What do you guys think about John C. Lilly's theories (ECCO,

>>17932468
I think that maybe there could be something to his theories.

I also think that a lot of his theories were the result of psychotic delusions from abusing ketamine.

How many of his insights are based in some sort of reality and how many are not? We'll probably never know.

>>17932468

>starts thread
>asks question
>assumes everyone knows what I am talking about
>no source material

Post something that we can refer too or gtfo.

>>17932468
Sensory deprivation in general is really interesting. Youve probably already read about it if youre into lilly, but look up the ganzfeld experiment.

>sensory deprivation
Post relevant links, observatory studies, situational results or conclusions, personal experiences. etc.
Why is everything here so subjective?

File: 13254264_1545009582469829_594450772127394482_n.jpg (38KB, 480x471px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x471px

Here's some relevant info:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/Gorightly.htm

A choice cut from this article:

>But ECCO was not there only to guide Lilly unfettered through his mind-bending research; these extraterrestrial benefactors were also there to test Lilly, to help him overcome his deepest darkest fears with psychic-shock therapy. One evening after a kick-ass shot of K, Lilly sat watching TV when an alien representative of ECCO appeared and — with some advanced form of psychic surgery — bloodlessly removed John's penis, nonchalantly handing it over to him. "They've cut off my penis," Dr. Lilly exclaimed. His wife Toni came to the rescue and pointed out to John that his penis was still intact. Upon closer examination of his male member, Lilly saw that the ET's had replaced his normal human penis with a mechanical version that could become voluntary erect when he wanted it to. An hour later, after the effects of the K wore off, John Lilly found his normal human penis in place of the mechanical one, exactly where it had always been.

>>17932468

Imagine if John C Lily was conducting his work now, he'd be laughed out and discredited as a lunatic quack druggie. Did the contemporary science community think the same thing back then? Or were they all more open to it because of the culture? I love reading about his work btw, but i'd take his "findings" with a pinch of salt to be honest.