Talk:John C. Lilly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feynman

The relationship with Feynman should be mentioned and I have posted the reverse on Talk:Richard_Feynman. It's an interesting topic as well. Thomas Veil 05:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting he should say his LSD work was part of MKUltra, as one researcher, Fritz Springmeier, claims he was a mind control programmer. john 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Like reading an obituary

Is the feeling I got reading the article as it now stands. __meco 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Would be good to go into depth about his work on sensory deprivation and communication with dolphins.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustus83 (talk • contribs)

SSI

The information concerning Lilly's concept of SSI or "solid state intelligence", linked from the Philip K Dick infopages is missing from this page. Anyone who knows more about that, please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.103.188 (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

MKULTRA

Does anyone else have information on Lilly's supposed MKULTRA involvement. This claim seems specious and is still not sourced. I will add a section on SSI and ECCO shortly. --Thomaskmfdm 15:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the MKULTRA reference. Lilly's legal LSD supply came from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). This supply was considered part of the MKULTRA program and is recorded in documents uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act[[1]]. When asked by the director of the NIMH to brief the CI), FBI, NSA, and the various military intelligence services on his work using electrodes to stimulate directly the pleasure and pain centers in the brain, Lilly refused. He was not involved in MKULTRA aside from obtaining LSD for his experiments. --Thomaskmfdm 05:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

SETI

Lilly was involved with SETI (at that time called CETI) in the seventies. A description of this involvement should be included in the article. --Mlohsar 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

taking this article to the panel beater

i pretty much have every john lilly book and am particularly well read on sensory deprivation. over the next few weeks i'd like to take this article to the panel beater, as they say in the classics. for example, i'd like to have subsections in his career work, that focusses upon sensory deprivation, dolphin communication, ketamine, etc. if someone would like to offer suggestions or work on it with me, do let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustus83 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm game. Are you aware of the new website that has just gone online? See [2] for more information. —Viriditas | Talk 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Movies

I never read the book that it was based on, but I always thought that the Don Bluth movie The Secret of NIMH was inspired by Lilly's work. Researchers at the National Institute for Mental Health giving psychoactives to animals to make them hyperintelligent and anthropomorphic and all. It would be nice if the article mentioned Lilly's work at NIMH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.59.137 (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'll see what I can do. —Viriditas | Talk 15:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Minority Report

What do you guys think about the film Minority Report? The precogs are floating in a pool, it seems loosely linked to the idea of sensory deprivation and unusual states of consciousness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.87.206 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you picked up on that. You are obviously very perceptive. Although the majority of people reading this will not understand nor wish to comprehend, there is a direct, underlying relationship between the Weltanschauung of PKD and JCL. —Viriditas | Talk 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring the article

I've chopped and changed the layout of the article a little. Have removed the section "Later vision" and pasted the text into a "later career" section in his career section. I've artibrarily subdivided the article into sections about development of the sensory deprivation tank, as well as exploration of human consciousness. More sections to follow. I'm thinking of adding a particular section discussing his likely schizotypy and research with schizophrenia, and how his work is an example of the blurry line between religious experience and outright schizophrenia. At the moment, i've really just re-arranged the article, but will be gradually be adding more text to each section. Let me know your thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustus83 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

comp sci contribs?

I have heard a few times, including from the horses mouth, that Lilly made @ least 1 important contrib to comp sci. Can anyone @ least set me looking in the right direction on this (I ask as the remark is always completely unsubstantiated. No mention is ever even made of what the supposed contrib is [If someone is trying to have programming and metaprogramming in the human bio computer as a comp sci contrib, I'll be peeved]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

On the Ghostbusters DVD, it was said that Bill Murray's line "Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head. Remember that?" was based on theories of John Lilly. Any idea what they're referring to? (re:Trepanation) Evan1975 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

---Your question appears defamatory. Trepanation is known from paleolithic times. It has been practiced by individuals in modern times but there's no evidence Lilly practiced or promoted trepanation. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 06:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

i love huckabees

forgot to mention this one -- i love huckabees, there's a funny reference to sensory deprivation where the protagonist is locked up in a bag and experiences visions relevant to his neuroses. in later scenes, he attempts to recreate this state by covering his eyes and floating in his bathtub. great film, though it didn't gain much press (at least where i live). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustus83 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

-- A hyperlink to sensory deprivation is suitable for this John Lilly article. Other cultural references to sensory deprivation are more suitable for that article. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 06:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems very one-sided

The man had a long career in a number of scientific (and pseudo-scientific?) fields, but it's as if his career existed in a vacuum -- is there nothing to say about how other researchers responded, if they did, to his work? He clearly had an impact on popular culture, but what about his peers? Was he never subject to criticism or challenge? Just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.55.38 (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

SSI Solid state intelligence

You use the term "aerial atmosphere. I do not think it means what you think it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.32.113 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(9 june, 2011) ok so somebody has mutilated this page from when i last saw it

this was 3 years ago. it was something meaningful, but since then, quotes, references and additional topics have been altered in a way that i consider bordering on vandalism. anybody who considers themselves to know a lot about john lilly e.g. read all/almost all of his books, please post back, otherwise, i'm going to presume that somebody who knows very little on this matter has been altering it inappropropiately. as a consequence, i intend to make major corrections to this version in the immediate to near future. peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustus83 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 June 2011

When last you edited the article back in 2007, it was completely unsourced. Work has been done on the article to source it, and statements which editors were unable to source may have been removed. If you have any material you believe should be readded, make sure that you cite a reliable source when you make your addition, otherwise it will likely be removed. Wikipedia no longer includes standalone quotation sections, such sections get moved to the Wikiquote project. There is a box in the external links section that will take you to the corresponding page on Wikiquote. Yworo (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about how he died

Why exactly does this article not even mention how and when he died? C6541 (T↔C) 23:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography section

this section has lots of strange read errors from the wiki sytanx.. please fix... idk how to fix it. {subst:UnsignedIP|153.90.171.80|02:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)}}

Cultural Reference: Songs

"Cultural references" should include something about Kasabian- "Cut Off."

71.42.218.146 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)CB

Looking through the history, there are a number of song references that have been deleted because they are "unsourced". Wouldn't it be easier just to put a reference to the CDs, which are easy enough to find on Amazon? (Or do we somehow need a more "authoritative" source than the original lyrics?). For example: [3]. Note that track 9 on the CD in question here is called "John Lilly". Arided (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Original lyrics are primary sources and not sufficient. In order to ensure both relevance and notability, a citation to an independent third-party source connecting the song significantly to the subject is required. We don't list "mentions", just because a song is titled "John Lilly" doesn't mean that it will enhance our understanding of the subject, which is the only reason "popular culture" items are mentioned at all. Yworo (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion, or not?

This article should be deleted. Anyone who believes that humans and dolphins could talk to each other is insane. --NikolaiLobachevsky 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: consensus reality. —Viriditas | Talk 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a personally biased, and historically and scientifically uninformed set of opinions. Lilly's work in various areas continues as a reference point, in a variety of ways, for a variety of important reasons.

However, I am amenable to have my opinion changed. Can NikolaiLobachevsky or Viriditas | Talk make a case, based on reliable sources, that this historical and scientific figure is truly best judged based on their seemingly personal, biased view of how the limits of human-animal communication should have been perceived 50-60 years ago? I am willing to hear a grounded argument. Le Prof 50.179.245.225 (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the discussion. NikolaiLobachevsky made a fallacious proposal that has zero chance of being implemented. I replied to his comment, noting that sanity, from a social POV, is very often agreed upon a priori, and I pointed him to the article on consensus reality. A good historical example of this is of course political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, or even the fictional novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Keep in mind that NikolaiLobachevsky was, at the time, a young high school student. Best to ignore this for now. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

These are not a reliable encyclopedic sources...

• Scientist gives dolphin handjobs making it speak English : GoWeirdFacts
• 4 Bizarre Experiments That Should Never Be Repeated : Mental_Floss

… though they are currently used early in the article. Others, while being important, scientifically, are primary sources, and thus fail to offer the perspective needed for a good biographical article about a physician scientist and social philosopher. Le Prof 50.179.245.225 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Article "Research" section reorganized, but on the whole it's still in absolutely awful shape...

But I have given it as much time as I possibly can for a while. Please do not remove tags—they indicate areas needing serious attention, and can be removed one by one as the issues—everything from relying on Lilly's books as sources of content on Lilly, to use of primary scientific literature, to citations missing volume and/or page numbers, etc.—are fully resolved. In my view, much of the material under "Self-experimentation and speculation" is, simply put, so much rot. Some of the worst was addressed—for instance removal of the list of ways Lilly instructed humans to deal with coincidence, the appearance which is far, far too detailed for any impact it might have had in any venue, at any time. Please, serious editors, give this article time. Substantial reformatting of lists, reference material, etc., and further redactive editing are all called for. Le Prof 50.179.245.225 (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The career research section is a muck...

…based not so much on history and themes, as apparent public interest in various topics. What real import was his foray into the SETI area?

Bottom line, the article needs to reflect a scholarly understanding of the life of the man, and not structure itself on human interest themes that appear in common web-based pop culture sources. We need to lead, intellectually (by finding the best reliable historical and scientific sources), and not follow (pulling interesting articles based on their titles, and just these current, existing categories of apparent interest). It is acceptable for a person to come to the article, and say, "Oh, he was the SETI guy", and find there little or nothing, thereby learning that while others have made a big deal of it, it was perhaps not a very important aspect of his life's pursuits. This is one informed, professorial opinion. Le Prof 50.179.245.225 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree with you on that point. Biographies concern themselves with human interest themes. Attempting to communicate with dolphins is along the lines of attempting to communicate with aliens, both of which "scholarly understanding" has had little to nothing to say, leaving the problem (until recently) to people on the margins, like Lilly. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this seems an utterly uninformed scientific opinion. Animal communication is a substantive area of scholarly research—e.g., the Journal of Experimental Biology routinely carries articles on this subject today (including on the neuroanatomical and chemical underpinnings), and this is a well regarded journal—and if this is so, efforts to address similar questions were all the more intriguing and important when so much less was known, 50-60 years ago. You seem to dismiss out of hand what you poorly understand. (Comparing the study of human-animal communication with communication between humans and beings for which no evidence supports very existence, is an example of your exaggerated hyperbole.) We know now that dolphins may be able to imitate, in limited respects, some aspects of other animal's communications (e.g., syllabilizations), but they cannot—as Day of the Dolphin portrayed—mimic human speech. Related studies support related but subtly distinct conclusions vis-a-vis primates, parrots, canines, etc. How do we know these things? To some extent by the failure of various experiments performed by various pioneering, inquisitive individuals—Lilly in the case at hand—in the birthing years studying possibilities of animal communication. But with regard to importance and impact, you do not need to believe me, hear the following (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/us/john-c-lilly-dies-at-86-led-study-of-communication-with-dolphins.html): "Among his 12 books were 'Man and Dolphin' and 'The Mind of the Dolphin,' which encouraged a generation of scientists to study marine mammals and helped arouse public fascination with dolphins, whose brains are 40 percent larger than those of humans. "Before him, whatever we knew about dolphins came from performing animals in oceanaria," said Dr. Diana Reiss, a senior research scientist and expert on dolphin intelligence at the New York Aquarium in Brooklyn, who counts herself among those inspired by his early writings. "He got people really thinking about big brains in other body forms—[that] this thing that looked like a fish, ...had …intelligence," she said. "He was pretty ...far out for a lot of people, but he really did stimulate a lot of research and ideas." [emphasis added] For the broader context of the validity of animal communication, see, for instance… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22animal+communication%22. Bottom line, neither your nor my opinions are important; because you say "is so" and I say "is not" is immaterial. Rather, what is important is what published sources, reputable published sources, say with regard to his work. Can you cite a Springer Verlag monograph or journal article that says all of Lilly's early work with dolphin behavior was without merit? If so, please do. A perspective closer to my area of expertise: When CalTech's nobel laureate Linus Pauling offered a structure for DNA (and went on to offer scads on the clinical utility of vitamin C dosing in healthy individuals), that he was wrong—certainly in the case of the structure of the polydeoxyribose double helix, but also, substantially with regard to the clinical actions of extraordinary doses of ascorbate)—is nearly immaterial. He, like Lilly, was part of (if not substantially responsible for) early critical debates, and description of his work is of merit for that reason. Le Prof 50.179.245.225 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Le Prof, I agree with you, but you appear to be disagreeing with someone who is not me. You appear to be under the thrall of the dastardly Solid State Intelligence. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

An alternative structure for the research section is suggested based on the NYT obit for Lilly: "Dr. Lilly carved an eclectic career that shifted between research published in scientific journals and speculation and self-experimentation codified mainly in books aimed at fellow students of spirituality and the self." This suggests the two categories, of "Scientific contributions" (i.e., pioneering neural electrophysiology, animal behavior, as reflected in reviews and secondary sources, including their evaluations of the real values of his contributions), and "Self-experimentation and speculation" (e.g., hallucinogenic self-experimentation and isolation tank interests, reflected via a list of non-scholarly books and reference to any critical secondary sources evaluating these for their substance). These two, and a third, on "Miscellaneous endeavors", would be a better structure to an encyclopedic article (forcing contributors to evaluate incoming material for its value, and its appropriate category) than allowing listing over the coming years of every stray area of effort that Lilly stretched his mind to over his many active years. Le Prof 50.179.245.225 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, though I am not a newcomer. I simply, for reasons of simplicity and security, most often choose not to log when I edit articles that are not in the narrow areas that I consider my true scholarly interests. Le Prof 50.179.245.225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

multiple studies

There is no way that you can just blanket call much of his work published in respected peer-reviewed "pseudoscience", and it should be removed from the introduction. Science-denial is deciding which peer-reviewed journals to personally (or collectively) accept, and which ones to reject. That is more akin to mob-rule than objective respect for the the peer-review process. Otherwise, you can throw all science out the window. Studies ---> http://www.planetpuna.com/Lilly%20Papers/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)