Evolution and hypnosis

Upisoft

There are so many "maybe"s about hypnosis. Unfortunately the supporting evidence is quite low. I guess there are not so many fans of making a lot of experiments with hypnosis, as it can be potentially dangerous. The hypnosis can be induced using some drugs, so called narco hypnosis. However I doubt it can be induced by electromagnetic waves, unless the device is specially created for/tuned to the subject's brain configuration.

mishrashubham

Well that never happened with me. Anyways try writing stuff in notepad or word and then simply copy and paste it in the forum.


Well I don't have access to the entire article. If you do however, could you please post and extract from the article, the part which talks about hypnosis.


Sorry didn't get you again.

From where did body size enter the discussion?

I went to the site, however 8.01 is a collection of 35 video lectures and it is all about classical mechanics. So I didn't know where to look for. So could you just specify which video to watch if you could remember? If not it is alright even just to mention what argument he put forward.

mishrashubham

Well this entire thread should be moved to the "Skepticism and Debunking" section. The problem with hypnosis is that not much research has been done on hypnotism and even those that have do not look into the evolution of hypnosis and its role in prehistoric life.

So we will just have content ourselves with hypotheses until we find out more about this phenomenon.

christopherV

@mishrashubham

Sorry I don't have access to the article either but I am limited to publishing from (checkable peer-reviewed publications) I can however post what is considered an opinion on the matter of hypnosis and the parasympathetic nervous system.

“Sometimes fight or flight options are no longer available.* Under these circumstances a third survival option is available:* the freeze response.* The freeze response, common to all species, indeed may allow the animal to survive, but in mammals it sometimes comes at a terrible cost.* Animals who survive the freeze response experience an unconscious ‘discharge’ of all of the energy and stored memories of the threat and failed escape through stereotyped body movements as the animal ‘awakens’.* If they don’t experience this discharge, a host of adverse behavioral and health problems may follow.* Classical conditioning in this context can fool the brain and lead to a host of inappropriate and ineffectual survival behaviors.* When this happens we may say that ‘trauma’ has occurred.
When fight or flight are unsuccessful or not possible, a third instinctual and quite unconscious option will be exercised.* The animal collapses and becomes immobile.* This is the*freeze response.* If the freeze response is successful in preventing the animal from being killed, the animal will gradually emerge from immobility.
The freeze response is made possible through the functioning of the parasympathetic nervous system.* When the parasympathetic response is very strong or extreme, the animal in freeze is in a precarious state of abnormally dysregulated and fluctuating autonomic nervous system activity.
One of the expressions of the freeze response in humans is the phenomenon of dissociation.* Dissociation is reflective of a state of shock, stunning, trance, numbing of emotion and cognitive fogging.* Dissociation is physiologically the same as the freeze.
The work of Peter Levine showed that PTSD patients experienced a dramatic clearing of many of their symptoms when they were allowed to complete the motor discharge of their freeze response through unique therapeutic behavioral techniques.* In the absence of of this freeze discharge, the ‘energy’ of the intense arousal associated with the threat and attempted escape remains bound in the body and brain, leading to a host of abnormal symptoms that we attribute to PTSD.* Levine also noted that repeated freeze events without discharge seemed to be cumulative, adding to a progressive worsening of post-traumatic symptoms and to the development of progressive helplessness in the face of threat.”
-Robert Scaer*M.D.
Excerpt from Trauma Model

---Quote (Originally by christopherV)---
Galileo Galilei made a very similar argument as to why animals can only get so big.
---End Quote---
From where did body size enter the discussion?

Size not a factor in my statement only the rational of the comparative relationship. Ie

I think it is reasonable to say that hypnosis or the 'freeze response' (FR) is a function of the parasympathetic nervous system from the quoted text.

I would also say that it is reasonable to think that sexual response(SR) is a product of the parasympathetic nervous system from the provided link.

It would also be reasonable to think that sexual response and the 'freeze response' are tied to survivability as they both involve autonomic responses.

So working on the above reasonable statements, hypnosis and sexual response are tied to survivability(S).

So S is proportional to FR
and S is proportional to SR

which could be written as lim S-->0 (S) = ((FR)(SR))/ S

in plain English as survivability (S) approaches 0 the 'freeze response'(FR) and 'sexual response'(SR) are inversely proportional to survivability(S).

is this correct? I don't know, it is only a matter of a logical opinion. It is however I feel a reasonable statement.

Does that satisfy your curiosity?

Upisoft

And your suggestion how we learn more about hypnosis is to "move it to the "Skepticism and Debunking" section". Nice.

Ryan_m_b

I don't think statements about survivability can be made with regard to hypnosis without more study into the biological/neurological mechanisms. Where did you find that hypnosis is a product of the parasympathetic nervous system?

I have read the Beary 1973 paper that you posted and it has nothing to say on the subject of hypnosis or the parasympathetic nervous system. The paper investigates changes in oxygen consumption, CO2 production, respiratory quotient and respiratory rate under different relaxation techniques. The only time the paper mentions hypnosis as in the discussion when it is listing "religious and secular techniques which elicit the physiologic changes characteristic of the relaxation response". It only mentions the parasympathetic nervous system when it briefly mentions the ""trophotropic response", a relaxation response (albeit one that has scant peer-reviewed papers on the subject, all from decades past) that the authors do not link to hypnosis. In light of this I'm not sure how you got to

I have also searched for "Robert Scaer M.D." who elicits no results in peer-reviewed database searches (pubmed, ovid, web of sci), perhaps you could direct me to the journal where he publishes? What I did find for Robert Scaer is this website

http://www.traumasoma.com/home.html

Which claims there are hidden traumas in our lives and that we can transform to heal ourselves.

Luckily I have access to almost all scientific journals so if you could send me the titles and authors of checkable peer-reviewed publications you are reading I would gladly read them. @mishrashubham and others if you would like me to email you copies of any papers that are discussed that you cannot obtain yourself I shall do

christopherV

@ryan_m_b

I only quoted him as a reasonable opinion look at the top of the post it says in bold letters that it is an opinion.

I'm simply providing my rational for my view. I never said it was correct only a plausible place to begin.

remember

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

I never stated my hypothesis is valid only "reasonable".

I have very little interest in the field (hypnosis) and to be honest and I find it to be a bit of hokum, I do however believe in helping others to think for themselves.

So do you have a hypothesis?
any competing arguments would only help to find a solution faster.

Ryan_m_b

I am well aware of the scientific method lol I was not proposing my own hypothesis however I am still interested in the peer-reviewed publications that you have to provide your rational. If not no matter, I would caution against grabbing peoples opinions and posting them, especially if they have no publications in the field.

I have stated on this thread before that I don't think a proper explanation of hypnosis will come about until we have a more thorough understanding of neuroscience

christopherV

here a quick search of Google scholar would satisfy your need for publications in the field
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...N&hl=en&tab=ws
he has at least one publication in a reputable journal.

Is what i posted an opinion? of course it is. It is however a reasonable opinion by someone much more knowledgeable in the area than I.

I do however yield to what ever opinion you have on the subject as your knowledge of the issue far outweighs mine, according to your listed degree.

Do you have any clinical experience with hypnosis? I would love to hear your thoughts on why it functions and what purpose it serves.

Ryan_m_b

I'm afraid I don't have any knowledge of hypnosis but I have studied a lot of neuroscience in the past and from that I would propose (but not hypothesis) that hypnosis is a by product, the exact mechanisms will take a while to determine. I shall have a look at Scaer's works when I have the time but looking at this website I'm not expecting to be blown away by his science, there is precious little firm data on the subject

mishrashubham

Please read the next few lines. I have provided a reason to my statement. We know too little about hypnosis to give any satisfactory answer. At this stage without rigorous research all we can give are hypotheses.

mishrashubham

Thank you Ryan. That is very nice of you.

christopherV

First let me begin by saying I understand that this post is completely off topic, but since it woke me up last night I will post it. I understand if the mods want to move it or delete it. I see the arguments over the definition of words all over the internet and I would like to point out some errors in the logic that is involved in the arguments.

This is in no way directed at anyone in particular.

Firstly let's ask can you describe the color orange without using an abstraction in the definition? I have never seen it, (though I suppose you could say something like the n band of a light beam split by a prism, but the person must still experience the color and that could never be communicated). So any definition of the color orange becomes a tautology or floccinaucinihilipilification if you want to impress your friends with a big word. Ie it is meaningless. The same can be said for any word that does not describe an actual physical thing. They are simply words that represent abstract concepts and as such they have a rate of error that is impossible to calculate.

So I propose that you are not arguing over the definition of the word “extraordinary” you are arguing over the level of precision(Error) of the definition of the word “extraordinary”.

Let me make an analytical demonstration with simple high school level math, so that I can explain the concept without words.
Let's say you have a simple problem like 3^(x+4) = 2^(1-3x) and you are asked to solve for x. You simply plug through your rules of algebra using some arbitrary logarithm (in this case I used the natural log) until you have an equation like x= (ln2-ln3^4)/(ln3+ln2^3) or x= ln2 – ln81/ ln3 + ln8
now
ln2 = 0.69314714718055994530941723212145818
ln8= 2.0794415416798359282516963643745
ln3 = 1.0986122886681096913952452369225
ln81 = 4.3944491546724387655809809476901

0.69314714718055994530941723212145(calculator drops these digits) – 4.3944491546724387655809809476901
x = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0986122886681096913952452369225 + 2.0794415416798359282516963643745


-3.7013020074918788202715637155686
x= ---------------------------------------------------
3.178053830347945619646941601297

x= -1.1646442146911797171549531311272

and back to our original equation
3^(x+4) = 2^(1-3x)

3^(-1.1646442146911797171549531311272 +4) = 2^(1-3(-1.1646442146911797171549531311272))

3^2.8353557853088202828450468688728 = 2^ 4.4939326440735391514648593933816

22.532454868305301814267067681323 = 22.532455620424808615440299528464

So the equation 3^(x+4) = 2^(1-3x) has an error rate of +/-.000001 which is a tremendously small error rate and one any scientist would be happy to have. You cant have a Boolean logic in the above equation and simply call it false because the sums don't match up (in fact boolean logic works very few times in the real world, as a side: that was the reason I choose the natural log e in the example as it occurs very often in the natural world).

This would limit our ability to solve complex and abstract mathematical problems. Such as x^2+1=0, (which has no 'real' solution) and we would be limited to a world of, if you can't physically count it; it doesn't exist. (ie the dark ages), this is what the enlightenment was all about.

So back to the word “extraordinary” I propose that you are both describing the same experience or abstract thought, however the differences in the perception of that thought and establishing an error rate for that thought, can not be calculated until you have evaluated all of the experiences and mental abstractions of the other person. As such arguing over the definition of a word is silly, pointless and counter productive you should instead ask for that persons' definition of the word and use an OED definition to establish a base and common ground for you to understand the changes in the definition and reduce the error rate of the !!!thought!!! that was presented to you.

Doesn't that seem more logical than fighting over a boolean definition of something that is a mental abstraction in the first place?

mishrashubham

I am sick of how half the evolution threads turn into long silly arguments.

nitsuj

" It depends how you look at it." That's a good point.

Roysun

alright i have a question and forgive me if this doesnt have anything to do with the topic but i dont know where else to ask this question. when did the emotional part of the brain develop? because i understand that neurons formed together to create the reptilian brain first, then came emotion, then came logic and reasoning. but i want to know the time span of when all this took place. and also, how am i able to post a new thread within this site? im new to this site.

Ryan_m_b

yes you can post a new thread; go to the biology section and click on "New topic" in the top left above the list of forums, ask you question there.