Bobser. Youve kind of wrapped it up. In certain style. We are at the point where some new folk come on and it all goes around again, like the room after a particularly enjoyable evening on the town.

Pudding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_UGVGcF414


these college guys are struck in hypnosis trance after it went wrong ... watch it for yourself

I assume God not to exist and start from there. Seriously, the bits about operating without anesthetic got my interest up. I can contribute nothing to the academic discussion here, but I can contribute some personal experience.
My ex-wife gave birth to our second child without any pain relief of any sort. I trained her to use relaxation techniques and visualization, and it worked very well. But she was never in a trance of any sort. She was wide awake and chatting the whole time.
At another point I had four teeth removed without anesthetic. My jaw had been damaged in an accident, it was an emergency, and there was no other option. I won't pretend it didn't hurt, but it is possible to undergo procedures without pain relief.
A few years ago I needed surgery to remove a few small tumors. I refused general anesthetic, as I was overweight at the time. To an outside observer it might have looked as if I was happily undergoing surgery without anesthetic, but the truth was I had had a local. Appearances can be deceptive.
I guess what I am saying is that the experience of surgery under hypnosis is no evidence that hypnotic trance exists. And personally I don't believe it does.

Glad you came back Tony. I enjoyed very much your earlier posts and was hoping to get to know you better.
I understand what you're saying, my wife sailed through pregnancy as she does through dentistry etc. She says she believes she 'goes somewhere else in her mind'. Actually feels the pain but has the ability to dum it down. By the way she is no layperson, mastering in psychology and a lecturer. Having said that she still feels she can make any claim to what is actually 'going on'. I can also tell you this; although neither myself or any other hypnotist has managed to zap her, she believes the evidence for hypnosis to be an actual state is irrefutable, as do I. Despite wht Alex quotes, I have both read and witnessed to many opoerations which become totally pain free and can see openly that the person is simply in a completely different state of being. But opinions certainly are like belly buttons. We've all got them and they're all different.

bobser

Bobser, you don't want me to come back on that do you, surely!

I thought Jono was the "winner".

Or as it comes out on my keyboard, the 2winner2!

Alex,

Read from the beginning. Bluntly, your degree in psychology ill-equips you to make any statement regarding scientific proof, unless it is from a social science perspective (which actually could occur here). Proof from a social science perspective and science perspective are two different creatures.

Many hypnotists are on both sides of this fence. You have a vested interest in this position, as this appears to be a marketing hook. Seems to be working quite well for you too.

You are qualified to have an opinion and it would bear more weight than most, due to your experience. It does not have the weight of scientific proof though. It could be added that many with equal or greater experience both agree and disagree with you.

You quote many studies that are ancient for all practical purposes. Things change fast. In the field of obesity there are around 2000 peer-reviewed, published studies each month. Other fields move ahead rapidly also. The nice thing about science is the ability to learn new things...you seem a bit stuck here.

These scans are certainly not the last word. What role might the amygdala play? When that gets "shut off" things get shunted to the part of the brain that processes information as real.

Is there a difference between a brain in trance and one in religious ecstasy? If there is, does that say anything?

One more classic Robert Anton Wilson statement...."No wife, no horse, no mustache". It seems zen in its kookiness but when you understand what he is saying here you will understand the hypnosis debate much better. Not trying to be cryptic here, that's just how it is....

Perhaps you just have a very basic unsophisticated outdated model of trance? (comes from your tendency to think one day all knowledge will be complete perhaps?)

A more modern way of thinking about trance is to work with the building blocks of reality. You have the five senses. Each sense has two modes. An xternal and an internal. For example you can look at the screen. You can close your eyes and visualise the screen. You can change the colour of the settings for real or you can close your eyes and change the colour in your imagination.

You can also imagine other objects beside your screen such as a coffee mug. You can do this with your eyes closed. Or you can even do this with your eyes open where you see the screen for real but picture a mug that doesn't exist.

We can do this with all our senses. Infact we do this all the time with each sense overlapping to the point where we no longer know what is 'real'and what is generated or projected from within.

The modern way of thinking of trance is that when all our senses are inside we are in trance. And when all our senses are focused outside then we are very conscious. in reality we continuously slide between each extreme most of the time.

All a hypnotist does is guide those senses and focuses them within.

Therefore your wife did use hypnosis just not your primitive definition. And your belief enables you to project your own definition and programming on to events that involve hypnosis. that's why perhaps you can't see the obvious.

Of course you could argue that applies to those that believe there is hypnosis too. And I would agree none of us are free from trance just as fish cannot be free from water even if they don't believe it exists.

And I think its a waste of time trying to pull you out of your denial trance. So I won't bother anymore with this stupid thread.

I could be spending my time with clients who pay me good money to do that.

In the meantime you could go find some academic friends thencome back and tell us you can't find these definitions on a Phd programme therefore they don't exist...

Whatever floats your boat.

Actually, although I totally disagree with him, I did enjoy reading Alex's arguments. Yes, admittedly I found myself needing a shave through a couple of them, but you'd have to know that no one person on the planet stores that amount of information in their head other than a manic-depressive.
This means that the Alex did a helluva lot of running around, gathering, writing and re-writing his posts before pressing the 'submit reply' button. And he made me laugh out loud more than once. Not just at him but in all fairness with him. I for one vote we keep Alex Tsander. I think he'll keep us all on our toes. The boy is a class act. And it would be interesting to eventually see a post with him Danny and MP all agreeing. Wow, now that would be a force NOT to go up against! Although methinks it might take some time.

bobser,
ps: As an afterthought it would be interesting to see what would happen if Alex were to come over to the side of believing hypnosis is REAL. He'd probably deliver irrefutable proof to the whole world by this time next Friday, should he decide to wait that long!

lol... I'm teaching 7 days a week, have 4 shows in production and just finished 3 shows at the Time Warner Center in NYC. We typically go about 14 - 16 hours a day, and if you've ever seem our illusion or aerial shows, you'll know that few have more energy than me!

I just don't have the HOURS to devote to debating that Alex does. I'm not saying it's bad or good. I do try and get on when I can and discuss pertinant things to my interests, but it doesn't consume my life.

Mota.Thanks for reading through. that's the price of coming late into a thread.

To reply to your questions.

Mota... "Read from the beginning. Bluntly, your degree in psychology ill-equips you to make any statement regarding scientific proof, unless it is from a social science perspective (which actually could occur here). Proof from a social science perspective and science perspective are two different creatures. "


But my criterion of proof is the Popperian principle of falsifyability. Which I think you will agree is pretty orthodox.

Mota..."Many hypnotists are on both sides of this fence. You have a vested interest in this position, as this appears to be a marketing hook. Seems to be working quite well for you too. "

In fact, I get booked and rebooked on the basis of entertainment value. I don't think anyone has booked me for my views. But that was why I came on this thread, to say that my views are sincere. You may or may not agree with them, but you surely recognise by now that they are not just a marketing tool.

Mota...."You are qualified to have an opinion and it would bear more weight than most, due to your experience. It does not have the weight of scientific proof though. It could be added that many with equal or greater experience both agree and disagree with you."

Thanks for that. But my hope is to put the emphasis on the scientific work, not my experience. That only came up in response to queries about what experience I had had. I am a convert to my viewpoint. Its not where I started. It was the science that converted me. Although my experience reinforced this when the two synchronised.

Mota..."You quote many studies that are ancient for all practical purposes. Things change fast. In the field of obesity there are around 2000 peer-reviewed, published studies each month. Other fields move ahead rapidly also. The nice thing about science is the ability to learn new things...you seem a bit stuck here. "

Science doesn't have a sell-by date. Studies are only superseded by newer ones if the newer ones either contradict or fail to replicate their results. Most of chemistry is based on experiments conducted centuries ago and repeated by students ever since. In psychology the same is true. The Asch line length perception experiment (distortion of perception by an unconscious drive to conform) is a very old, but still valid. It has been replicated by thousands of students around the world, over the years, myself included.

Mota..." These scans are certainly not the last word. What role might the amygdala play? When that gets "shut off" things get shunted to the part of the brain that processes information as real. "

Now you are getting into specifics of neuro-anatomy. I am certainly not a neuro-scholar. I only know basic brain anatomy. But I do know that the attempt to attribute specific functions to specific areas of the brain has a long history full of revisions. The troublesome and disturbing history of psycho-surgery ( lobotomies, leucotomies and indeed amygdalotomies ) illustrates this. Yes the field of scanning is very exciting and rapidly expanding. But it is very new and neither scientists nor philosophers have had time to scrutinise each others interpretations yet, let alone come to hard conclusions. Its all too easy to get carried away and make sweeping statements. that's why I took a swipe at journalists earlier. They do that as part of their job!

What is interesting in these studies is that the patterns of selective activation found in responsive subjects who undergo a task of imagination ( for example ) in a hypnotic scenario is the same whether they are hypnotised or not. The difference is between "good" subjects and "poor" subjects. So the comparison or dichotomy is in a dimension ninety degrees from that which traditional concepts of "hypnbosis" would predict. This fits well with concepts that stress the importance of individual predisposition in the hypnotic response.

Mota..." Is there a difference between a brain in trance and one in religious ecstasy? If there is, does that say anything? "

You probably know about the work of Robert Persinger (I've probably spelled his name wrong). He creates religious experiences in subjects by generating electromagnetic fields over parts of their brain from coils in a helmet. There was an interesting TV show (BBC I think) about this presented by one of my local psychology lecturers, Susan Blackmore.

I recommend William Sargents "The Mind Possessed". A tour of religious trance/possession traditions from a psychological and anthropological perspective. It connects at many points to hypnotism. But these things can also be approached either from a physical perspective ( that book I mentioned earlier, "Hypnosis, Hysteria and Epilepsy" by E.M.Thornton for example ) or the social-psychological perspective. These things are not seperate but all overlap. I even believe that the esoteric principle of "orgiastic commitment" ( in one phrase of many ) plays a role in the techniques that I use in a show, when I get people physically active in being "steam engines". It's a step in the procedure that I think is useful and tallies well with some of Sargent's arguments.

Mota..." One more classic Robert Anton Wilson statement...."No wife, no horse, no mustache". It seems zen in its kookiness but when you understand what he is saying here you will understand the hypnosis debate much better. Not trying to be cryptic here, that's just how it is.... "

Sounds more like Ericksonian / NLP to me! What I will say is that whilst I may not have a horse (I'm not saying) I do have an enormous moustache!



Mindpunisher. Most of your last post is an example of something that I could personally agree with except for....I hate to say this if Danny Doyle is around...a semantic problem. What you are talking about is the technique of hypnotism. You use the word "hypnosis". But when a lot of other people use that word they mean something quite different. which I agree, is an outdated concept.

The other thing is that a lot of what those other people in their definition of "hypnosis" (quite different to the one you set out) believe is not actually true.

That's what all the "academic" stuff argued over here has been about. You are more interested in the practicalities. But whilst I depend upon those myself, also, I am very concerned about that "academic" side as well. Its just as I said before, my best friend is hung up on rugby, but I m not interested in it at all!

Alex,

You are what a skeptic should be...you handle your approach very, very nicely. You disagree, but not in a way that turns a person off to your approach. As a matter of fact you create curiosity.

You do real good.

Bobser....thanks for that. You obviously contradict the sad stereotype the "dour" Scotsman! Although I have met a couple!

Just to clarify, the very big chunks I pasted in were from my own texts written years ago and kept on my computer. When I cited books I had to look up some of the publishers. But the authors and other material were all from memory, written in direct response to peoples points. I had no help from either my mother or "www.cheatatassignmentsdirect.com" . What would be the point! It would be as daft as using stooges in a stage show! You have to realise I've been reading this stuff for very nearly twenty years now! If it sounds big-headed, well just think of it as my compensating factor for a deficiency at sports!


Mota thanks for that...after we got off on the wrong foot

"It's been.... fun." (I think that's what James T Kirk said just before he picked up his final paycheque).
But this whole thread has been quite interesting, although it started off only because I asked if anybody new who so & so was.
The pity of the whole thing (hypnosis V no-hypnosis)on this thread has been like every other that gets jumbled up in the mix. By that I mean that (and yes I AM going back to my social science stuff) when presenting a logical argument there has to be a burden of truth on the side that wishes to prove the case. There are two avenues within the critique (probably a third somewhere come to think of it), the first being that of 'premise', for only a true premise can possibly lead to a true conclusion. The premise also has to be agreed to be sound between both parties and I'm not quite sure if one was even put forward let alone agreed upon in this particular argument.
Then of course,talking about argument,there has to be a 'valid structured argument'. The thing is that if the argument isn't validly structured the golden rule, if I remember correctly,is that you have to stop arguing and restructure the argument. If you don't, well you end up with how we ended up. Which is a shame. I say that because when you get 3 or 4 evidently educated, talented and highly experienced people in a room together: something good should come out of it. Anyway......

Mindpunisher, I have felt it before but not said it: your definition of hypnosis is so vague as to be meaningless. According to you we are in and out of trance the whole time.

You say: The modern way of thinking of trance is that when all our senses are inside we are in trance. And when all our senses are focused outside then we are very conscious. in reality we continuously slide between each extreme most of the time...none of us are free from trance just as fish cannot be free from water even if they don't believe it exists.

I say: Rubbish. My wife was not in a trance when she gave birth. I was not in a trance any time I was "hypnotised". If you twist the common definition of a word enough you can argue anything. I could redefine "trousers" to such an extent that I could argue that every nun in the world is wearing a pair. But I'd be wrong.
In fifteen years of hypnotising people I have never seen any evidence of trance. That's just the way it is. I trained as a scientist and I base my opinions on what I observe. Nothing I have seen has needed trance as an explanation, and applying Occam's Razor I conclude that there is no trance. This conclusion has not impeded me in doing very successful hypnosis shows.
You can argue all you like, but with a definition of trance as loose as yours, you'll convince no one.

Y'see we're doing it again. I'll put it to you Tony that by applying Occam's Razor I conclude that trance definitely and irrefutably exists. But we won't go anywhere with this argument, I promise you.

Tony
......."If you twist the common definition of a word enough you can argue anything. I could redefine "trousers" to such an extent that I could argue that every nun in the world is wearing a pair."

And if they had balls they'd be "monks"!

I agree Tony, its just I thought I would let someone else say the difficult bits for us this time!

Alex
I guess the only solution would be (for me) telling us where/when your show will be so we can all come along and see for ourselves or put up some youtube clips
so we can see you in action.
I like your comments, regardless of tone, and yuo come across as someone who worked hard for what you believe in.
you obviously have nothing to hide and nothing to lose by coming in here and spending your time with us lovely people so come on show us yer clips!
let us see your nonhypnosis.
many thanks

Hmmm, not a bad idea. 'NON-Hypnosis Show'. That'd make me seem cleverer than a hypnotist in a kinda' Derren Brownish way. Then by doing exactly the same 'stuff' whether it exists or not I'd get exactly the same reults, because it simply is what it is. No matter what it is.
Then of course I'd not have to bother seeking public liability fo a hypnosis show, nor indeed a hypnosis licence. I told you, Alex is a clever lad.

Bobser, its your canny Scotsmens thought processes gone leading you astray there!

You should sort out those Di-Lithium crystals! . ;-)


Asithlord... can I trust someone who plays tennis for The Dark Side?

I havent crossed the big river of vid clips yet. But I do have an "archive" of photos.

I shall try putting one in that "attachments" box and see what happens.

Im not PC sophisticated. If you are nice to me I'll share you a link to a gallery.

I think this thread has finally wound to a close. I hope it remains available for future reference. Assuming it is finished and I no longer need to keep coming back to reply to comments, I shall bid you all a kind farewell.

Cheers all. Thanks.

Click here to view attached image.