by Blink » May 13th, 2006, 9:32 am
[quote="Lissar"]I'm not arguing against that. I've been talking about the physical limitations of the body the whole time.[/quote]
I've been reading along as this thread has developed and I have a few niggling thoughts.
First, the "scientific" examination of hypnosis is a bit of a farce. I say this from the perspective of someone who is totally pro-hypno and very much pro-research. I'm a soft-science practitioner, so you lab-rats will have to bear with me. My understanding is that there is yet no solid definition of what, precisely, hypnosis is. There are myriad theories reaching from Freud's cosmology of the mind to the predominance of certain waveforms on an EEG, but there is no unity among researchers of which I'm aware for what we're looking at when we see trance. Are we looking at a brain state, a set of behaviors or a manifestation of Axis II traits? Much like astronomy, we know there is something there, but we don't know what. We quickly find ourselves defining hypnosis not by whatever it actually is, but by the observable effects it has. That's good enough for the art of medicine, but you're going to find it falls short of satisfying the science of biology.
Second, much of the research into hypnosis has consisted either of presentations of case histories, documentation of clinical observations, or studies designed along the lines of pharmaceutical research projects--a design singularly unsuited to hypnosis, for which there is no placebo. Since we are working in the realm of belief and suggestion, how do you design an effective control? Ambiguity and implication are often enough to get hypnosis-like results without ever requiring a formal induction. How do you design that out in a human-subjects investigation?
Third, in spite of the fact that we don't know exactly what we're using nor do we have any way way of metering dosage nor understand the first iota of the mechanism of action, when we do diligent research and eliminate as many of the uncontrolled variables as we can, we usually do see something there. Among the things that we have seen have been things that do not fall within the realm of biological or biopsychiatric reason. I return to my favorite: the Harvard bone regrowth study. I admit that I haven't read more than the brief accounts available via the Internet, but what was presented there was plenty for me.
I'll admit that the kind of gross physical changes that are being described here seem a little far-fetched to me, too, but I am extremely slow to rule any possiblity out, no matter how slim the chance might be. Should some post-doc student doing PET scans manage to paint a target on trance and make it a measurable thing, there is no telling what might come next. Hypnosis might not be the panacea that it's proclaimed to be by some, but it might become a much more effective adjucnt. Even minimal control over apoptotic activity would be a really, really big deal for cancer patients, even if you couldn't dissolve your own appendix by listening to a CD twice a day for a week.
From my perspective, the issue of what is or is not possible is mainly a matter of belief. From my clinical viewpoint, the next questions then are whether your beliefs are presenting you with more or fewer choices and whether your beliefs are making your life more or less enjoyable. Anyone know the biological mechanism for changing one's mind? I recognize that when start poking around with the CBT core belief stuff with folks who are entrenched in a position, that I run the risk of seeming patronizing or dismissive. I want to be sure that no such tone remains in this post.
In any case, I'm continuing to give the boy wracking multiple orgasms centered in hallucinated female organs. He describes the experience as real, and I've seen the physiological concommitants and they tend to back his story. That's all I need.
-- Blink
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily.
Life is but a dream.
Last edited by
Blink on May 16th, 2006, 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.