestions made, but not followed up even a year later.

The names of the circuits in this article do not correspond with my recollection from reading Prometheus Rising 8 or 9 years ago. For instance, why doesn't the article apply the terms oral and anal. Also, Wilson's spectacular lecture "How to Tell Your Friends From the Apes" really ought to be a reference for this article. __meco (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the order is different from prometheus rising. However, Wilson later changed his version back to learys (i.e. 7. metaprogramming -> 6. metaprogramming , and 6 neurogenetic circuit --> 7)[around 1996 in Quantum Psychology.] Although the order may have not survived the test of time, Wilson still detailed each circuit brilliantly in Prometheus rising.

I will probably add the terms anal, oral, and as well as others used in prometheus rising to the article sooner or later.

Also, never heard of that lecture. I ought to check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Brown Nine (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of his difference of the 6th and 7th circuit in "Prometheus Rising" versus "Quantum Psychology", Wilson still uses the same names for the 1st and 2nd circuit in both books. He names the first circuit "The oral bio-survival circuit", and the second circuit "The anal emotional territorial circuit" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpowell787b (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – Article has been tagged as badly needing sourcing improvement for a long time.

This article is very poorly sourced by the standards of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. The main problem is that the bulk of the article is just allegedly sourced by a pile of "references" dumped in "Bibliography", with no indication what statements are sourced by what works, further compounded by innumerable editors, most of the anonymous, changing things willy-nilly over several years of now-resolved neutrality turmoil, such that material that once may have been sourced to a specific reference has had numerous interpolations from other (usually unknown) source, been moved, and otherwise altered without the references being kept up to what little extent they can be kept up with proper footnote citations per WP:CITE, AND other "references" have been added that are not necessarily pertinent, reliable or useful, per WP:RS. The upshot being that large amounts of this article could simply be legitimately deleted per policy at WP:V, as unsourced, especially given how long they've been tagged and how much debate this article was seeing several years ago. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Christopher S. Hyatt mentioned at all? I'm faintly familiar with his work (as a skeptic of it and other stuff like it). He seems to generate mystical/occult/magic[k] books by the dozen, on topics all over the map from Crowleyan Thelema to "Western Tantra" whatever that's supposed to be (I guess that's something like Chinese St. Patrick's Day and Papua New Guinean peyote ceremonies?). I'm having a hard time tracking down any connection at all between the eight-circuit model and Hyatt. Just because Hyatt knew Leary and Wilson at least peripherally, published an interview with Leary, and has been in anthologized publications with both other authors doesn't mean he's connected pro, con or at all to the topic of this article. I'm therefore tempted to delete his mention, unless someone's got a citation to something. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt has contributed to the model in his book "Undoing Yourself". - Dpowell787b (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest that this article be chopped up to remove anything that cannot be given a reliable source, and whatever is left over should be turned into a (thoroughly NPOV) section in either the Tim Leary article, or the Prometheus Rising article.

Other than that, I see no reason why this article shouldn't be nominated for deletion, since it has remained in violation of WP:GNG for some time, with no improvement. Both of the sources this article relies most on are primary. Most of the others appear to be part of a personal website.

On a personal note, besides violating NPOV in language and content, and its subject's doubtful notability, this article is very sloppy work. Undiskedste (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to remove the Psychology tag from this talk page because of concerns that the article presents a pseudoscientific formulation as a genuine theory in psychology. No sources have been cited to indicate that this model has ever been seriously discussed or even mentioned in any reputable psychology journal or textbook, even to discredit it. Therefore, in spite of its pretensions to be a model of consciousness, I don't think this belongs in the psychology category, any more than, say, palmistry does.--Smcg8374 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone, anywhere, done a proper scientific investigation or even discussion of this model? I've had a cursory look but can't find a thing - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally a made-up hypothesis with zero evidence ever, though slight popularity in the pre-New Age Human Potential Movement culture of the 1970s - but the same would apply to astrology, for instance. How does this fit into "transhumanism" per se? Is there evidence of it gaining popularity in the transhumanist subculture as such? - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a relation through Leary's interest in SMI2LE - Leary represents psychedelic 60's transhumanism fairly well. After all, transhumanism seeks to achieve higher states of evolution, and this does not have to be through just technology (Leary would have countered that LSD and various training methods are of course just as much technology as any enhancer or mental exercise). A fair number of transhumanists have a passing acquaintance with the model. mostly through RAW. Still, I think few if any of the transhumanists I have interacted with actually *believe* in the model. Anders Sandberg (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be affiliated with Transhumanism. Although there are many correlations in regards to the evolution of the human species with both Transhumanism and the Eight-circuit model of consciousness, the association can mislead readers on both ends of each subject. Dpowell787b (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This section is a rehash argument from archives (Check "Factual Evidence" and "Pseudoscience" from Archive 1 on the talkpage). Earlier consensus has shown the model not to be pseudoscience. Dpowell787b (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note it was not presented with scientific evidence, nor that it's even been tested. The article goes on about it as if this is a scientific theory, so stating it's not one is important to put in the intro para.

Note that calling it a "hypothesis model" (which is in any case ungrammatical) is not some sort of get-out.

Of course, if Leary did put any science into it, or if reputable scientific testing was done, this would be very important and useful to add to the article. Though I found nothing first time I looked.

Wilson's use of it is pretty clearly as a literary device - he doesn't advance any science either.

I see non-reliable sources treating it as part of mysticism, but I can't find any RSes there either.

I would simply label it "pseudoscience" except I can't find any RSes that have even bothered with it to that extent either.

I've also posted a request for more eyes on the topic to WP:FTN - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for contributing. The more perspectives on this article, the better. I changed "hypothesis model" to "hypothesis" as indicated. I used the word hypothesis defined as "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation"

The work from Leary is presented with scientific evidence. The first half of the book "Exo-Psychology" is referencing fields of scientific study, for support to the model. Your statement "...nor that it's even been tested" shows a bias against the model, and not helpful to adding to content of the article. Observational sciences, and experimental sciences have different ways of being tested.

Leary did put science into it. Pg. 8 of Info-Psychology should address your concern.Dpowell787b (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Did anyone follow up scientifically or is this just him doing so? Because there's no way on earth a primary source alone would pass WP:MEDRS - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the book now. Page 8 is 0% a claim of science; I've added relevant quotes to the intro, to make it clear what the creator of this theory considered it. If you want to make this claim that what he did was anything in the same field as "science", let alone anything resembling an experimental finding - rather than writing off the top of his head while he was in jail - I'd like you to quote precisely the words you think support this claim - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They[The theories presented] are scientific in that they are based on empirical findings" (Info-Psychology, pg 8., seventh printing, 2011)(pg. 7, Info-Psychology, third printing, 1992, hyperlink shown above). Thus he is making a hypothesis.Dpowell787b (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he talks about fields of science. Where is the testing that was applied to this specific hypothesis? There isn't any. So it's something science-flavoured surrounding a claim without science to it. The word for that would appear to be pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are differences in page numbers between prints! (found difference in page numbers between 3rd printing(1992) and 7th printing(2011) Sorry for the confusion, David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpowell787b (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, you are holding a negative bias toward the author/s of the article. For example "If you want to make this claim that what he did was anything in the same field as "science", let alone anything resembling an experimental finding - rather than writing off the top of his head while he was in jail" shows bias. The second example of bias is "...nor that it's even been tested" as stated above.

You've made edits with admitting to not reading the material. This is no different than a Creationist arguing evolution being a "hypothesis", "theory", "proposal", or "conjecture". Or arguing if "Id, ego, and superego" is a scientific model that has been tested.

I feel you are making disruptive editing for your bias, which is not following Wikipedia guidelines.

Although, you have made edits that are directly from the book, with in line citation following it. As a seasoned Wikipedia editor, you are bringing a needed level of skepticism to an article that needs to be debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpowell787b (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are strange at best, and you really need to reread WP:AGF. You have failed to produce the evidence to support your claims, and the evidence you did produce does not support them. Furthermore, I am far from the only editor to have disagreed with you on this today alone. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases thoroughly (and not with an eye for loopholes) - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps hypothesis is the correct term. From Wikipedia's lead: "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." The theory is, of course, not a scientific hypothesis, but the term isn't all-inclusive, and without the word 'scientific' being used it seems to fit. The theory has been put forward and then analyzed in several complete books by several competent authors. We all have bias, and in cases like this I try to be honest about mine, and I favor Wilson as an author who, in his fields, writes as plain-spoken and competently as Isaac Asimov did in his. If this page is to be balanced it must contain both criticism and sourced appreciation for this theory (hypothesis?). But that paragraph on astrology should go, as it has nothing to do with this page except for someone piggybacking unrelated concepts upon an established term. Randy Kryn 21:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a transgressive critique of current scientific understanding (evolving mostly out of the primitive state of neuroscience in the 1960s), Leary was making a proposal that he insisted was not scientific. That's why "hypothesis" is a poor choice of wording, because it is part-and-parcel to the scientific method which Leary held was holding back ideas that could be developed through revelation rather than methodology. It is not fair to Leary to push this "model" into the scientific model side, and so we should avoid words like "hypothesis" which would mislead the reader into thinking he was trying to formulate a scientific proposal. This also goes for technical terms such as nervous system which Leary uses as a placeholder for individual animal consciousness. In the 1960s, systems biology was being reinvigorated by discoveries associated with molecular biology and the like. Use of the term "nervous system" was broader than it is now. It is not fair to the reader to mislead them into thinking that Leary believed, for example, that the eight circuits were literal, measurable electric potentials across potassium-sodium ion channels. jps (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am reversing you edits for three reasons.

1. Leary was using a hypothesis. - It is true that the words, “idea”, “conjecture”, “proposal”, “scheme”, “proposition”, “suggestion”, “guess”, can all fit as the noun in conflict that keeps being edited (over 10 edits within the last 3 days). All these can be conceptual framework or almost synonyms for "hypothesis".

The term “Evolution”, could be an “idea”, or a “proposal”, (there have been many Creationists trying to argue that term be replaced as well). However, we give credit where credit is due. “Evolution” is a “scientific theory” because it is a well-substantiated explanation based on empirical observations.

I’m not arguing that the Eight-circuit model is a theory, nor arguing that it is correct. It is a hypothesis, just an “educated guess”. Using the definition of hypothesis "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of ’’limited’’ evidence as a starting point for further investigation". This is no different to the starting points of observational science, such as when Piaget’s cognitive theories, or Kohlberg’s stages of moral development were starting out as a hypothesis. It’s observational science versus experimental science, as Piaget and Kohlberg eventually created standardized tests for their hypotheses. I have changed the edit back to hypothesis.

2.Leary was being scientific – From his own words, in the book ‘’Info-Psychology’’, "They[The theories presented] are scientific in that they are based on empirical findings from physics, physiology, pharmacology, genetics, astronomy, behavioral psychology, information science, and most importantly, neurology." (Info-Psychology, pg 8., seventh printing, 2011)(Info-Psychology, pg. 7, third printing, 1992). This is pretty straight forward.

You wrote after an edit on the article, “This is not a hypothesis in the scientific sense. Leary is CLEAR about that.”-jps. Can you find him clearly stating your point, then we can make concise edits the article.

3.Leary was referring to the human nervous system, not “a placeholder for individual animal consciousness” – Leary, et al. reference the nervous system quite often. For example, The imprinting of each circuit – “neurotransmitter sequence at the synapse” (Info-Psychology, pg. 51, Seventh printing, 2011). The second circuit equated to the sympathetic nervous system “flight or fight” – (pg. 12, pg. 149). Organs, systems, and the nervous system – (pg 46. Second paragragh). There are various others, and more from other authors if you need more references. I am replacing the your word "mind" with "nervous system" in the main article.

JPS, I have seen your edits and I want to point out that you are making this article better, from simple grammar to articulate rebuttals to your edits. I want to say that I’m completely open to more discussion for future edits. I want to consider if we should use the phrase "unproven hypothesis"? Hopefully that will not mislead readers? Dpowell787b (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "hypothesis" is simply incorrect, for the reasons explained. Consensus is against you here. You are the only one advocating this view. Please stop your edit-warring and WP:OWNership behaviour - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I am starting to show some those behaviours. I guess that I assumed that I knew more about Leary's hypothesis, because I actually read the book. Unlike you, who has never fully read any of the books listed, as you have pointed out yourself in comments after editing. You keep attacking (by reversing the conflicted term once again), then tell me to stop the edit war? That's like calling a "cease fire" on both sides after you fired the last shot.

As with your shown bias that I have put in examples above, you also need to check your eyesight for selective reading. I am not the only editor advocating that "hypothesis" is the correct term. The "consensus" is 2 for 2 in this section of the talk page. Please check back the archives of this talk page and review the same old arguments on this very topic, and see all the mess of arguing it has caused before us. Keep in mind again that the word "hypothesis" kept it's place on this article after all that conflict.

"You are the only one advocating this view." - David Gerard... "Perhaps hypothesis is the correct term." - Randy Kryn (Found four replies above)

I know this could be a form of cognitive dissonance for an admin of Wikipedia and large contributor of Wikimedia as a whole, but... dare I say?... You could be wrong? I've openly asked for assistance on editing on this talkpage, because I could be wrong as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpowell787b (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To lay down my arms in the edit war, I'll take it back to JPS's edit of the word, "proposal", and maybe we can all consider rewriting the first sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpowell787b (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read Leary's book in question. It seems to support my analysis. Ironically, even the very quotes you provide support my analysis. It seems it is you who don't understand what Leary was getting at. I am still trying to locate the talk where someone in the audience asked a question of him about how the eight circuits were literal electric circuits like you would have in a home or something like that. Leary nearly bit off their head. They were coming at it all wrong. "Circuits" was a useful metaphor for explaining the phenomenology from psychedelics that Leary was trying to capture. It's much the same way when someone uses the term energy to mean "spirit". They specifically do not mean that such energy can be measured! The smarter spiritualists and psychedelics from the 60s and 70s were extremely honest about this to the tune of being able to attract skeptics such as Feynman to Esalen. What happened subsequently is that the smartest ones died or moved on and we're left now with rank amateurs who interpret the musings of the turn on, tune in, drop out critics into pseudo-academic blather. It is insulting to everyone involved -- insulting to the history of this countercultural critique and insulting to those of us who are trying to keep science based in reality.

Be inspired by science and borrow your metaphors from there all you want. But please do not be hoodwinked into believing that your stories are actually science when they are based on imagination.

jps (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The eight-circuit model is a poetic metaphor. This is how Leary wrote about it originally, and RAW and Alli followed. It is not science and it was never intended as science. Furthermore, there are literally no sources treating it as science. Leary certainly does not write about it as science, and the evidence posited that he did would also make much of science fiction into science fact - David Gerard (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you both bring good points to the table. I'm compromising on the term "proposal" versus "hypothesis", because I think this rehashed argument isn't going to be settled (It's too similar to old debates from years ago in the talkpage archives). Just arguing over one word isn't going to improve this article. I don't accept the opposing position, but it's not worth going on about. Agree to disagree.

JPS, I would like if you found the video or talk with Leary discussing the circuits with the person in the audience. Hopefully I can increase my perspective with Leary and the circuits. Thank you for your insights. You are very knowledgeable and articulate, on many subjects.

David, I absolutely agree with you that this article needs to show the position of the Eight-circuit model from the mainstream scientific community. We could point out that there hasn't been any other notable work on the model other than the three main authors. Thanks for leading me to fringe theories and problems in that regard.... I was being sincere when I said you bring some NEEDED skepticism to this article. No hard feelings, mate.

I just want to get back to adding referenced material to the article. This is my last input to the discussion on this particular section of the talkpage, but I will still make edits with solid reasoning and wiki guidelines, and still discuss any other topics on the talkpage as well. I leave with a quote from Leary,

"Science is all a metaphor." - Dr. Timothy Leary Dpowell787b (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a metaphor for different parts of the mind (not the brain), written by a Harvard psychologist be "pseudoscience"? The shadow, the id, the ego, the 8 circuits, are all just metaphor, you can't open a brain and point to them to make them "real science". It's a way of describing consciousness and the map is not the territory. The brain is a physical thing that can be labeled correctly or incorrectly. The mind is not. It doesn't stop being science because it's a soft science. It's a psychologist talking about psychology. How does that not fall under psychology tag? Camrev (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this seems to still be a problem in 2021. To someone like me who has a background in esotericism and magic, this is yet another attempt to frame reality into a simplistic pseudoscientific mind model... —PaleoNeonate – 18:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has unfixable neutrality issues.

The article's content is not presented as actual science, nor is it presented as philosophy. It is completely unclear from the article what the subject matter is even supposed to be.

The article reads like a summary of the book it originally came from. The only other sources are people who apparently were interested in, but in no way contributed to meaningful debate about the topic. If an idea has not attracted written criticism, it is neither science nor philosophy. Nor is it notable. This is nothing more than one man's personal ideas about human nature; and while the man himself may be notable, the idea clearly isn't. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of one person's ideas about life.

The fact that a "hypothesis" from someone as notable and controversial as Leary still has not managed to attract any meaningful written discussion should say a lot.

Compare Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is linked to in this article, for an example of one person's ideas which actually did attract debate and notability.

In short, WP:NPOV, WP:NRVE, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROMOTION.

The talk section of this article is dead. There has been no real discussion in 6 years, and even what was there was not high quality.

There is no reason for this article to exist. It's possible to talk about this topic from a neutral point of view, but it needs a complete and total re-write. GrandMote (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this truly was "nothing more than one man's personal ideas about human nature", I would suggest merging it with the article on that one man. But if you read this article it's pretty clear that Leary, Robert Anton Wilson, and Antero Alli are three different people who wrote about this model.

The question of whether this is notable is an interesting one. I just did a quick look through google scholar and found an article that mentions Leary's work and its applicability in understanding humans in a holistic way. So I added a quick sentence about that, and also changed "Hypothesis" to "holistic model" because I think that's more accurate. I'll also remove the call for deletion.

Let me know what else you notice that I can improve, and thank you for pointing out some issues with this article! Etippins (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind response. I actually wrote a reply out previously in Notepad but forgot to save it. Haven't had a chance to try and rewrite it until now.

At any rate, I believe notability is still an issue here. The other two authors can both fairly be said to be within Leary's "sphere of influence" (one was clearly said to be Leary's close friend in one of these articles), and to some extent, stood to profit from promoting his ideas. If two of my close friends decide my ideas are interesting and decide to write books about them, that still doesn't make them notable; and all the more so if they stand to profit from them.

As has been mentioned previously, it comes down to what this topic actually is. In the article, Leary is quoted as saying it's "science, to the extent that..." But this does not meet any standard of science, simply because of the lack of discussion and criticism. If someone promotes something as science but is debunked, then it becomes pseudoscience; and Wikipedia has many articles clearly labeled as pseudoscience. The fact that no one has really attempted to prove this theory at all makes it pseudoscience by default. And if we're going to consider this idea from a scientific angle, then it needs to be labeled clearly for what it is: pseudoscience.

At the very least it needs to be stated that in terms of science, it is completely untested, unproven, and undebated.

Or if it's going to be considered philosophy, then Wikipedia's scope gets called into question. Is it Wikipedia's purpose to be repository for any idea any person has had any time about subject, so long as we can somehow call it "philosophy"? It seems to me the answer is "clearly not". But if you have some relevant sources regarding Wikipedia's scope when it comes to philosophy or philosophy of the mind, that would help a lot.

Also, I just want to make it clear that I have no particular issue with this idea whatsoever, although I don't believe in it either. I do happen to have a lot of interest in psychology, and my concern is simply that this is not encyclopedic content. It should be clear straight from the lede of the article if you're dealing with science, philosophy, or whim; and it should be clear whether or not those ideas have been tested, praised, criticized, etc.

But neither the lede nor the body make this clear. Right now the article is just a vehicle for the promotion of this idea. And if indeed the idea is just a whim, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all.

At least that's my position. GrandMote (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for your previous edits. I actually lost track of this issue for awhile because I was logged out. Reviewing the article again, I think that changing the lede from "hypothesis" to "holistic model" actually does solve a lot of the issues with neutrality.

I think that the issue of notability is still there, however. As I mentioned before, clear guidelines from Wikipedia would help a lot here. Is an idea notable simply because its originator is notable? Timothy Leary is quite famous; any decently well-read individual is aware of him. But is that enough?

As far as its use by other authors is concerned, I think there is issue because one was a personal associate, and the other had a clear motive to profit personally from it. The idea was clearly tied to his business model ans was not "pure" research, as it were.

At any rate, I'm not familiar with this kind of topic within Wikipedia at all, so if there is a better place this discussion could be taken, I think that would be good.

Thanks again for your help! GrandMote (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, this article suffers severely from WP:PRIMARY. Here I will attempt to find some secondary sources which can provide context:

• [1] article in media studies
• [2] (note: conference proceeding)
• [3] book on Leary
• [4] article on ketamine
• [5] Psychedelics Encyclopedia (less than pleased that Andrew Weil wrote the Foreward, but... highly cited reference anyway).
• [6] book on psychedelics

Not impressive, but giving a sense of the context, at least.

jps (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Robert Anton Wilson's book and work concerning and expanding on this model (as well as Ali's) are not primary sources to Leary's original model (they would, I'd think, be considered secondary and commentary). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with using it as a reliable source for anything but the musings of Anton Wilson, but it does speak to the notability of the idea at least that the football was passed to another who is certainly famous in his own right. jps (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like McCray, W. Patrick. "Timothy Leary's Transhumanist SMI2LE". Groovy Science: Knowledge, Innovation, and American Counterculture. wplibrary for context. One brief mention in a flood of Leary concepts. All taken, saying 4 terrestrial and 4 post-terrestrial are about the extent of description in most good sources. fiveby(zero) 19:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on (probably book jacket) summations of this book here, perhaps this should be covered from a social science perspective. Reviews appear to be authored by university professors (Angela N. H. Creager and Fred Turner); two notable scientific journals (Science and Nature); as well as MIT News. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I am guessing there would be enough notable coverage of the book, "Groovy Science," for a Wikipedia article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an obit for Robert Anton Wilson in The Telegraph [7] to help determine his credibility as a consciousness researcher and theorist. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted your overall full-scale deletion. Nobody is saying this is set-in-stone way of describing human body-mind interaction and growth, it's a model from a reputable source, Leary, and adhears to WP:PRIMARY by summarizing Leary's original model. This was then later commented on and expanded by other reputable authors, including Wilson, who commented and described the model. The word 'model' is in the title. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edit. [8] I said in the edit history [9] to discuss on talk before reverting per WP:BRD. This encourages discussion and avoids edit warring. Also, BRD doesn't say Bold revert, Bold revert and then D. Your actions are inappropriate. Also, please see WP:OWN

Would have liked to leave your edit for the discussion but what you did was an entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article, which can also be considered OWN. At that point a revert presents the entirety of the page. For much of the page it probably needs a clearer explanation that the model described is from Leary's work, but summarizing that work fits WP:PRIMARY. The Wilson additions, on the other hand, are commentary on another's model and are not primary although he adds to the model's explanation. Wilson, as well as Leary, are considered reputable authors and essayists. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second and third time you have exaggerated. The first was "overall full-scale deletion". The second was "entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article" and the third exaggeration is "a revert presents the entirety of the page." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe let's stick to the subject. Describing your removal as huge seem appropriate, and maybe we can agree that removing nearly 11,000 bits of page-relevant descriptive material does change the focus of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]