Evolution of Hypnosis: What's the Natural Explanation?

[Upisoft]

Hello everybody,

I was wondering how on Earth the hypnosis evolved as an ability in humans. I see how this can be helpful to a non-omnipotent designer who is willing to violate the free will, so this argument cannot be used by most theists as evidence that omnipotent being created us. But then this looks very similar as a debug interface that will help a creator to get more reliable feedback and control on the test subjects. Anyway I have no proof this is the case and I can only point out the resemblance between hypnosis and debug interface. That's why I'm in search of natural explanation of this phenomenon, but I couldn't find any.

All help and ideas will be appreciated.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Consider it as a by-product of the evolution of the human brain.

By example, there are a lot of naturally ocurring chemicals that humans did not evolve to use, e.g. salicylic acid, apsirin. Early humans did not run around gobbling willow bark. AFAIK there are very few plants in African savannah that have it. So we cannot make inferences about the direct adaptive effect of salicylic acid as a pain killer on human evolution.

The same point of view with hypnosis is valid. Bottom line: do not try to make too much of it.

 

[Upisoft]

Well, I'm not trying to make anything of it. I'm just asking a question. I'm not ready to believe that this is actually a debugging interface unless evidence is present. I'm only pointing out the resemblance. Also I'm not going to take on faith it is a by-product unless evidence is presented. I hope you'll understand my position.

Also your example about the salicylic acid is not valid in this case. We don't know much about when our ancestors started to use it as a painkiller. It may be long before there were actually humans or even apes. So you don't know where and when this happened and what was the flora at that place/time.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Firstly can you define hypnosis? A hell of a lot of tv hypnosis is staged. Unless we can actually understand it we can't make too many conclusions as to its evolution. Hypnotic states are not just "at the sound of the click you will be a chicken".

A very short pubmed search gave me this;
- Evolutionary approaches to understanding the hypnotic experience.
Ray WJ, Tucker DM.

I've only skimmed it but you may be interested to read it.

 

[Upisoft]

Google "hypnosis skeptics" for Skeptic's Dictionary definition and lots of relevant information. I'm after the real effect, not the image made up by the media.

I'll try to find the paper, but it seems it is not freely available.

 

[Pythagorean]

Th real effect, to me, would seem more apropriately named "assisted meditation".

 

[Another God]

this looks very similar as a debug interface that will help a creator to get more reliable feedback and control on the test subjects.

The first thing you should know about Hynosis is that you can't make anyone do something they don't want. Hypnosis is really a state of relaxed receptiveness - in order to be hypnotised, people need to allow themselves to relax, and be willing to follow the commands of 'the hypnotist'.

It seems likely to me, that this sort of thing is related to the history of humans as a social species. Think of tribal dancing and mob mentality. These sorts of things are related to the human brains susceptability of 'just following everyone else' or simply following someone in a perceived role of authority. This willingness of people to follow one another may be the foundation of our ability to survive so successfully as a social species.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I see how this can be helpful to a non-omnipotent designer who is willing to violate the free will

If you want to make a hypothesis you should first use what we already know i.e. work from evolutionary neuroscience/psychology. Jumping to extraordinary claims is not a good way of answering unknowns

 

[Upisoft]

The first thing you should know about Hynosis is that you can't make anyone do something they don't want. Hypnosis is really a state of relaxed receptiveness - in order to be hypnotised, people need to allow themselves to relax, and be willing to follow the commands of 'the hypnotist'.

It depends how you look at it. Let's say there is an election for a president. You favor president A. After you have been hypnotized you will not vote for president B (following hypnotic command) while still wanting to vote for president A. However false memories can be planted in you that will make you believe that president B is much better candidate. Then you may willingly vote for president B as he was suggested as better option. The effect is the same, you vote for president B, however you did it willingly. The question is if it was free choice and I doubt it.

It seems likely to me, that this sort of thing is related to the history of humans as a social species. Think of tribal dancing and mob mentality. These sorts of things are related to the human brains susceptability of 'just following everyone else' or simply following someone in a perceived role of authority. This willingness of people to follow one another may be the foundation of our ability to survive so successfully as a social species.

And also it caused 2 world wars, so potentially it also could destroy us.

 

[Upisoft]

If you want to make a hypothesis you should first use what we already know i.e. work from evolutionary neuroscience/psychology. Jumping to extraordinary claims is not a good way of answering unknowns

There is nothing extraordinary in the claim I and probably others can imagine such thing. I'm not claiming it as fact or even as hypothesis. I'm just showing that a particular extraordinary explanation is much easier to conceive, while I'm unable to think of anything that will explain the phenomenon naturally.

I've read a study that test hypnosis on several groups of subjects. The group that was told they will be hypnotized were much more susceptible to the test suggestions than the group told they will experience relaxation(without mentioning hypnosis in any way). This suggests the hypnosis is more self-controlled than outside controlled. People that do not believe in hypnosis are most likely unable to be hypnotized much like people not willing to be hypnotized.

I think the key is to find out what is the benefit for one to hypnotize oneself.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There is nothing extraordinary in the claim I and probably others can imagine such thing. I'm not claiming it as fact or even as hypothesis.

I think you need a new definition of extraordinary, you proposed the human race was artificially created by an unevidenced creator who left hypnosis in as a debug program. I know you yourself are not claiming it as a hypothesis but I am trying to show how A) it is a hypothesis whether or not you claim it and B) the hypothesis relies on their being a multitude of unevidenced phenomenon to work i.e. creation, non-human intelligences etc which makes it less valid than one based on previous knowledge.

I'm just showing that a particular extraordinary explanation is much easier to conceive, while I'm unable to think of anything that will explain the phenomenon naturally.

Before coming up with a hypothesis one must first study as much current literature on the subject as possible. The fact that many people would accept such a hypothesis as an explanation (which we should never do without proper testing of said hypothesis) does not validate it.

Hypnosis and meditative states are not one characteristic of the brain, they are interlinked with many of the brains functions. I'm inclined to accept that hypnosis is just a by product of the brain however at the moment I accept that we do not have a thorough understanding of the neurological mechanisms of hypnosis and so an evolutionary explanation remains purely speculatory at this time. One interesting thing to remember is that human beings are not the only creatures to become hypnotised (ever drawn a line in front of a chicken?).

I think the key is to find out what is the benefit for one to hypnotize oneself.

Not everything in evolution is about conferring a benefit, that is quite a simplistic view of evolution. The proper approach to understanding the evolutionary history of hypnosis is to advance neuroscience to the point we can adequately explain hynotic phenomenon through biochemistry and neural network behaviour. From that point we could attempt to research the evolution of these traits

 

[mishrashubham]

Not everything in evolution is about conferring a benefit, that is quite a simplistic view of evolution. The proper approach to understanding the evolutionary history of hypnosis is to advance neuroscience to the point we can adequately explain hynotic phenomenon through biochemistry and neural network behaviour. From that point we could attempt to research the evolution of these traits

I totally agree. Human social behaviour is very complex and as such not very clearly understood. Thought we have areas such as evolutionary psychology, which attempt to understand psychological traits as opposed to physiological traits, as products of evolution. However much of it largely speculation and it is harder to find evidence for such hypotheses. However studying it enough to have a clear idea of the mechanism, as ryan said, will make it much easier to trace such things in the evolutionary line. You can usually pinpoint a gene for a specific protein but never do that for hypnotic susceptibility for example.

 

[mishrashubham]

And also it caused 2 world wars, so potentially it also could destroy us.

Could you elaborate? Or is it yet another conspiracy theory?

 

[Upisoft]

I think you need a new definition of extraordinary, you proposed the human race was artificially created by an unevidenced creator who left hypnosis in as a debug program.

I did no such thing. I only have shown that I can imagine such thing. There is nothing extraordinary of my capability to imagine it. Clearly you were able to imagine it too, evidence that such imagination is normal.

I know you yourself are not claiming it as a hypothesis but I am trying to show how A) it is a hypothesis whether or not you claim it and B) the hypothesis relies on their being a multitude of unevidenced phenomenon to work i.e. creation, non-human intelligences etc which makes it less valid than one based on previous knowledge.

Well, if you define sci-fi works as hypotheses, then I surely have to agree with you. Say Arthur Clark who had similar idea (non-human object tweaking our intelligence).

The whole purpose of giving the idea was to show how it is possible to easily find an explanation, probably totally sci-fi, but the real explanation is very hard to find out and verify.

Hypnosis and meditative states are not one characteristic of the brain, they are interlinked with many of the brains functions. I'm inclined to accept that hypnosis is just a by product of the brain however at the moment I accept that we do not have a thorough understanding of the neurological mechanisms of hypnosis and so an evolutionary explanation remains purely speculatory at this time. One interesting thing to remember is that human beings are not the only creatures to become hypnotised (ever drawn a line in front of a chicken?).

I'm not sure that there is any evidence that the catatonic state of the chicken is anything like hypnosis in humans. Aren't you now making a hypothesis? :)

Not everything in evolution is about conferring a benefit, that is quite a simplistic view of evolution.

Are you sure? Then how (natural) selection is going to work if there is no measurement of benefit for some things?

The proper approach to understanding the evolutionary history of hypnosis is to advance neuroscience to the point we can adequately explain hynotic phenomenon through biochemistry and neural network behaviour. From that point we could attempt to research the evolution of these traits

Yeah. OK, so no explanation for now. That's ok though, one of the expected answers.

 

[Upisoft]

Could you elaborate? Or is it yet another conspiracy theory?

Yeah, it is conspiracy theory. Hitler suggested to his fellow countrymen that they are better than everybody else and should control them and they started a war. Didin't happen that way though. Suggesting ideas and following the leader will only work for the benefit of the society, as you say.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I did no such thing. I only have shown that I can imagine such thing. There is nothing extraordinary of my capability to imagine it. Clearly you were able to imagine it too, evidence that such imagination is normal.

Again you need to look up extraordinary. The fact that one can imagine something is not a measure for what is ordinary else we would never know what extraordinary is. Something is extraordinary if it does not fit what has been observed before, species-creating entities fit this bill. I will agree that there is nothing extraordinary about imagination but my original point was referring to what a hypothesis is, not what imagination is.

The whole purpose of giving the idea was to show how it is possible to easily find an explanation, probably totally sci-fi, but the real explanation is very hard to find out and verify.

Well I will admit that I totally didn't get that from what you wrote. I did however say that myself which you seem to have ignored. An explanation is not an answer that fits the bill, an explanation is a verified hypothesis. Explanations can be hard or easy to discover, it really depends on what you are doing and what tests you must do to verify it.

I'm not sure that there is any evidence that the catatonic state of the chicken is anything like hypnosis in humans. Aren't you now making a hypothesis? :)

I would not propose that as a hypothesis at all, I was mocking the debug idea by suggesting you can do the same to a chicken.

Are you sure? Then how (natural) selection is going to work if there is no measurement of benefit for some things?

Natural selection is one mechanism by which evolution works, less fit individuals reproduce less. However fitness is contingent on the environment. A collection of traits that allow a group of organisms in a population to reproduce more by avoiding some of the attrition faced by their fellows could have negative effects in other situations. To further answer your question I'd advise you look up genetic drift and migration. These two have a massive effect on a species evolution and are not contingent on an organisms fitness.

Yeah, it is conspiracy theory. Hitler suggested to his fellow countrymen that they are better than everybody else and should control them and they started a war. Didin't happen that way though. Suggesting ideas and following the leader will only work for the benefit of the society, as you say.

It should have been clear to you (before you went off on a rude outburst) that mishrashubham interpreted what you said to mean that two world wars were started due to hypnosis. I would also suggest you read a history book because hitler had no part to play in the first world war other than a German runner in the trenches. You are also simplistically reducing politics to "leader says it = people agree", whilst I'm sure you don't really believe that I fail to see why you think that the two world wars (or any war for that matter) were started purely because people blindly followed? People follow other people for a multitude of reasons but aside from hypnotic suggestion (which we have now agreed there is no explanation for) people follow others because something persuades them. This persuasion could either be because they agree with what the leader is saying (for rational/emotional/religious reasons amongst many others) or because even though they disagree the repercussions of openly disagreeing persuade them to do it anyway. Those repercussions could be as simple as avoiding getting involved in politics because it bores you or being shot by secret police.

 

[Upisoft]

I would not propose that as a hypothesis at all, I was mocking the debug idea by suggesting you can do the same to a chicken.

I would like to see a chicken with hypnotically induced amnesia.. then I may believe you that you can do it with chicken.

Natural selection is one mechanism by which evolution works, less fit individuals reproduce less. However fitness is contingent on the environment. A collection of traits that allow a group of organisms in a population to reproduce more by avoiding some of the attrition faced by their fellows could have negative effects in other situations. To further answer your question I'd advise you look up genetic drift and migration. These two have a massive effect on a species evolution and are not contingent on an organisms fitness.

You have a point here. Anyway it is only possibility. The ability to be hypnotized still could be a product of evolutionary process. I'm reading some interesting stuff. People have been hypnotized and not being told they will be hypnotized. Their suggestibility was worse than the other group who have been told they would be hypnotized. As if they actively assisted the process when they knew about it.

Amazing.

It should have been clear to you (before you went off on a rude outburst) that mishrashubham interpreted what you said to mean that two world wars were started due to hypnosis. I would also suggest you read a history book because hitler had no part to play in the first world war other than a German runner in the trenches. You are also simplistically reducing politics to "leader says it = people agree"

It was (rude? or perhaps sarcastic) counterexample to the idea that tribal moto "follow the leader" could be beneficial over long enough time, so it becomes factor in natural selection. Yes I am oversimplifying it, but guess what, people oversimplify most of the time.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm reading some interesting stuff. People have been hypnotized and not being told they will be hypnotized. Their suggestibility was worse than the other group who have been told they would be hypnotized. As if they actively assisted the process when they knew about it.

An interesting phenomenon which also brings the placebo affect into consideration, have any of the studies included a group that is told they will be hypnotised who then undergo a sham ritual? I would appreciate a link to what you a reading if possible :)

"follow the leader" could be beneficial over long enough time, so it becomes factor in natural selection. Yes I am oversimplifying it, but guess what, people oversimplify most of the time.

People do indeed oversimplify things often to detriment. As this forum is generally for exploring and explaining issues to the best of capability I find oversimplification unsatisfying. As for the development of social behaviour in animals (specifically dominant/hierarchical behaviour) there is an interesting and as yet poorly understood interplay between genetics, phenomics and memetics, how all three tie to a species evolution is even more fascinating.

 

[Studiot]

Something is extraordinary if it does not fit what has been observed before,

Sorry, can't agree with this definition.

Disproof by counterexamples.

1)
Bacteria certainly existed in the time of Newton and were certainly very ordinary, just as they are today.
It is equally certain that neither Newton, nor anyone else at that time had ever observed them.


2)
A man lives in a house with 4 walls with a window in each wall. On three sides the house is surrounded by fields of tulips.The fourth is built vertically up above a precipice.
The man only ever looks out of this fourth window, so has never seen a tulip.
Tulips are the ordinary view out of a random window in that house, in the ratio 3:1


Just because you have not seen 'it' doesn't mean 'it' is not all around you.
In my first counterexample the man did not observe the ordinary because he lacked the means to do so.
In the second counterexample he did not observe the ordinary because he chose not to.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Would you not say that ordinary is defined by what one can know? For us observing from a standpoint of knowing the whole scenario then yes it all seems ordinary. For those within the scenario the discovery of things outside of previous experience would be extraordinary.

I'll propose a 3rd scenario
The universe as we see it is an illusion that will be created by the massless colour of upwards when it did furiously nine

In that scenario the universe we experience is a small part of something incomprehensible however we can only judge things from previous experience.

If we were to accept your definition then what would you call extraordinary?

 

[Upisoft]

An interesting phenomenon which also brings the placebo affect into consideration, have any of the studies included a group that is told they will be hypnotised who then undergo a sham ritual? I would appreciate a link to what you a reading if possible :)

http://huuk.nfshost.com/assets/files/Gandhi2005.pdf"

 

[mishrashubham]

This one provides an interesting possibility though it still not a verified research paper.

...hypnosis, which is one of the most important components of biological evolution that provides defensive orientation in existence of live beings. Probably its formation began on the level of amphibians Hypnosis was born from the shock reaction of animals which got into the paws of beast. That's why the process of hypnosis deals with high and strong psycho-physiological mobilization of the whole organis in order to correspond to desires of a beast, and either to get a chance no to be eaten due to adequate behavior, or to reach spontaneous amnesia and t relief final experience, if the beast decides to eat the caught animal The animal can also pretend to be unmovable like in case of catalepsy.

http://www.raikow.narod.ru/site/second.htm

This is more trustworthy though I do not have complete access.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JB4-4NWWFYS-2&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1912&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1700024840&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=91b7eacf0ec1620121431df1e4c3321b&searchtype=a

 

[Studiot]

I'll propose a 3rd scenario
The universe as we see it is an illusion that will be created by the massless colour of upwards when it did furiously nine

I don't like suggesting another poster's work is nonsense but do you really expect me to respond to this?

If we were to accept your definition then what would you call extraordinary?

I don't recall providing a definition, just a self consistency analysis of yours. However since you ask try this extension of my example 2.

The man looks out of the one window every day and records the strength of the sunlight.
He thus establishes a range of values within which he comes to expect to find his daily measurement.
One day he observes that the strength is many times the largest value in his range.

I would call that extraordinary and is also I think the actual sense of the word you were referring to.
However the sunlight measurement is only one small part of the man's environment, which contains many ordinary and extraordinary things. He still hasn't seen the tulips.

The difference between the sunlight measurement and the tulips is simple. The man could notice the tulips any time he chose to. They are always there.
The extra strong sunlight could not have been noticed before because it was not there previously ( and may not be there again), even if the man had been searching for it.

 

[christopherV]

I think you need a new definition of extraordinary, you proposed the human race was artificially created by an unevidenced creator who left hypnosis in as a debug program.

LOL that just got posted on my fridge next to "So you really believe in a giant man in the sky that makes things happen?"

sorry off topic. just loved the quote.

Hypnosis is a byproduct of the Parasympathetic nervous system, engaging the system has been shown to promote sexual arousal in women and the genetic encoding would be passed on in this way.

 

[mishrashubham]

Hypnosis is a byproduct of the Parasympathetic nervous system, engaging the system has been shown to promote sexual arousal in women and the genetic encoding would be passed on in this way.

Sorry didn't get you. Did you mean that it serves as a means of male persuasion for mating i.e. it is the result of sexual selection? If yes could you provide any links so that we might have some more information.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't like suggesting another poster's work is nonsense but do you really expect me to respond to this?

That was the point, I was suggesting that something that made no sense but was apparently the norm would be classed as extraordinary when we found it.

With the tulip analogy if he has never seen the tulips then when he does they would be extraordinary correct? Same as the strong sunlight. The ordinary is what we observe happening (on average) most of the time around us. The extraordinary is the rare or novel thing we discover

 

[Upisoft]

That was the point, I was suggesting that something that made no sense but was apparently the norm would be classed as extraordinary when we found it.

With the tulip analogy if he has never seen the tulips then when he does they would be extraordinary correct? Same as the strong sunlight. The ordinary is what we observe happening (on average) most of the time around us. The extraordinary is the rare or novel thing we discover

Then what I have suggested cannot be considered extraordinary as many sci-fi authors have already suggested similar things. All credits to the series for the "uplift" and Clark's "2001". And probably others who I don't remember right now.

 

[Studiot]

was suggesting that something that made no sense but was apparently the norm would be classed as extraordinary when we found it.

remarkable maybe, extraordinary - no.
By definition the norm is ordinary, however remarkable.

Same as the strong sunlight

I have already explained the difference. So it is not the same.
If there are differences, by definition, they cannot be the same.

The ordinary is what we observe happening (on average) most of the time around us. The extraordinary is the rare or novel thing we discover

You keep repeating this fallacious definition.

One of the examples I gave was straight out of the Oxford English Dictionary.

The property of ordinaryness or extraordinaryness is intrinsic to the event or item of interest.
It does not depend upon discovery or lack of discovery by any particular individual or individuals.

So something can be ordinary (=the norm) and remain undiscovered.

The man, upon seeing the tulips for the first time might exclaim "How extraordinary". He would be wrong.
However, once he had investigated properly he would soon see how ordinary the tulips really are.

I have laboured the points a bit, because you have more than once in this thread appeared as a self proclaimed expert (wrongly) in the definition of the word extraordinary, to the detriment of other posters.

IHMO the OED carries more authority.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok. look. I agree that if you could observe everything in a given scenario then yes you could say what was ordinary (i.e. the norm) and what was extraordinary. The point that I perhaps failed to make or that you failed to understand is that until we discover everything in a given scenario we can only say if something is ordinary or not based on our previous observations.

The man, upon seeing the tulips for the first time might exclaim "How extraordinary". He would be wrong. However, once he had investigated properly he would soon see how ordinary the tulips really are.

This was entirely my point. The only thing I would add is that until he discovers the tulips the man is right, the same way as if we have an incomplete scientific field which makes a claim that is right based on the evidence at the time but revealed to be wrong when more evidence is available.

 

[christopherV]

Sorry didn't get you. Did you mean that it serves as a means of male persuasion for mating i.e. it is the result of sexual selection? If yes could you provide any links so that we might have some more information.

you know what I have written this response twice now and this board keeps logging me out and losing my response GRRRRRRRRRRRR. so you get the short version cause I'm not writing it all again a third time.

so sorry for the first one being short and hard to interpret... if this one is too. I apologize. I find it hard to slow my brain down enough to have meaningful social interactions with people. ie I'm a spaz.

It was comparative logic.

Hypnosis is part of the parasympathetic nervous system.
look here
Hypometabolic Changes of the Relaxation Response http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/36/2/115.abstract

Sexual arousal is part of the parasympathetic nervous system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasympathetic_nervous_system

Since hypnosis is not a survival or reproduction requirement it must exist because it's systemically tied to the parasympathetic nervous system.

Galileo Galilei made a very similar argument as to why animals can only get so big.

check out Prof. Walter Lewin @ ocw.mit.edu he should have a scaling argument lecture in his 8.01 class

Sorry this was so short I just didn't want to write the whole thing over.

 

[Studiot]

The only thing I would add is that until he discovers the tulips the man is right,

This statement makes no sense. Right about what exactly?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This statement makes no sense. Right about what exactly?

Right to the best of his knowledge, which is all we can ever be. He may not be absolutely correct but then it is near impossible for anyone to suggest such a thing anyway.

 

[Upisoft]

I suggest moving the "what is extraordinary" question to the Philosophy section.

 

[rorobee]

Hello everybody,

I was wondering how on Earth the hypnosis evolved as an ability in humans.

Maybe hypnosis has not evolved in us . Maybe it is a result of our human condition, our vulnerability ,like our skin is an organ ,and is suseptable to outside Interferences , ie by absorbing into the body whatever it comes in contact with.

I was wondering some time ago if hypnosis could be projected on us , from a short distance, maybe from a set of electromagnetic waves directed twards us, directed at our spinal chord . Thus putting us in a hypnotic state . Another one of our vulnerabilities which we should be aware of.

 

[Upisoft]

Maybe hypnosis has not evolved in us . Maybe it is a result of our human condition, our vulnerability ,like our skin is an organ ,and is suseptable to outside Interferences , ie by absorbing into the body whatever it comes in contact with.

I was wondering some time ago if hypnosis could be projected on us , from a short distance, maybe from a set of electromagnetic waves directed twards us, directed at our spinal chord . Thus putting us in a hypnotic state . Another one of our vulnerabilities which we should be aware of.

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]

you know what I have written this response twice now and this board keeps logging me out and losing my response GRRRRRRRRRRRR. so you get the short version cause I'm not writing it all again a third time.

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

Hypnosis is part of the parasympathetic nervous system.
look here
Hypometabolic Changes of the Relaxation Response http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/36/2/115.abstract

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.

Since hypnosis is not a survival or reproduction requirement it must exist because it's systemically tied to the parasympathetic nervous system.

Sorry didn't get you again.

Galileo Galilei made a very similar argument as to why animals can only get so big.

From where did body size enter the discussion?

check out Prof. Walter Lewin @ ocw.mit.edu he should have a scaling argument lecture in his 8.01 class

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]

I suggest moving the "what is extraordinary" question to the Philosophy section.

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]

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.

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

Hypnosis is part of the parasympathetic nervous system. look here Hypometabolic Changes of the Relaxation Response http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org...2/115.abstract

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]

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

here a quick search of Google scholar would satisfy your need for publications in the field
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Robert+C.+Scaer&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=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]

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

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]

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

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 can't 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. Let's say there is an election for a president. You favor president A. After you have been hypnotized you will not vote for president B (following hypnotic command) while still wanting to vote for president A. However false memories can be planted in you that will make you believe that president B is much better candidate. Then you may willingly vote for president B as he was suggested as better option. The effect is the same, you vote for president B, however you did it willingly. The question is if it was free choice and I doubt it.

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

 

[Roysun]

alright i have a question and forgive me if this doesn't have anything to do with the topic but i don't 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? I am new to this site.