1. Τι είναι ύπνωση; Η ύπνωση υπάρχει; Πώς και γιατί
η έννοια της ύπνωσης εξελίχθηκε; 1.1. Hypnosis arose out of an operator-assisted altered
state induction model.
"In the author's experience there can be developed in a person a special
state of awareness that is termed, for the sake of convenience and historical
considerations, hypnosis or trance.
"This state is characterized by the subject's ability to retain the same
capacities possessed in the waking state and to manifest these capacities in
ways possibly, though not necessarily, dissimilar to the usual actions of
conscious awareness.
"Trance permits the operator to evoke in a controlled manner the same
mental mechanisms that are operative spontaneously in everyday life."
The late master clinical Hypnotherapist, Milton Erickson
Modern theories of
hypnosis have drastically changed the way we view this subject. Because the
most common popular view of hypnosis is as an altered state of consciousness of
some kind (i.e. trance), this will be used as a departure point to explain how
hypnosis (1) has been viewed since the 18th Century when it was first
systematically studied and mass interest first arose, and (2) has been
deconstructed as a unitary concept by some modern scientific theorists of the
subject.
The most popular
traditional view of hypnosis is a sleep-like state induced by a procedure of
some kind by an operator and in which certain special behaviors seem to result;
particularly extreme responsiveness to suggestions made during the hypnotic
process, including physiological responses, and where anomalies of the
experience of volition and memory are consistently reported by subjects.
Therapeutic interest
in hypnosis results mostly from the fact that response to suggestions
apparently includes some increased capacity to access functions which are
normally considered outside of conscious control and memory. Popular interest
in hypnosis stems from the therapeutic interest, and because of the long
associations of hypnosis with spiritual and secular traditions of
self-improvement, self-insight, or self-fulfillment. There has also been
interest in hypnotic methods in various areas of medical and scientific
research.
A truly balanced and
comprehensive study of hypnotic phenomena would probably have to include its
relationship with neuroscience, cognitive science, models of subjective
experience, models of creative thinking processes, theories of psycho-social
development, theories of human language and symbol processing, and various
philosophical stances that are still of interest today (such as moral and
ethical considerations of various conceptions of the human will and
responsibility for actions, and such as the legal status of testimony revealed
with the help of hypnosis).
Based on a list
developed by Zeig in 1988, the following frameworks can be identified:
1.2. The cultural origins of the
concept of hypnosis
The creation of a
distinct concept of hypnosis owes its existence mostly to a charismatic
18th century healer named Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815).
Mesmer had a deep
interest in Paracelsan astrological principles, and the supposed direct
influence of heavenly bodies on human health, by means of what were believed by
Mesmer and others to be measurable physical forces (as opposed to the subtle
forces of later occult doctrines interpreting Mesmerism).
Mesmer first applied
magnets to patient's bodies in elaborate theatrical rituals that often resulted
in expected spasmodic muscular contractions and collapse, and often the cure of
various kinds of illness. Mesmer favored the rationalist views of his time,
taking on terms like gravitation and magnetism to originally
describe his theories of his healing work, and how the subtle fluids within the
body could be influenced by him.
Mesmerism caught on
widely, attracting followers to many spiritualist, religious, and scientific
variations of mesmerism, as well as to 'mesmerism' as a dramatic form of
entertainment for its own sake ('stage hypnosis').
It was highly
influential in a number of popular movements, some of which are still very
popular today.
The clearest
transition between Mesmer's animal magnetism and modern therapeutic
hypnosis was represented by
Braid, as many
scientists and physicians before and after him, recognized in hypnosis certain
legitimate psychological phenomena of interest, but requiring much more
systematic investigation to understand. Mesmer had come to believe that it was
not physical forces via magnets but he himself that
was producing the cures he produced. Others not long after Mesmer soon began to
suspect that the human imagination played a much larger role in the process
than did any physical forces or capacities of the mesmerist. This was
important, because mesmerism went through a number of periods of great
disrepute due to associations with occultism and various kinds of blatant
charlatanism.
A split arose
between those interested in hypnosis as a subject of scientific investigation
and as an adjunct to medical treatment, and those who considered it a tool for
personal or spiritual fulfillment, or for esoteric investigations of religious
or 'magical' nature. Faith healing, mind cure, and Christian Science were all
heavily influenced by hypnosis, and derived much of their impetus in the late
19th century from the reputation of Mesmer and later mesmerists. Various
followers of the highly influential Theosophical Society and of the Hermetic
Order of the Golden Dawn magical fraternity found great affinity for the
magnetic theories of mesmerism, which they often interpreted in a
semi-metaphorical way rather than as literal electromagnetism.
In the early
scientific study, Braid at first thought that hypnotic induction would yield a
unique condition of the nervous system that was linked somehow to certain cures
by suggestion. He later rejected this, and other physiological explanations of
hypnosis, and emphasized "mental" factors almost exclusively. The
theory of neural inhibition has never been completely rejected as applicable,
however, though often considered insufficient by itself. Ivan Pavlov later
greatly expanded on the neural inhibition theory in his concept of the
physiology of sleep (as a progressive cortical inhibition, which turns out to
be fairly accurate - in general if not in detail).
This neurological
explanation of hypnosis was strongly rejected by Charcot, who believed that the
best hypnotic subjects were 'hysterics,' and that hypnosis was therefore a
manifestation of what was then considered the mental illness of hysteria. His
belief turned out to be wrong, and his view of hysteria as a distinct mental
illness as well, and his psychopathological view was rejected by the end of the
19th century. Two legacies of the neurological pathological theories of Charcot
and the so-called "
In the early 20th
century, the foundation for most hypnotic theory was laid by the members of the
so-called "
This theory had
eventually replaced not only the early neuropathological view, but also Braid's
early psychological theory, "monoideism," the theory that
unconflicted ideas automatically lead to actions. Ideomotor action theory says
that ideas suggested by the hypnotist lead automatically to actions, which are
then experienced by the subject as unwilled. Ideomotor action is another
example of a useful but incomplete model of hypnotic responding. The
Sigmund Freud had
originally studied under Charcot and had a deep interest in hypnosis for much
of his life. In 1889, he shifted from Charcot's view to that of the
What qualified
acceptance of hypnosis in medicine that we have today is largely due to the
efforts of pioneers in the experimental study of hypnosis, starting in the
1920's and 30's. Foremost early researchers were Clark
Hull and his then student, Milton Erickson.
Erickson later came
to disagree with
Milton Erickson died
in 1980, but left a legacy of often zealous followers, a number of important
contributions to the field, and several offshoot schools of applied psychology
based on his core principles of indirect strategic therapy and suggestion, and
based on hypothetical unconscious processes and indirect forms of human
communication. Examples include Jay Haley's strategic model of therapy, the MRI
Interactional model, the Erickson-Rossi hypnotic theories, Neurolinguistic
Programming (NLP), and a number of later frameworks such as that of Lankton
(1983) and Gilligan (1987). The 'Ericksonian' models deliberately blur the
traditional distinction between hypnosis and other forms of therapy, and share
this basic idea with the 'skeptical' view of hypnosis, which we will consider
in the next section.
In addition to
Erickson and Hull, modern scientific research into hypnosis is often associated
with a period of intense experimental research in the late 1950's and early
1960's by notables such as J.P Sutcliffe, T.X. Barber, M.T.Orne, E.R. Hilgard,
R.E. Shor, and T.R. Sarbin. The work of these researchers had been particularly
influential on the current scientific view of hypnosis, especially as viewed in
medicine.
1.3. The scientific deconstruction of
hypnosis
The 'skeptical'
modern conception of hypnosis was pioneered by Theodore Sarbinin 1950, as a
social-psychological alternative to the views that (1) a single
distinctive neurological and psychological state underlies all hypnotic
phenomena (
Sarbin instead saw
hypnosis as a social encounter, in which the hypnotist and subject play out
pre-determined roles. Sarbin's role theory was influenced by R.W. White, who in
his "A Preface to a Theory of Hypnotism," in The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1941 discussed various serious
limitations of both the Ideomotor action and
dissociation theories. He pointed out that the responses of hypnotic subjects
are too complex to consider them as automatic results of suggestions, that
subjects often creatively and actively improvise a performance based on their
interpretation of suggestions. Thus for just about the first
time posing hypnotic behavior as creative and goal directed,
rather than mechanical.
In addition to the
use of social role theory to replace mechanistic theories of hypnotic response,
'skeptical' theories of hypnosis often refer to empirical research to
illustrate that hypnotic subjects do not in fact transcend the behavioral
capabilities of non-hypnotic subjects. The empirical objective approach to
hypnosis, effectively introduced to the study of hypnosis by Clark Hull in the
1930's, involves an implicit mistrust of verbal reports of subjective
experience, and the use of quantifiable response indicies.
Key questions
remaining in the modern study of hypnosis within active role theory and other
non-special-state frameworks include: (1) whether a hypnotic procedure is
necessary (first studied by T.X. Barber in the late 1960's and in the 1970's);
(2) in what specific ways active cognitive functioning might be altered in
hypnotic contexts (studied by Orne and by Shor starting in the late 1950's),
and (3) the degree to which dissociation of aspects of consciousness
actually occurs in each of the various hypnotic phenomena(Janet, Prince, later
E.R. Hilgard).
All this leads to
the crucial theoretical distinction of whether it is meaningful and useful to
postulate such a thing as unconscious goal directed activity, and the global
psychological questions of what exactly are the nature of volition, compliance,
belief, and imagination.
Graham Wagstaff of
the
"... studies of hypnosis have drawn our
attention to a number of mundane yet fascinating phenomena that do beg for
explanations, even though, as I have pointed out, a theory of hypnosis per se
doesn't need to provide such explanations.
"For example, we need to know how a placebo works; how suggestions can
affect dermatological responses; how imagination can produce the experience of
a dry mouth, an itch, or nausea; how coping strategies can affect the
experience of pain; and so on.
"However, I would consider these phenomena to be best investigated
without any reference to 'hypnosis' because placing them in a context called
'hypnosis' probably serves only to confound them with extra demand
characteristics."
At another point,
Wagstaff acknowledges the practical consideration:
"... for some patients there may actually be unique advantages to
defining a context as 'hypnosis,' for example, 'hypnotic amnesia,' if only
pretended is a potentially useful device not only for saving face but also for
providing a legitimate context for controlling the vivid remembering of
traumatic experience."
Most of the classical
notions of hypnosis have long held that hypnosis was special in some way from
other types of interpersonal communication and that an induction
(preparatory process considered by some to be necessary in the production of
hypnotic phenomena) would lead to a state in which the subject's awareness and
behavioral responding was somehow altered from the usual.
The name historically most
commonly associated with this altered state of functioning is 'trance,' a term
shared by the description of the activities of certain spiritualist mediums and
other phenomena that some psychologists might refer to as 'dissociative,'
because something about the individual's personality appears split off from the
usual response patterns to the environment.
Trance, for reasons we
shall examine here, can be a very misleading term for what is going on in
hypnosis, since it is not necessarily a sleep or stupor as some of traditional
connotations of the term trance imply.
But 'trance' is so
ubiquitous in literature that it might serve us to be familiar with its uses
and the issues underlying it, and to use it as a starting point.
There were a great many
experimental and clinical studies done to try to determine what might be unique
about hypnosis, as opposed to other kinds of situations (e.g. people simply
being motivated to comply with the hypnotist; i.e. hypnotic simulators). Outward
behavioral signs and virtually every physiological measurement reported in
hypnosis differ seemingly not at all from the usual waking state of
consciousness, as the non-state theorists contend.
Years of careful analysis
by a number of researchers were mostly fruitless in turning up any reliable
physiological correlates of hypnosis that were not (1) related to the
relaxation associated with the induction (most inductions, but not all, involve
physical relaxation); or (2) an obvious result of a suggestion rather than the
mechanism responsible for the observed suggestibility assumed to some
degree unique to hypnotic trance.
At least one theory of
hypnosis considers it equivalent to a form of relaxation. Comparison of various
relaxation methods with regard to both objective measurements and subjective
reports indicate deep relaxation accompanying some hypnosis but not all
hypnosis. Hypnotic suggestibility is apparently not limited to relaxed states.
In Morse,
Martin, Furst, & Dubin, "A physiological and subjective evaluation of
meditation, hypnosis, and relaxation," from Journal Psychosomatic
Medicine. 39(5):304-24,
1977 Sep-Oct, a representative study of relaxation was done.
Subjects were monitored for
respiratory rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, skin resistance, EEG activity,
and muscle activity. They were monitored during the alert state, meditation (TM
or simple word type), hypnosis (relaxation and task types), and relaxation. Ss
gave a verbal comparative evaluation of each state. The results showed significantly
better relaxation responses for the relaxation states (relaxation, relaxation-
hypnosis, meditation) than for the alert state. There were no significant
differences between the relaxation states except for the measure "muscle
activity" in which meditation was significantly better than the other
relaxation states. Overall, there were significant differences between
task-hypnosis and relaxation-hypnosis. No significant differences were found
between TM and simple word meditation. For the subjective measures,
relaxation-hypnosis and meditation were significantly better than relaxation,
but no significant differences were found between meditation and
relaxation-hypnosis.
There are a few more recent
attempts to find physiological correlates of hypnotic suggestibility. One of
these was EEG research by David Spiegel of Stanford, published in the Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 94:249-255, by Spiegel, Cutcomb, Ren, and Pribram,
(1985) "Hypnotic Hallucination Alters Evoked Potentials." Spiegel
seemed to find an evoked response pattern that appeared during hypnotically
suggested hallucination yet not during simulation of hypnotic hallucination. Nicholas
Spanos and others have argued that this EEG data has been misinterpreted given
the nature of the control subjects used. (Author's response to commentary by
Spiegel, of Spanos, N. (1986) "Hypnotic Behavior: A Social-Psychological
Interpretation of Amnesia, Analgesia, and 'Trance Logic'." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9:449-502).
In another similar attempt,
from 1976, but measuring certain frequencies of EEG activity rather than evoked
potentials, a Russian journal reports some tentative success at finding a
physiological correlate to hypnotic induction. See Aladzhalova, Rozhnov, &
Kamenetskii, "Human hypnosis and super-slow electrical activity of the
brain." [RUSSIAN] Zhurnal Nevropatologii I Psikhiatrii
Imeni S - S - Korsakova. 76(5):704- 9, 1976.
In the above article, the
authors studied the transformation of infraslow oscillations of brain
potentials in 15 patients with neuroses during 50 sessions of hypnosis. The
results of such studies permitted to distinguish some important traits in the
changes of infraslow oscillations of brain potentials in different stages of
hypnosis. It is concluded that a study of these changes during hypnosis may
establish some correlations between the physiological state of the brain and
the unconscious mental processes.
One particular researcher,
psychiatrist M.T. Orne of the University of Pennsylvania, finally concluded
that objective correlates were not to be found in the available physiological
measurements of the time, and that they were apparently of no value in
determining whether a hypnotized subject was 'truly hypnotized' or 'simulating
hypnosis.'
Orne, who did recognize
from both highly consistent verbal reports of hypnotized subjects and from
various clinical and empirical studies that there was indeed something
unique about hypnosis in at least some subjects, concluded that that he
would have to use verbal reports of subjective experience rather than rely on
measurements. He carried out a series of clever experiments which seemed to
establish a reliable way of distinguishing simulators from hypnotized subjects
by their verbal reports. The resulting alteration of mental function was found
to be present in nearly all deeply hypnotized subjects, and almost never found
to the same degree in people who were not hypnotized but were motivated to
simulate hypnotic phenomena.
The most obvious aspects of
this alteration of function were dubbed 'trance logic,' and appeared to
correlate well with the anecdotal reports of the clinicians like Milton
Erickson who had long considered verbal reports of hypnotized subjects to be
valuable in distinguishing what was going on in hypnosis.
Trance logic refers to a
set of characteristics of mental functioning that are specifically found in
'deep trance' phenomena of hypnosis, as opposed to 'light trance,' which has not
even reliable subjective correlates and cannot really be distinguished from
simulation experimentally. These characteristics involve particularly an
alteration in language processing. Words, in trance logic, are interpreted much
more literally, communication being conveyed by
focusing on words themselves rather than ideas. There is also an associated
decrease in critical judgment of language being processed, and an increased
tolerance for incongruity.
It is in some ways as if
the subject were like a small child with very limited experience to use in
interpreting ideas conveyed by the hypnotist. There also is a shift toward what
psychoanalysts call 'primary process' thinking, or thinking in terms of images
and symbols more than words; an increased availability of affect; and other
characteristics that simulators do not consistently reproduce.
This consistent set of
characteristics of deep trance has been one of the influences leading to
several kinds of theories of what trance actually involves:
The notion of trance logic,
rooted as it is in subjective reports, has been questioned by some of the
non-state theorists, such as Nicholas Spanos, who do not believe that trance
logic represents any sort of defining characteristic of hypnotic responding.
Examples of critiques of
this concept can be found in Nicholas Spanos, "Hypnotic behavior: A
social-psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and 'trance
logic,'" Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9(1986):449-502, and a paper
cited by Spanos in the above; Nicholas P. Spanos, H.P. de Groot, D.K. Tiller,
J.R. Weekes, and L.D. Bertrand, "'Trance logic' duality and hidden
observer responding in hypnotic, imagination control, and simulating
subjects," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 94(1985):611-623.
I think we can fairly
conclude from the research on hypnosis done so far that 'trance' may in fact
have useful meaning for describing the subjective experience of subjects in
hypnotic situations, but is not explained, or even described, by any one simple
theory yet proposed, either neurological or psychological. All of the current
theories seem to leave aspects unexplained.
Clearly, selective cerebral
inhibition and activation of some kind is involved at various stages of
a hypnotic induction, but not yet in any way we can uniquely distinguish from
other forms of waking response to changing stimuli in other situations. And
certainly hypnotic response does not rely upon the generalized inhibition found
in the action of depressant drugs or in the normal sleep state. It is a much
more highly specific effect, if indeed it truly is distinct in some way, as
subjective data appear to suggest.
The most common
neurological theories of hypnosis over the years as a form of partial sleep
have mostly been based on (1) the superficial resemblance of a classically
induced subject to a near-sleeping person, (2) on the ease with which a deeply
hypnotized subject will fall off to sleep on suggestion or if hypnosis is not
explicitly ended, and (3) because various drugs that induce sleep-like or
stuporous states can produce some of the same characteristics as hypnotic
trance.
It has been very
consistently determined that trance itself has nothing at all to do with sleep,
and is much more easily distinguished from a sleeping state physiologically
than from a waking state. Measurements attempted included a number of famous
early experimental studies in the 1930's, on such variables as EEG
measurements, cerebral circulation, heart rate, respiration, basal metabolism,
and various behavioral parameters. Representative of these experiments
comparing hypnosis and sleep was: M.J. Bass, "Differentiation of the
hypnotic trance from normal sleep," Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1931, 14:382-399.
Though the mentation in
hypnosis often resembles dreaming, it appears much closer to daydreaming
in character than to normal night time dreaming.
Clark Hull, in his 1936
classic Hypnosis and Suggestibility describes a number of experimental
setups for distinguishing the mental characteristics of sleep from those
of hypnotic trance.
One thing suggested by this
is that if sleep can be viewed as largely a generalized cortical inhibition,
and trance is not in any determinable way identified with sleep, that trance is
not a form of sleep or a stupor. This is also easily determined by
observing the range of activities possible in hypnotized subjects (compared to
waking subjects and those under the influence of depressant drugs).
So the question remains, if
trance is not sleep or stupor, then why do hypnotized subjects commonly appear
so passive?
The consensus on this
subject, from studies of 'waking hypnosis,' ('trance' in which the subject acts
normally and does not show any evidence of the classical relaxed deep trance
state), and from many years of clinical observations, is that the apparent
lethargy and catalepsy are more a result of suggestions used to deepen hypnosis
than a necessary correlate of suggestibility or trance itself in general. In a way, a side-effect of trance rather than a quality or cause of
trance. There is also seemingly a temporary but distinct immobilizing
reflex following certain kinds of stimuli used in some hypnotic inductions. This
may help provide a temporary or initial facilitation of hypnotic suggestibility
in some people, according to some theories.
Monotonous visual stimuli,
surprise, fear, physical restraint, and a number of other factors have long
been observed to produce 'trance' with fixation (followed by defocusing) of
gaze, narrowing or attenuation of externally focused attention, general
immobility, and various physiological changes which resemble the correlates of
relaxation and internally directed (visual) attention in humans.
Perhaps the most routine
observance of this is with people gazing into television sets or in the
familiar case of 'highway hypnosis.' It appears that this type of 'trance'
induction often precedes the production of hypnotic suggestion phenomena, and
can occur prior to any verbal suggestions, from proprioceptive or visual
stimuli alone. It is probably closest to the traditional view of the hypnotist
swinging a watch to put their subjects 'to sleep.'
One means of searching for
the basis for this seemingly reflexive trance response is from phylogenetic
data, using animals. A similar response occurs in monkeys and other animals
under both laboratory and natural conditions, as an apparent passive defensive
response (resembling death) under certain extreme conditions.
Various Russian researchers
investigating animal hypnosis seem to have discovered electroencephalographic
correlates of this animal 'death trance' which resembles the initial
trance/inhibition effect that sometimes precedes human hypnotic suggestibility.
They report an interhemispheric asymmetry of the brain, which a recent Russian
email journal article, (Petrova E.V., Shlyk G.G., Kuznetsova G.D., Shirvinska
M.A., Pirozhenko A.V., HYPNOSIS IN MACACA RHESUS IS CHARACTERIZED BY DIFFERENT
PHASES AND INTERHEMISPHERIC EEG ASYMMETRY), summarizes as being
"created
as the result of the activation of the right hemisphere."
They cite:
As evidence of a
correlation between right hemisphere cortical activity and human hypnosis, they
cite:
One investigation into the
relationship of primate behavior and electrical activity of the brain (EEG)
involved 45 male Macaca Rhesus monkeys seated in a primatologic chair and
observing the oscillation of a shining ball, 4 cm in diameter, placed 15 cm in
front the animal's eyes for 15-20 minutes.
In this experiment, six of
the monkeys immediately stopped motor activity. At first their eyes were fixed
on the ball, then muscle tonus weakened, eyes became unfocused, and respiration
slowed. These same symptoms appeared in the remaining animals, although they
developed slower. During the first 2-3 minutes of the stimulation, the slower
responding monkeys showed a negative reaction to the ball (a monkey abruptly
turned away or tried to push it away). Then the negativism ceased and the first
signs of inhibition appeared: yawning, scratching, and obtrusive hand motions.
Finally, what the
experimenters call the 'hypnotic state' ensued; eyes fixed on the ball, the
animal became calm, and closed its eyes. This state continued from several
seconds to several minutes and could be observed several times during an
experimental session. In 12 monkeys that displayed orienting or aggressive
response to the ball, visual signs of inhibition were not observed under these
conditions. Further physical restraint (fixation of hands and trunk) resulted
in the 'hypnotized' behavior. This is in contrast to the more usual behavior of
monkeys, what the authors of the article call the 'freedom reflex' which
results when they are taken from their home cages and placed in the
primatologic chair.
As they describe the EEG
observations:
"The
electrical activity of monkey brain cortex before hypnosis was characterized by
a robust polyrhythmia and presence of theta- and beta-rhythms. In one monkey
the alpha-rhythm was dominate. During hypnosis, slow activity (delta and theta)
with increased amplitude appeared, periodically alternating with low-amplitude
activity. Power spectrum maps showed that in the low-amplitude phase the
decrease in the power of all rhythms was paralleled in three monkeys with
robust beta-1 rhythm with a predominance in the left hemisphere. In the
high-amplitude phase, delta and theta-rhythms dominated in the right
hemisphere."
"The
analysis of the coherence and correlation functions showed the decreased
relationship between hemispheres (especially in the frontal cortical areas)
under hypnosis and its increase during relaxation (as compared to the
background)."
"The
analysis of the EEG showed that in the brain of hypnotized monkeys
interhemispheric asymmetry appears: the domination of the theta- and
delta-rhythms in the right hemisphere or beta-rhythm in the left hemisphere -
depending upon the phase of hypnosis."
Factors shown to facilitate
this "animal hypnosis" include vestibular (pose in the chair) and
somatosensory (fixation) stimuli and emotional stress (fear), novelty to the
experimental conditions, and additional proprioceptive (restriction of the
motor freedom) and visual influences. Various sources seem to indicate similar
factors which operate on the corresponding 'trance response' in humans.
In addition to the 'trance
reflex' which is seen to sometimes accompany or precede hypnotic induction, the
factor of 'trance logic' which surfaces under deep trance also adds to the
catatonic appearance, as the primitive language capacity in trance logic could
easily contribute to the appearance of stupor. But the individual is actually,
in general, wide awake and thinking, and in control of themself, but
extraordinarily focused on their internal experience, and on the voice of the
hypnotist.
"...
the general tendency of the hypnotic subject to be passive and receptive is
simply expressive of the suggestibility of the hypnotic subject and hence a
direct result of the suggestions employed to induce hypnosis and not a function
of the hypnotic state."
Milton
Erickson, circa 1944.
The most obvious reason to
make this distinction is to dispel the popular myth that a hypnotized person is
unconscious or unable to respond to emergencies, or to oppose the will of the
hypnotist if they should wish to do so. In fact, Erickson did a famous detailed
study of attempts by the hypnotist to force their will on hypnotized subjects, and
observed that not only did the subjects discriminate what suggestions they
would and would not respond to, and refused to respond to some, but then often
came up with ways to hurt or humiliate the hypnotist in retaliation for the
attempt. And that they were even more selective about what suggestions they
would not respond to under hypnosis than they were normally!
Another reason this
distinction is made is because of extraordinary skills of some hypnotists to
'induce trance' (gain a unique kind of compliance or communication) with people
who had not been prepared or relaxed by a classical induction, and who in fact
steadfastly and effectively resisted all attempts at classical induction of
trance.
A third reason is that we
observe in some hypnotic phenomena that an individual can be hypnotized, with
the help of a traditional progressive relaxation procedure for example, and
then "remain hypnotized" (equally responsive to suggestion) long
after leaving the state of physiological relaxation and classic apparent
catatonia. So, the 'trance,' though it may in fact start with a process similar
to that which commonly leads to sleep, or may start with the 'trance reflex,'
it is not dependent upon stupor, nor even necessarily relaxation.
Some of the 'unusual
capacities' often claimed of hypnosis are actually legitimate, but found to be
quite normal capacities seen in various non-hypnotic situations as well, though
the hypnotic 'deep trance' context does apparently give a unique kind of access
to those normal capacities. Seemingly a product of the unique
sort of attention control found in hypnotic responding.
"Trance
permits the operator to evoke in a controlled manner the same mental mechanisms
that are operative spontaneously in everyday life."
Milton
Erickson
T.X. Barber, a highly
respected researcher into human functioning under hypnosis has long promoted
the view that people can bring out their own inner capabilities by direct
requests to think, feel, and experience in a suggested way, without any need
for hypnotic induction. He says that the secret of hypnosis involves the
ability to fantasize in a hallucinatory way and provide the drama and
excitement. Also important, according to Barber, is the way in which
suggestions are given, language which gives firm but metaphorical suggestions.
Keith
Harary, in his March/April 1992 Psychology Today article, "The
trouble with HYPNOSIS. Whose power is it, anyway?" reviews a number of critical studies
of hypnosis and concludes a similar view:
"Packaging
them [the true claims made about hypnosis] under the label 'hypnosis' conceals
what is really going on. It doesn't even begin to suggest that they are our
very own powers and there might be ways to get at them directly and entirely on
our own."
We see that there is little
of any consistency that can be said about light trance objectively, and
possibly only 'trance logic' (if that) as a common characteristic of deep
trance. Yet the subjective experience of the individual is sometimes very
profoundly altered.
And some phenomena can be
reliably reproduced in good subjects which are medically considered very
unusual and hard to explain (though not necessarily limited to hypnosis situations).
The working medical framework that had traditionally cleanly separated
psychogenic from physiological effects has been revised in parts to allow for
some of the mechanisms related to effects found in good hypnotic subjects; such
as influences between neural and immunological systems, dermatological (skin)
responses that were previously believed not to be able to be influenced by the
brain and nervous system, and the difficult but demonstrable 'biofeedback'
ability to indirectly control very small neural units previously considered
completely autonomic.
In terms of the prevailing
medical paradigm, numerous functional interconnections within the brain and
between the nervous system and other body systems have been found that may
gradually help to explain such remarkable effects as we see in hypnosis and
under various other seemingly special psychological conditions. Among other key
discoveries, the study of neuropeptides and their distribution throughout the
body as well as the brain provides some potential answers for some of the more
perplexing questions arising from effects due to suggestion.
Richard Benson's
"relaxation response" research pioneered in this area, and a great
many studies since then have validated his ideas about psychological and
physiological functions greatly influencing each other. Two recent article that are fairly typical are in the June 1989 issue
of the mainstream medical specialty journal Gastroenterology,
"Hypnosis and the relaxation response" and "Modulation of
gastric acid secretion by hypnosis."
An excellent review of the
research into the exact physiological effects found to result from hypnotic
suggestions in particular may be found in these two of T.X. Barber's articles ...
In addition to these
general references, the following sections may help to follow-up on any
interest into various specific apparent unusual effects of suggestion.
Hypermnesia is perceived
enhanced recall of memories. See also the later section on the reliability of
hypnotic recall.
An excellent overview of
experimental and clinical studies of hypermnesia, perceptual distortions, and
hallucinations under hypnosis may be found in the hypnosis section of the Annual
Review of Psychology, especially these issues spanning 20 years of research
into hypnotic phenomena:
Another related area is the
remarkable phenomena of eidetic imagery, or 'photographic memory.' In recent
years, this formerly controversial phenomenon has been demonstrated by means of
computer generated random pixel patterns which stereoscopically encode a visual
image. There would be two images which, one seen by each eye at the same time,
produce a three dimensional visual image. It is considered virtually impossible
to detect the encoded image by looking at the separate encoded patterns at
different times. People with eidetic imagery can memorize one pattern, and then
mentally project it with one eye while looking at the other pattern with the
other eye. The result is that they can see the three dimensional image, while
apparently no amount of motivation will permit someone without eidetic imagery
to see the final image.
It is now known that many
five year old children can experience eidetic imagery, and that it is very rare
in adults. A study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 1975 (and
a follow-up three years later) demonstrated that the rate of eidetic imagery in
adults hypnotically regressed to age five was comparable to that in actual five
year olds.
This could be interpreted
as evidence of true temporal regression in hypnosis in some sense, although
that interpretation seems unlikely in the face of evidence in other areas. It
is more likely to provide unique evidence of state-specific abilities
accessible through hypnotic suggestion.
The following are the
studies quoted above:
In addition, Michael Nash
in his chapter "Hypnosis as Psychological Regression," in Lynn and
Rhue's 1991 Theories of Hypnosis discusses the evidence around different
kinds of psychological regression and also refers to an unpublished manuscript
by Crawford, Wallace, Katsuhiko, and Slater, from 1985, which is said to also
discuss positive evidence for the facilitation of eidetic imagery phenomenon
with hypnotic techniques: "Eidetic Images in Hypnosis, Rare but
There."
Amnesia (basically selective
forgetting in this case) sometimes occurs spontaneously in hypnosis, and
sometimes happens as the result of a direct or indirect suggestion to forget
something. The amnesia effect may last a variable time, possibly months or
longer, depending on the psychological significance of the amnesia and the
forgotten material and on the intensity of attempts to recall and availability
of recall cues in the environment.
A posthypnotic suggestion
in general is a response to hypnotic suggestion that extends beyond the
boundary of the actual trance period. Posthypnotic suggestions are often
performed without any knowledge that they were previously suggested (thus the
necessary link to hypnotic amnesia of this phenomena). The individual
responding to a posthypnotic suggestion and with amnesia for the source of the
suggestion will generally incorporate the response into their ongoing
activities without disruption, in a similar manner to ritualized actions that
we pay little attention to such as brushing our teeth in the morning or making
the right sequence of turns in our well established route to work each morning.
If the response involves some bizarre action, the individual will either be
confused or typically will come up with a creative rationalization for the
behavior. Very rarely will there be any awareness of the action resulting from
a previous suggestion.
It is the contention of
many experts in hypnotic work that individuals can and do resist posthypnotic
suggestions that they do not wish to perform, except that implicit trust of the
hypnotist may promote a behavior out of the ordinary. This is sometimes
(especially per Orne) considered more a factor of the relationship between the
hypnotist and subject than a matter of any capacity to use hypnosis to coerce a
person without their knowledge. The later section on hypnosis and volition will
cover this in grater detail.
See the following sources
of information on post-hypnotic research, in addition to the Hilgard article in
Vol. 16 of Annual Reviews (1965), cited above:
Various studies have also
been done to try to determine what kinds of psychological pressure will cause
hypnotic amnesia to be breached, and under what conditions.
Schuyler & Coe, "A
physiological investigation of volitional and nonvolitional experience during
posthypnotic amnesia," Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
40(6):1160-9, 1981 Jun was a good example.
Highly responsive hypnotic
subjects, who were classified as having control over remembering (voluntaries)
or not having control over remembering (involuntaries) during posthypnotic
amnesia, were compared with each other on four physiological measures (heart
rate, electrodermal response, respiration rate, muscle tension) during
posthypnotic recall. Two contextual conditions were employed: One was meant to
create pressure to breach posthypnotic amnesia (lie detector instructions); the
other, a relax condition, served as a control. The recall data confirmed
earlier findings of Howard and Coe and showed that voluntary subjects under the
lie detector condition recalled more than the other three samples that did not
differ from each other. However, using another measure of voluntariness showed
that both voluntary and involuntary subjects breached under lie detector
conditions. Electrodermal response supported the subjects' reports of control
in this case. Physiological measures were otherwise insignificant. The results
are discussed as they relate to (a) studies attempting to breach posthypnotic
amnesia, (b) the voluntary/involuntary classification of subjects, and (c)
theories of hypnosis.
Hypnosis was at one time
frequently and successfully used for surgical anesthesia. It is still sometimes
used effectively for dental work, childbirth, and chronic pain of various
types. Pain control is one of the most reliable and most studied of the
hypnotic phenomena.
In addition to Hilgard's
article in Vol 26 of Annual Reviews (1975) see:
Cerebral
responses in anticipation of painful stimulation and while coping with it were
investigated in a "fakir" and 12 male volunteers. Experiment 1 consisted of 3 periods
of 40 trials each. During period 1, subjects heart one of two acoustic warning
stimuli of 6 sec duration signaling that either an aversive noise or a neutral
tone would be presented at S1 offset. During period 2, subjects were asked to
use any technique for coping with pain that they had ever found to be
successful. During period 3, the neutral S2 was presented simultaneously with a
weak electric shock and the aversive noise was presented simultaneously with a
strong, painful shock. EEG activity within the theta band increased in
anticipation of aversive events. Theta peak was most prominent in the fakir's
EEG. A negative slow potential shift during the S1-82 interval was generally
more pronounced in anticipation of the aversive events that the neutral ones,
even though no overt motor response was required. Negativity
tended to increase across the three periods, opposite to the usually observed
diminution. In Experiment 2, all subjects self-
administered 21 strong shock-noise presentations. The fakir again showed more
theta power and more pronounced EEG negativity after stimulus delivery compared
with control subjects. Contrary to the controls, self-administration of shocks
evoked a larger skin conductance response in the fakir than warned external
application.
Some of the most
interesting hypnotic phenomena involve the apparent precision production of
subtle skin responses by suggestion. Allergic reactions, pseudo-sunburns,
blisters, and weals have been produced by suggestion. In addition, it has long
been known that certain highly troublesome skin conditions have been influenced
or healed in some people by suggestion (with or without hypnotic induction).
See the following for
further information on studies of this:
Experiments with hypnosis
during surgery have found that suggestion during and after surgery can reduce
bleeding significantly, as well as help with the management of pain.
See
This is a broad area
covering a number of factors that are difficult to separate. In addition to the
critical review by Barber in 1965 cited above in (1), see G.S. Blum, 1968. "Effects
of hypnotically controlled strength of registration vs. rehearsal," Psychonomic
Science, 10: 351-352, which discusses hypnosis as a possible way of
reducing rehearsal needed to learn something new.
In some of his
publications, researcher Charles Tart discusses the concept of state-specific
abilities, including the possibility that some might apply to hypnotic
phenomena. See his States of Consciousness, and other related works for
more on this.
The effect of hypnotic
suggestion in apparently enhancing physical performance under certain
conditions seems to relate to the unusual control over focus of attention
available in hypnosis, which permits improved concentration and increased
motivation in some athletes, and can be used to modify or lessen the influence
of inhibiting beliefs or attitudes. Similar effects are seen when athletes are
motivated in other ways, outside of hypnosis.
See T.X. Barber's 1966
paper, "The effects of 'hypnosis' and motivational suggestion on strength
and endurance: a critical review of research studies," British Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology,
It has long been supposed
(and in recent years demonstrated experimentally) that emotions and psychological
state somehow have an effect on human immune response, but even though detailed
mechanisms and the limits of this effect have not been well understood in
modern medical science. A recent article in Science News,
The report concerns the
research of Patricia Ruzyla-Smith of
This appears to correspond
well with and bolster the previous findings related to enhanced 'placebo'
(psychosomatic) effects in good hypnotic subjects, in the hypnotic induction
situation. However, it does not appear to address the persistent question of
whether highly hypnotizable subjects have a unique capacity for psychosomatic
regulation, or whether they simply exhibit this capacity common to all of us in
a uniquely accessible and convenient way by responding to hypnotic suggestion.
In this research, the
psychologists recruited 33 college students who achieved a hypnotic trance
easily and 32 students who had great difficulty doing so. Volunteers viewed a
brief video describing the immune system and then were assigned to one of three
groups: hypnosis, in which they listened to a hypnotic induction asking them to
imagine their white blood cells attacking "germ cells" in their body
and then performed this exercise through self-hypnosis twice daily for one
week; relaxation, in which they floated effortlessly in a large tank of warm
water containing Epsom salts and repeated the session one week later; or
neither method.
Students who underwent
hypnosis displayed larger jumps in two important classes of white blood cells
than participants in the other groups. The greatest immune enhancement occurred
among highly hypnotizable students in the hypnosis group.
One of the most persistent
of the many controversies surrounding hypnosis is its use in facilitating the
recall or (re)experience of events which are distinctly out of the range of
what most people think of as usual human experiences. For the present
discussion, we might divide these extraordinary experience
into three overlapping types:
The veracity of events
recalled under hypnosis is considered by most experts today to be problematic
to determine. Hypnosis facilitates the recall of details in good subjects, and
also facilitates the manufacture of details during recall that were not necessarily
present previously. This in fact is characteristic of recall in general, which
has been demonstrated to be far from a permanent and unchanging record, but
more a dynamic and adaptive process; a shape-shifting moire pattern of sorts,
conforming to inner needs and ongoing mental activity, more than a videotape
recording of the precise details of perceptual events.
There is also some evidence
that hypnosis may additionally aid in providing 'state-specific' context to aid
in the recall of information and experience of which the individual is
otherwise normally unaware.
Which of these complex and
incompletely understood processes is dominant in the recall of someone's
extraordinary memories of seemingly implausible events is extremely difficult
if not impossible to determine from the hypnotic session alone.
Neither claims of
unimpeachable veracity under hypnosis (the 'hypnosis as truth serum' idea) nor
those of hypnosis being completely unreliable in facilitating recall ('false
memory') stand up to close scrutiny as a general principle applicable to all
cases of controversial hypnotic recall. The best evidence available seems to
indicate that hypnotic methods can sometimes be valuable in a number of ways,
both to the individual's psychological health and in helping to gather factual
information, but that they should not be relied upon by themselves or given
special preference over other kinds of testimony for such things as legal
evidence, nor considered to be accessing anything like a perfectly faithful permanent
record of past perceptual events.
This section closes with an
illustrative philosophical excerpt from a recent book investigating perception,
memory, and consciousness, based on years of observation of Synesthesia
(cross-sensory perception); "The Man Who Tasted Shapes: A Bizarre Medical
Mystery Offers Revolutionary Insights into Reasoning, Emotions, and
Consciousness," Richard E. Cytowic, MD, Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam Publishing
1993, ISBN 0-87477-738-0:
"While
pointing out the overlap between emotion and memory, I want to emphasize that
memory is not simply a fixed look-up table. It too is a creative process during
which the state of the brain's electrical fields change. The sensory cortices
generate a distinct pattern for each act of recognition and recall, with no two
ever exactly the same. They are close enough to cause the illusion that we
understand and have seen the event before, although this is never quite true. Each
time we recall something it comes tainted with the circumstances of the recall.
When it is recalled again, it carries with it a new kind of baggage, and so on.
So each act of recognition and recall is a fresh creative process and not
merely a retrieval of some fixed item from storage."
"Furthermore,
persons, objects, and events are not perceived in their entirety but only by
those aspects which are, have been, or can be experienced and acted upon by an
observer..."
"...
All that we can know about anything outside ourselves is what the brain creates
from raw sensory fragments, which were actively sought by the limbic brain in
the first place as salient chunks of information..."
"...
Put in a more familiar context, artists and creative writers look at the world
in a certain way. It is the same world that everyone else sees, but seen differently.
Contemporary people often call artists weird because they do not seem to be
seeing the same things that the majority sees. It is critical to realize that
the sensory gateways that feed into the brain establish their own conditions
for the creation of images and knowledge. Artistic giants knew full well that
their visions were not shared by most people. Even when persecuted or abandoned
because of their vision artists persist. That is all the can do because their
visions are their reality, and for many of us they subsequently become our
reality when we experience their art."
(copyright
(c) Richard E. Cytowic, MD)
There are a number of links
between the sorts of situations commonly associated with hypnosis, and the
experience of what are often called 'psychic phenomena,' (herein primarily
meaning apparent extrasensory perceptions, and psychokinesis, but also such
related experiences as apparitions mediumistic phenomena, and such strange
occurrences as the apparent suspension of death).
Hypnosis has a strong
historical connection with spiritualism, as evidenced partly by the shared
traditional emphasis on 'trance,' especially 'trance' appearing as a stupor
(contrasted with the confusing notion of an 'alert trance' or 'waking trance'
in some kinds of hypnotic situation). Spiritualism, in turn, has very strong
associations with both the origins of various schools of psychology, and modern
parapsychology, and the study of 'psychic phenomena' in general. The reason for
quoting that term here is to emphasize that the term originally meant such
subtleties of mental life as what we today often think of as the 'subconscious'
or 'unconscious' mind, rather than specifically and exclusively such things as
ESP, hauntings, or poltergeists. At the time, it seems there had been less of a
feeling that there was a distinct difference in plausibility between
'unconscious processes' and those today generally considered paranormal. Because
of this, the term may tend to be ambiguous when used in a discussion where a
wide variety of experiences are being included.
Early (circa late 19th
century, early 20th century) psychology was largely a philosophical endeavor,
which included a wide range of areas of investigations that were grouped in
ways that might seem a little strange today. For example, the American Society
of Psychical Research (ASPR), today probably thought of mostly as having been a
pioneering organization in the study of the paranormal, devoted a great deal of
its early efforts (and an explicit section of its charter) to studying what we
today usually consider mundane aspects of hypnosis.
Hypnosis has thus long had
a popular traditional association with such controversial psychic phenomena as
ESP, PK, poltergeist activity, and clairvoyance, as well as various forms of
occultism and some kinds of religious healing rituals.
Of particular pertinence
here, there is also a tenuous but persistent experimental link between hypnotic
processes and laboratory psi. The link is particularly prominent in anecdotal
evidence, but this is often of questionable reliability, for reasons that will
be described here. It is in the more controlled laboratory psi data that the
more truly demonstrable anomalous results appear that give us cause for further
investigation.
First, the difficulty with
this sort of experiment, and the kinds of protocols and controls required
should be recognized. While the open-minded researcher of anomalies might not
wish to reject the useful subjective verbal reports of hypnotic subjects, they
also have to contend with the remarkable subtlety of non-paranormal
(conventional sensory) human perception and communication.
Milton Erickson, for
example, described an experiment with hearing impaired 'lip readers.' He
discovered that they actually read a much richer panorama of cues than simply
the moving lips. The lip reading subjects would sit with their backs to a
blackboard on which there were various geometric designs. The designs were then
covered with sheets of paper. In front of the lip readers sat a group of
non-hearing-impaired participants, who were instructed to look at the
blackboard and say and do nothing. Someone else removed the paper covering the
geometric symbols, one at a time. The lip readers were instructed to write down
anything that they read from the participants in front of them who were
observing the geometric figures.
The lip readers were able
to "read" the names of the geometric figures apparently from their
partner's faces, with varying degrees of accuracy. One subject, a diagnosed
paranoid psychotic, who believed they heard other people's thoughts about them,
was reported as having perfect accuracy.
Erickson applied this
insight to his hypnotic technique, by recognizing the significance of messages
he himself didn't realize he was giving. A similar analysis has frequently been
applied to anecdotal reports of cases of apparent telepathy, but where 'cold
reading', or the skill of gathering information surreptitiously through subtle
but conventional sensory clues, appears to be a likely factor.
Someone might actually
suggest that the paranoid psychotic patient in this particular experiment, and
some or all of the other hearing-impaired patients, were actually employing
some telepathic faculty to some degree. But most interpretations would probably
focus on the use of subtle clues that the participants observing the blackboard
were unaware of providing. The nature of hypnotic communication ('rapport') is
such that the participants are particularly well attuned to the nuances of each
other's movement, speech and expression. This, combined with the lip readers'
existing capacity for attending to subtle body language, contributes to the
appearance of an even more extraordinary, even paranormal, information
transfer, and makes it more difficult to sort out the precise mechanisms of
information transfer involved.
Modern psychological
reviews might also focus on the hypothesis that the paranoid psychotic subject
was likely dissociating their perception of what they were reading from their
awareness of its source (rather than the obvious appearance of receiving it
from an extrasensory source). This resembles the dissociation theory of how
trance mediumistic (trance channeling) behaviors and some religious experiences
(such as hearing the voice of God) may occur, at least in some cases. The
concept of cognitive dissociation is a central one to many modern psychological
descriptions of hypnotic and peripheral phenomena, as we will see in more
detail later. In particular, we will see that dissociation provides an
extremely useful description, but not necessarily an adequate explanation of
all of the data.
Today, most psychologists,
and virtually all of those investigators known as parapsychologists, are aware
of the complexity of human perception under even conventional circumstances. They
would generally tend not to consider a psi hypothesis to be demonstrated
in this sort of situation, given the apparently demonstrated correlation of
exceptional body language reading skills and high hit rates. This is of course
entirely different from demonstrating that a psi faculty is not operating.
Just that the experimental situation in this particular case does not provide
evidence of psi.
But there are other
experimental results, with protocols more specifically designed to rule out
subtle conventional sensory communication. These give us reason to at least
consider and test a psi hypothesis, with an eye toward ruling out subtle body
reading effects, in hypnotic situations. It appears from some results that
under certain kinds of conditions hypnosis may at least be slightly conducive
to anomalous information transfer, even when subtle cues are eliminated.
One well known difficulty
of even this result, though, is that it is not clear whether hypnosis is
facilitating some elusive 'ESP' faculty in some general way, or more
specifically improving the percipient's ability to perform on the particular
kinds of tests in use. In other words, the dramatic interpretation of hypnosis
as an altered state in which paranormal capacities are provided or enhanced may
not be the best or only explanation, even if the psi hypothesis itself were to
receive growing experimental support. There is also the crucially important
matter of just exactly what it is about the process of hypnotic
induction and its effects on the subject that changes hit rates in certain
laboratory psi tests.
In another section, we
briefly review T.X. Barber's work demonstrating that most if not all of the
unusual phenomena reported during hypnosis are also seen under other
conditions. He and his colleague Sheryl Wilson in their work on the theory of
the 'Fantasy Prone Personality' also provide us with another link between psi
and hypnosis, the observation that there are distinct similarities in
personality variables between people who are excellent hypnotic subjects, and
those who report large numbers of psychic experiences.
It should be emphasized
here that this theory does not support the once popular notion that good
hypnotic subjects are simply gullible or neurotic, or otherwise mentally ill;
as no correlation with any of these personality variables has ever been
determined. Rather, the FPP theory paints a picture of natural visionary
individuals with a rich inner life and often extraordinary psychosomatic
responses, but who are perfectly well able to distinguish their vivid fantasy
life from reality, just as most of us can distinguish a dream from a memory of actual
events, most of the time.
In other words, among the
factors that the FPP does NOT correlate with well at all is any diminished
capacity for reality testing. This should be born in mind particularly because
of the popular connotations of the term 'fantasy-prone,' and the questionable
veracity of recollections occurring under hypnotic procedures. A report from an
FPP subject is not inherently either more or less reliable than one from other
subjects, in or out of hypnosis. Their rich mental life does not necessarily
intrude on their external perceptions, except under various very unusual kinds
of conditions, such as spontaneous hallucination triggered by hypnotic
suggestion.
Additionally, there is the
complex psychological question of whether the individual interprets their
experience as 'real' or 'imagined.' When an LSD user comes down from their
trip, they don't generally continue to believe that their face was melting or
that the sky actually changed to fluorescent green during their experience, they
distinguish it as an 'altered state.' However, during the trip, the altered
perception may be quite convincing.
In hypnotic extraordinary
experiences, we find both cases where the individual believes that their
perceptions were due to an altered state, even though it seemed real at the time, and those where they believe something quite bizarre
actually happened, not the result of an unusual perceptual state. And the two
types of cases are not at all easy to distinguish by any means other than
relying on the report of the subject.
It has also been observed
that even a polygraph is of extremely limited value in distinguishing whether a
bizarre occurrence actually happened to an individual or was hallucinated or
'confabulated.' In many cases, the individual believes that a hallucinated or
hypnotically constructed event happened, when unambiguous independent
historical records indicate that it did not.
The particular conditions
under which spontaneous hallucination can occur, and under which they can be
confused with external perceptual experiences are not well known, nor is there
any known method of distinguishing a spontaneous hallucination from an external
sensory perception. Even theories of how drug action (e.g. LSD) causes
hallucinations are highly speculative, and spontaneous
hallucinations are much more slippery.
Two current theories of
spontaneous hallucination concern changes in the chemical environment of
endogenous neurotransmitters or neuromodulators which influence perception
(endorphins and serotonin being the most commonly cited); and possibly some
unique mode of function of temporal or temporolimbic brain pathways, perhaps
influenced by electromagnetic fields.
How these unusual brain
conditions relate to psychic phenomena and to other observations related to
hypnosis in general is not yet well established.
πηγή www.hypnosis.com