This is an archive of past discussions about Eight-circuit model of consciousness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2005

MDMA

Resolved

– Off-topic. This is not the MDMA article, and Wikipedia talk pages are for article improvement not general discussion/debate.

Ecstasy is MDMA. MDMA redirects there in wikipedia. Though things that aren't MDMA are sold as ecstasy, this is just false advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benna (talk • contribs) 22:10, January 20, 2005 (UTC).

Talking of MDMA, I've added a link to an article on 5th Circuit Activation and the Ecstacy generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.173.232 (talk • contribs) 18:11, June 13, 2005 (UTC).

It would seem that MDMA causes tripping like peyote does on circuit 6-/+5. MDMA would it seems to me from reports i have read and subjectivly experienced in my own nervous system that MDMA would affect / effect circuits 4/5 and maybe 3 since it contains an Amine(maybe a monoamine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.58.195 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article could need some debunking

Stale

– We balance, not debunk or promote; reliably sourced critique of the subject is valid material to add, but criticism without sources is original research.

Anyone know a few responses to Leary's model? I think this article could benefit from some de-bunking/info on adherents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The lesbian (talk • contribs) 22:04, April 21, 2005 (UTC).

What do you think he knew? If only i could look into Leary's mind as well as i can look into my own —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.216.119 (talk • contribs) 04:36, September 17, 2005 (UTC).

Since when is the purpose of the Wikipedia to debunk? Maybe you should start a skeptics wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.144.201 (talk • contribs) 19:01, December 31, 2005 (UTC).

Since when is the purpose of Wikipedia to pass off psuedoscience as science? Maybe you should start a hippy bullshit wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.25.148 (talk • contribs) 22:11, July 24, 2006 (UTC).

I will if you can ARTICULATE for everyone the difference between science and psuedoscience. Go on, I dare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.241.24 (talk • contribs) 23:10, July 29, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any 'debunking' of Leary's model: for one thing, I don't remember him ever pushing it as some kind of pseudo-religion (e.g. like UFO-believers or Apollo-deniers), only as a model, so debunking isn't really relevant or neccesary. However, if you can find any non-trivial 'debunking' I'd certainly be interested to read about it. Mark Grant 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe something of this sort COULD be debunked. It's near impossible to prove or disprove something that's so far behind human perception, and the fact that there is a good number of people who believe this theory to have some relevance is enough for it to not be a pseudoscience. Qwikk 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Switch the word debunk for something more comfortable. What's so bad about giving a skeptical point of view on the topic providing that some relevant data exists? Lot's of wiki pages have a "arguments against _____" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.104.15 (talk) 19:36, February 23, 2007 (CET)

Psuedoscience involves more mental studies where as science usually merely deals with the physical world. In my opinion I think that expansion of the mind is much more important. Maybe you should start an ignorant bullshit wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.160.29 (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, as wikipedia says with great clarity, "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method". The object of study can be physical or mental, it is irrelevant (psychology is a science). The fact is, one can not blender his personal beliefs of past lives, magic, power of faith, UFOs, God, Santa Claus or whatever into any theory, without adequate proof or evidence that such things exist, and remain calling this study "scientific". The building blocks of a scientific theory are previous data extracted or observed in the natural world with a significant degree of precision and security, obtained with use of a replicable, testable and refutable method. "Past Lives" could very well exist, but using this concept without any good and plausible proof in a psychological theory sinks it into the vodoo-science realm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.248.254.100 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I like Timothy Leary and his theories. They're quite fun to toy with even though the man himself was an attention whore on a permanent ego trip who was largely responsible for the illegality of such substances and the delegitimization of psychedelic research. Regardless of my own personal opinions regarding Leary, however, I think it is evident that there is some bias in this article when it makes sweeping statements such as "[The 8-Circuit Model] does have its own flaws but no other model seems to make it even close to this one due to various reasons... Leary deserves credit for bringing diverse elements such as the I-Ching, the Kabbalah, the Yoga, the Law of Octaves etc. into a framework that adheres to scientific and psychological principles."

I think many people would beg to differ with such a statement. No other models even come close? And does a belief in psychic powers truly conform to scientific principles? Although beliefs of such nature are common in occultism, buddhism, hinduism, sufism, etc. that does not make it scientific. Is it peer-reviewed? Is it even falsifiable? Is there empirical data? Or is it all anecdotal?

Psychology is a soft science, not a hard science. To assume that the scientific method and the standards of evidence that it traditionally requires are applicable in metaphysical space is illogical. It is not yet possible to gather accurate quantifiable data based on psychological processes like ideas, whether they be "hardware" or "software," to use Leary's language. Most peer review of any psychological discipline besides Behaviorism falls short of the standards of the physical sciences. That does not mean that unquantifiable experience is not a real experience. Studies of the psyche should be peer reviewed and challenged (Debunking is a word for objective facts and has no place in a soft science, in which we know relatively little). But always keep in mind that psychology is a science largely based on ANECDOTAL evidence. Freud, Jung, Adler, and other influential psychoanalysts strived to get psychology accepted alongside the physical sciences. What they found was personal experience, not data points. By comparing the experiences of similar and different people, theories emerged to better understand the way individual minds and the collective operate. There is anecdotal evidence available to develop your own opinion on whether the model is reliable in terms of soft science (that will require a visit to the pages dealing with theories like the collective unconscious). As a side note, to elevate it to the level of hard science, I think you'd probably have to try out Leary and Wilson's brain change techniques for yourself. Anyhow, throw in some criticism of Leary's ideas (with sources) as well as studies supporting his model (with sources). If anybody knows of any neurological brain imaging studies that relate to Leary's mapping of the brain itself, I'd love to see it. That seems to be where the soft and hard sciences converge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.249.99 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it DOESN'T MATTER to Wikipedia whether or no this is a pseudoscience or science or whatsoever. Only POV-based editors care, because on a neutral ground, pseudosciences and sciences are written the same way. This is what makes neutral neutral.

Second, pseudoscience and science are not black-or-white. None of the studies I know of fits snugly into one or the other. Assuming black-or-white is a main cause of many edit wars, and we don't want that in a small article here.

Lastly, in-falsifiability does NOT lower possibility--at all why would it? The chance that a hammer suddenly appears out of nowhere and hits you in the head is the same as the chance an invisible hammer suddenly appears out of nowhere and hits you in the head. Scientists developed a grudge for these theories as it becomes frustrating to test them, not because they are less likely.Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent)) I'm marking this topic {{stale}}. Please see the introductory notice at the topic of the talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic of the article, but for article improvement only, as Wikipedia is not a forum. This thread is no long making any suggestions for article improvment, but serving as a forum for topical and personal debate. Disputed wording in the article has been removed. Suggestion that criticism of the subject should be included has been noted, but no one has provided any such criticism as found in a reliable source. If there is any futher dispute as to the neutrality of the article, please edit the article to improve it, or raise a new, more specific and less inflammatory/combative topic here about the issue. If reliably source criticism from notable parties has been found, just add it to the article with proper citations. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

2006

John C. Lilly

Resolved

– Just a Q and A.

BTW, is my memory failing me, or did John C. Lilly have some involvement with this model, as well as Leary? Mark Grant 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he is mentioned in Prometheus Rising in connection with the meta-programming circuit and his book Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer. __meco 00:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2007

Neutrality tag should go

Resolved

– Neutrality dispute tag removed per clear consensus.

The template at the top of the page should be removed; the article accurately describes Leary's theory without signs of bias, possible inaccuracies and bias in the theory itself are immaterial to an article describing the theory. Information on the reception of the theory would, however, be a good addition. 66.196.21.91 03:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the preceding comment. It is a pretty neutral article and does not merit a flag for factual inaccuracy or bias. I like the idea of a wiki for skeptics though. It could form the hub for the worldwide ranting community.Tomrowland 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree the tag needs to be removed. The article clearly states "There is no scientific evidence for these assertions — indeed, scientific evidence would appear at this stage to contradict them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.12.33 (talk) 13:11, February 27, 2007 (UTC)

This article is totally neutral from the outset. The word "model" itself is considered neutral in science, and is central to the scientific method. Whether you believe in Leary's theory or not, it is presented accurately and makes no assumptions as to whether or not it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipsterlady (talk • contribs) 05:23, March 5, 2007 (This entry wasn't really unsigned, but it has been formatted according to Wikipedia's talk page guidelines – meco)

I belive the problem was that it at one point lacked that neutrality. I remember looking at it some time ago and a substantial portion of the article attacked the model. It appears to be gone at the present. 76.16.34.223 17:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual Evidence

Resolved

– Rehash of above arguments about opinions not about article improvement; and see WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH.

I'm an intelligent open minded person, this article portrays unproven pseudo science and supernaturalism. Therefore it should be tagged as factually incorrect, or redefined as a religion and not science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.34.136 (talk) 21:03, April 29, 2007 (UTC)

In what way is supernaturalism involved here? Also, since this is a theory which, as far as I know, has not reached the stage of anyone attempting either to prove or to disprove it, how could it be tagged as factually incorrect? Who would be the judges of such a verdict? __meco 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a hybrid or composite of religion and science (Two things which are incompatible). The main religious component seems to be based on Buddhism or some other non-monotheistic religion. The following links shows no acceptance of the 8 circuit model of consciousness.

Neuroscience

Brain

Since when could "humans operate outside of space-time and the constraints of relativity.”? It needs proving not disproving. There are an infinite number of concepts that we cannot disprove, yet simply because we cannot disprove something does not lead us to believe in it. If you wish to carry on believing in this then please do not call it science.

Proving such a thing is easy, but at the same time completely impossible. You can prove it to yourself but proving it to others is the difficult task. To understand how we can achieve such powers would require taking heavy doses of psychedelics, not something everyone's willing to do. Furthermore, even though these abilities will reveal themselves to you on psychedelics, since the phenomena (which is very real) is happening within you, there's no way to record it as evidence that can be measured and quantified outside of your own consciousness. Also, the complexity of these abilities may be easy to navigate on psychedelics, but to a sober mind these complexities are beyond our comprehension. Dreams are much like psychedelic phenomena in that we can experience them, but we can't record them or quantify them. Perhaps, eventually, dream-recorders will be invented, and from there we can apply similar technology to better understand the capabilities of a psychedelically-enhanced brain, and until then all of this talk about consciousness (not just Leary, but anyone who's ever had an idea about consciousness) will be purely theoretical. 69.165.157.207 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Anandamism

Oh and it would be logical to list new discussion entries in reverse chronological order so that the most recent addition appears at the top. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.34.136 (talk)

I'd agree... but so many egos are tripping on here that you're lucky if your drink and water supply wasn't tainted with assassin-class peyote by now. There are way too many references to (and base platforms built from) religious/metaphysical mysticism,ideologies, and philosophies in order to consider this a "science" and not a "religion" Now please excuse me as I call the local DEA and EPA to test my water for psychedelic poisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC) (talk) 67.249.57.112

Autimatically saying that because our simple minds cannot fully understand a concept can be a rash decision. There are many things that are simply above us, and just because we can't prove or disprove it, doesn't mean it can't be true. I'm not saying this model is factually true, just try to have an open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.160.29 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we just put in a section detailing the experimental evidence for this model (is it none?) or perhaps the biomedical foundations of the claim that our brains transcend time and space to interact with higher beings (is it that they don't?). The most simple assertion that Leary borrowed from and embellished on a random idea with no specific reason other than he was tripping pretty hard and it really seemed to click at the time? Dubious antics like this set back real neurologic and pharmacologic research by two generations. Thanks wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.144.35 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientific method requires quantitative measurements and reproduction of results and proof. Pseudoscience hokum relies on using spiritual words and metaphysical ponderings and theories that will never be proven... never mind the fact that there aren't any experimental models designed to prove anything. Also, this article asserts that humans require such heavy reliance on controlled substances that it reads like an advertisement for the local junkie shop that's the sole-source mega-market for the yearly Christmas rave... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC) (talk) 67.249.57.112

We all get that there is no "widespread scientific acceptance" of the 8-circuit model of consciousness. There is also no widespread scientific acceptance of phlogiston, in fact there is widespread agreement that it is a ridiculous outdated theory. Nevertheless, phlogiston deserves a wikipedia article. the 8-circuit model has been influential on a number of occult religions and fringe if not amateur psychologists. Thus, it deserves an article whether it is true, false, useful or inept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC) --71.56.112.48 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm marking this topic {{resolved}} because it is a rehash of all the other pro/con opinion-based argument about how good or bad Leary's model is. Wikipedia is not a web-board for topical debates. The purpose of talk pages is article improvement. As to the suggestion that WP shouldn't even have an article about this, that too has already been addressed here (and in Wikipedia policy and practice more broadly). There is no actual relevant argument here. Wikipedia articles present verifiable information from reliable sources about notable subjects (including controversial ideas), and does not exist to proclaim value judgements on the veracity of the subjects or their claims. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Peyote, Psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA

Stale

– No one has found a sourced answer to this question in almost 4 years.

First off, how can LSD be associated with a higher circuit of consciousness than peyote and psilocybin? All three psychedelics produce very similar effects.

Secondly, how can MDMA be associated with circuit 4 when circuit 4 is supposedly the conservative backlash to the counterculture? MDMA users would not find hedonist tantric cannabis users of circuit 5 as people they would go against.......in fact MDMA seems to go more with circuit 5. MDMA is about breaking certain social taboos, not establishing absolute socio-sexual moral standards. Zachorious 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"I don't know man, I didn't do it." This page just describes the model. --Karuna8 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the MDMA part is because common effects include an increase in positive social behavior. People who are rolling on MDMA are often in very generous moods and feel inclined to surround themselves with more people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.160.29 (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's not within our scope to answer questions like this, if Leary and the other writing about this model haven't done so themselves. See WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Resolved

– Rehash of old, resolved debates; notable, sourced (with improvement needed), bias removed.

I have marked this article as describing a pseudoscientific theory. The theory clearly matches the criteria of pseudoscience: It is not based on verifiable empirical evidence, it references paranormal or supernatural elements which cannot be explained by currently accepted scientific theories, and it contradicts in some ways currently scientific theories (such as the theory of natural selection). Calling the model pseudoscience is not the same as calling it false -- it may be true, but it is does not qualify as a scientific theory. Randall Nortman (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D., was, to quote from the Wikipedia entry about him, "an Assistant Professor at Berkeley (1950-1955), a director of psychiatric research at the Kaiser Family Foundation (1955-1958), and a lecturer in psychology at Harvard University (1959-1963)." His interpersonal circumplex model was once one of the most widely used psychological diagnostic tools, and is the basis for various standard models today. His application of Game Theory in psychology was groundbreaking in the 50s. The 8-Circuit Model of the Brain is based on very elementary Freudian concepts, most of which form the basis of psychology and psychiatry, and are accepted and/or integrated widely in these sciences. You seem to be missing the point entirely: the 8-Circuit Model of the brain, while purporting to explain consciousness, is in actuality a graduated therapy model that is as "pseudoscientific" as 12-step programs, group therapy, gestalt, etc. The Robert Anton Wilson book Prometheus Rising is, in fact, a self-help book using this therapy system, which is also in use by other psychotherapists around the world. So the fact that Leary uses language and concepts that stray from hard science does not make this "pseudoscience" any more than any other concept promoted by popular psychologists. If you insist on tagging this as "pseudoscience," you might as well hit every Jungian concept on Wikipedia with the same tag. Good psychologists use models of therapy that their patients can understand and use as tools. Regardless of who supports and promotes Dr. Leary's theory, it is best understood as a psychological tool rather than a philosophy. Hipsterlady (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article sufficiently neutral?

Resolved

– Consensus against article being non-neutral or promoting "pseudoscience"; several suggestions for article clarity improvement have been made, and article has been stable since post-RFC editing for several years.

The subject of this article is clearly notable, but as others have mentioned on this page, it could clearly use some balancing criticisms. I tried to add some, but my edits were undone by another editor. I agree that my approach was not ideal. I tried searching only for published criticisms of the theory and found none, only supportive new-age websites. I suspect this is largely because the theory was originally published pre-Internet, and so any criticisms were likely also published during that time, and nobody has bothered debunking the theory since then. It seems important to me that Wikipedia not present information like this without some sort of indication that the theory is well outside of mainstream science. There used to be some statements along those lines in the article which can be found if you dig through the history, but all of them have been removed over time, and no critical statements remain. I am soliciting suggestions on how to handle this properly. --Randall Nortman (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view To be a pseudoscience, something has to be presented as scientific when it isn't. Was this stuff ever presented as scientific or was it a sort of new age philosphical effort? The article itself doesn't present it as scientific. It just baldly describes it. A little more on the extent to which it is not in accordance with current scentific understanding of brain organisation and evolution etc. would be an improvement, as would any particular criticism which is properly sourced. Fainites ^barley 21:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly uses scientific language, and is described as a "model of consciousness", which sounds like it's trying to be science. It references anatomy and evolution. I think a casual (and not particularly scientifically literate) reader could easily make the assumption that it describes a scientific theory. I believe that was Leary's original intent. So perhaps the question should be rephrased as: How do we present this article so as to make it clear that the theory is not considered science, but rather a religious/spiritual/philosophical effort, without passing judgement on its merit in that domain? --Randall Nortman (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean - but I think the word 'pseudoscience' should not be debased by being applied to every drug induced crack-pot semi philosophy or every traditional herbal remedy. It really is for those constructs which claim a scientific base they do not have and seek to assume for themselves the reputation of 'science' as based on properly conducted research and careful attention to valid theoretical base. I suppose Leary does in fact fit this as he was a psychologist and did conduct 'experiments'. Its just that this thing strikes me as more philosphical than pseudoscientific but maybe its not how it was viewed (or marketed ) at the time. Fainites ^barley 11:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: I agree that it does not qualify as pseudoscience, particularly since conjectures like these in psychology were common during the time before materialistic, genetic, and biological brain models picked up momentum in the psychology community. I believe that for the time, Leary was doing legitimate psychology (not necessarily legitimate science, with no offense to modern psychology as a field). Quick googling doesn't turn up much modern criticism of Leary's work and conjectures, but I'm sure a little digging into a psychology historical review textbook should come up with something. I agree that a short paragraph of criticisms should be here though. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't really care if we attach the label of pseudoscience to it, but it clearly does need something that indicates that it is not and never was accepted as a scientific theory of consciousness. I have put some effort into googling for criticisms and found not much -- I think that if anything exists, it would have been originally published in print and will be time-consuming to find. Can we just add a single sentence along these lines without needing a reference: "This model was never accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and is not supported by current theories in biology, psychology, and philosophy." Even just the first part of that sentence (without the part about not being supported by current theories) would be a major improvement. It seems that the article used to have such a statement, but it was removed at some point. (See discussion above about removal of the neutrality tag -- apparently the tag was removed in part because there was such a statement, but after the tag was removed, so was that statement.) --Randall Nortman (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"This model was never accepted by the mainstream scientific community." makes sense. I added it. As far as being pseudoscience, you may as well say that Maslow and Erikson and Piaget are pseudoscience because their models have never been tested. --Karuna8 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, now if I can suggest one further minor edit -- replace "model" with "vapid rubbish", and I think we're done. ;) Seriously, the difference between this stuff and the work of the psychologists you reference is that their ideas are logically consistent, based in empirical evidence (even if not testable) and not directly contradictory to accepted and verifiable theories (such as evolution through natural selection), and do not incorporate paranormal or supernatural elements. The epistemological question of whether or not anything can ever be objectively called pseudoscience is mentioned in the pseudoscience article, and is really only of interest to those interested in the philosophy of science. For the subject at hand, I think that perhaps fringe science or parapsychology would be better labels. Anyway, your edit is enough to shut me up for now, though pointing out that it is not mainstream will likely increase its credibility to those inclined to believe this sort of thing in the first place. I would still like to see a criticisms section, but I'm not willing to search through library archives to find references. --Randall Nortman (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the parapsychological/paraphysical attribute you used to describe this theory. I disagree, there are no psychic abilities being studied nor life after death and other "para" things. I think it is more of a psychological and neurological theory but cognitive science would fit it better. This theory deals with human perception and psyche, and thus has to be seen from the subjective perspective of the person experiencing things not some external and measurable objective point of view. That's where it overreaches even the broad cognitive science field. --Telepathink (talk) 20:21, 5. August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

Fringe is good because its not based on validated or accepted theories or knowledge, nor is it a logical progression of such. Time tends to tell whether these things cease to be fringe. Fainites ^barley 08:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read this section before commenting above, under the heading of "Pseudoscience." I urge people to read my argument. I don't think it is necessary to say that this theory was never accepted by the mainstream scientific community," as it was never presented as a model of consciousness to the scientific community in the first place. It was developed during Dr. Leary's post-Harvard, LSD-fame phase of the 1970s, and was designed specifically as a therapy model using language that spoke to his new constituency, the segment of youth counterculture that embraced Eastern concepts and psychedelics. It merged the very structured scientific approach he took to psychological research in the 50s and 60s with hippified language and Eastern practices (such as varieties of yoga and meditation, which have been proven by neurologists to induce changes in brain function.) What I think needs to be done with this article is that it needs to be presented as a psychological therapy tool as opposed to a scientific model of consciousness. Hipsterlady (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While we risk turning this into a forum, which wikipedia is not, I would like to hear more about how seeing beyond 4-dimensional space-time, telepathic communication, genetic memory of past lives, and the "intergalactic consciousness that predates life in the universe" have legitimate therapeutic uses? How could things like this not be considered a scientific hypothesis? Is this a case of the therapist lying to the patient about the nature of reality in order to somehow help the patient? I don't particularly care about how brilliant Leary was before he took a trip and came up with this stuff -- feel free to put that in the Timothy Leary article, but this article is about this particular model, not about Leary's past contributions. If you want to expound upon the therapeutic applications of this model, it would be a welcome addition to the article -- so long as you can reference the information. As the article currently stands, it presents a scientific model of consciousness. I have already abandoned the label pseudoscience as too controversial, but it sounds like we might be able to settle on fringe science. --Randall Nortman (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous is widely regarded as one of the most effective therapy programs in the world, and central to its model is the concept of "God." While there is no specific dogma regarding who or what "God" is, the concept of "God," along with prayer, is very rigidly pushed within their therapy model. Does this mean that the AA therapy model is "fringe science?" Are the thousands of AA leaders the world over "lying" to the people they are helping by mentioning "God?" Psychology in theory and practice is not a hard science, and many therapy models are based on what works, or what may work in theory, and this includes integrating non-scientific concepts within various therapies. The problem with this article is that the 8-Circuit Model has been written and presented as a scientific model of consciousness, when it is in actuality an extension of Leary's earlier therapy work, with a heavier emphasis on Jungian concepts, framed within a new language. As a therapy model, it is as allegorical as anything presented by Jung, and deliberately structures itself to fit in with multiple models of traditional healing and self-development borrowed from various cultures (the Hindu system of chakras, for example.) In debating this with you I can't help but see the irony: one of the primary purposes of this therapy, as elucidated upon by Wilson, is to encourage people to break from dogma and rigid thinking by taking what is effectively an open-ended agnostic approach to viewing various concepts in the world, which means temporarily adopting and shortly thereafter discarding various belief systems as the primary way to bring about a greater understanding of oneself. What is needed in this article is a clarification about what the 8-Circuit Model is, along the lines of what I have described, rather than sweeping it into the dustbin of "fringe science." Again, if you insist on tagging this with such a label, I suggest you take this fight to every Jungian page in the Wiki universe, because I see little difference between the methodology of Jung presenting therapy through allegory, and Leary/Wilson doing the same. Hipsterlady (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not drag the AA controversy into this, but your point is taken. If the 8-circuit model, like the 12-step program, is a therapeutic regime and not a scientific theory, that's fine, but the article as it stands does not make that clear. It doesn't mention therapy even once, in fact. If you know something about the model, please do revise it to make the nature and application of the 8-circuit model clear. But until it has been so revised, I will continue to complain about the scientific claims the article makes. I am not going to tag it with any labels. At the moment, I am content with the statement that has been added to the introduction: "This model was never accepted by the mainstream scientific community." If you want to clarify its merits as therapy independent of whether it accurately describes conscioussness, please go ahead (and cite references). --Randall Nortman (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is primarily metaphorical for therapeutic purposes - then fine. What it needs is more info on its presentation, purpose and use. Fainites ^barley 09:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[No further comments were posted to this RfC.]

2008

[No threads were posted in 2008 at all.]