Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum HYPNOSIS. Is it A science? Or a pseudo-science?

In a time when the media are filled with all too many stories of so many individuals, communities and nations experiencing so much physical, mental and spiritual suffering, pain and disasters--wars, the political economy, the ecology, and the like, isn't it time for us to check out:

THE STORY OF A PHENOMENON WITH SO MUCH HOPE TO OFFER

THE STORY OF HYPNOSIS
========================
In my opinion, hypnosis (a misnomer by the way, which I will explain, later)--is a science-based technology. It is also a universal, simple, powerful and important phenomenon that it is as basic as the breath of life itself, and all that goes with being fully functioning and happy human beings.

Failure to understand this phenomenon and to put it do good use leaves it wide open to be put to evil use. Experts agree that ignorance of this force for good, or evil, is probably the root cause of much physical, mental and spiritual pain and suffering leading to failures in life itself.

Every parent, especially those with young children should be taught what it is, how to use it on and for themselves, with their children and what it can do to enrich themselves and the young lives in their care.

XXXXXXX Later, I will expand on this. XXXXXXX

The human ability to go in and out of the trance state has been part of our human nature since the dawn of consciousness.

The trance phenomenon can be found in one form or another in all cultures, all forms of worship and in all the rituals of religion. Also, great artists and inventors in science have all made, and still make, use of this phenomenon.

The modern word 'hypnosis' was not invented until 1843. The inventor was Dr. James Braid, a Scottish physician and surgeon practising in Manchester, England, who later admitted that it was actually a misnomer.

He then tried, and failed, to get people to call it "monoideism"--the ability to keep ones mind focused on one idea, as if in a trance.

Because of his interest in science, he coined the word--based on 'hypnos', the Greek for sleep, to get it away from its association with superstition and magic.

I have been a student of hypnosis since the late 1940's when I did some undergraduate studies in psychology.

Because I believe the ability to use and benefit from the trance state is rooted in who we are, spiritually (pneumatologically), I prefer to call what I do 'pneumatherapy'.

The following is good information about what it is, and is not.

http://www.danielolson.com/hypnosis/hypnosis_history.html

Perhaps--if the moderators agree that psychology is a science, and hypnosis/pneumatherapy is a technology--we need a separate thread for this information. I will be glad to help.

_________________________

(Refer: Fri Aug 14 2009 02:04 PM)

Yes, I said, Please, allow me to expand on the above.

Yes, hypnosis is a phenomenon--that is, it is a very extraordinary occurrence. But it is not just something that goes on in the mind. Nor is it just one that is supernatural and out of this world.

It is one that can be experienced even by the five physical senses--the power to hear, to see, to touch, taste and smell. Just today, on the CBC, I heard a torture victim tell that he can still feel--as if they were happening, now--the hits he took when he was being tortured.

Furthermore, it is not something that a master does to a subject. It is about how we relate to others and what, for good or ill, we feel as a result of what others suggest to us.

This power of suggestion is one that can accomplish much that can be for good, or for evil. So, it is up to us to take care of what it is we allow to get our attention.

COLOUR AND PNEUMATHERAPY--healing the spirit, the purpose of which is to help us help ourselves to WAKE UP to knowledge and not remain trapped in the dark of ignorance.

Pause for a moment and META-tate--that is, contemplate and think deeply on the following words that just came to me:

THE POWER AND BEAUTY OF COLOURS

The sky and ocean both are blue.
But note the ocean's darker hue.
And did you ever wonder why
That water's darker than the sky?
Now focus on the golden sun,
And thank It for new life begun.
Now 'neath the earth, there's magma red,
With power to raise all from the dead.
Let's not o'er look a force unseen,
The gentle, healing power of green.
I am, therefore, I think and know.
I know, therefore, I do, and grow.
==========================
Now, anyone: See if you can help me fit the colours purple and orange into the rhyme above. Perhaps what we get are the beautiful colours of fall--the muddie reds, browns, greys and so on?

In my opinion it's a pseudo-science, a very effective one. Did you know that you can go to past lives with the help of hypnosis? But that is only if you beleive in them if you do not then that will not take you anywhere. Where is the science in that? I beleive that that is your uncouncious making you relive dreams (good and bad), phantasies and thoughts that are expressed through a fictional enviroment and situation. I beleive hypnosis is very effective in changing perceptions of objects and events, because you face them in your uncouncious state but, it is not a science. A science is rationally explained there is no rationality in it.

It's actually neither

Pseudo-science claims to be scientific but specific to belief of science that the claimant believes and as such hypnosis makes no such claim.

Science itself has exactly two rules to be called science here they are for you Rev

1.) It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

2.) It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.


Hypnosis does not conform to either rule so it is not science.



So it is actually neither and there are many disciplines that are exactly the same your own one of religion amongst them.


Science does not break the world into two ... it simple calls things that claim to be scientific but break one or both of it's rules to be pseudoscience.


Lets invert this for you can you have a Christian religion without jesus? I realize that you can have a religion without jesus or even GOD but my understanding is Christian implies Jesus maybe I am wrong in that?

One may ask to a muslim if I do not have Allah as part of my beliefs is my religion considered muslim?


So science like all disciplines has central tenants most like religion probably hasn't thought long and hard about what is the central tenants of there religion.

Science has thought about it a lot and has settled on exactly two tenants which is considered to form the basis of whether something is scientific or not and claiming something is scientific but violating either tenant we define as pseudoscience.

So your answer is clear and precise hypnosis is neither science nor pseudoscience and nor is your field religion.


That's the memo for today.

I will put this is a separate post for you Rev because you may want to take this in a different direction.


You once tried to discuss with me the idea of science studying religion as a science I am not sure I ever gave you the answer to why we would love to but religion won't let us.


The reason is simple besides the two central tenants there is a fundamental that science does not allow a privilege belief you must assume the negative and prove the theory.


The problem religion faces if it wanted to become a science is it must therefore take the position there is no GOD and set about showing there is by falsifying experiments and results.


That is a position no religion is willing to do.


That is why Intelligent Design (ID) was rejected by science and in subsequent legal wrangles as being science. It was an attempt by religion to conform to the science tenants but it took a privileged view in that it assumed there was a GOD as a fact.

Intelligent Design is perfectly scientific if you remove GOD from it but then you really end up with what science is already saying there is a series of rules to the universe and they make perfect sense.

It was at that point ID really bit religion in the butt because far from attacking science they actually affirmed it and left many religions with nowhere left to go or argue. I know many religious people consider pushing ID was the biggest mistake religion ever made but I am sure you have your own more moderate view on that.

I have also had a number of religious people argue what is wrong with a privilege view that GOD exists at the core of science and the answer is easy .... who gets to decide what GOD is? It's not like religion has a consensus view of what GOD is or looks like even you Rev break it into a spiritualty and some fuzzy feeling stuff. That becomes impossible to incorporate into a hard science and so the easiest if somewhat avoiding answer is you get all the religions to agree on what god is and come back and we will look at putting it in science

I know from discussion with you that your religion and you personally realize that science is not anti-religion nor is it against the idea of a god ... the problem is to scientifically study religion you have to take a start position that there is no GOD and work from there and no religion will accept that.

To sidestep the debate a bit and to add some meat to hypnosis as an influence of authority.
No, and then yes if you go into what predated Jesus, and what Jesus called "The Christed consciousness within.

What predated Jesus was several thousand years of spiritual science. Study of spiritual insight, experience and history beyond the written texts of present day summaries in the assumptions of reality as defined by the evolving theoretical box.
If you look into spiritual philosophy, it will reveal a precedent to enlightenment as a state of being or a state of consciousness.
Jesus mirrored the studies and teachings of ancient eastern traditions that are found in Buddhism, Jainism, Taoist beliefs, Brahmanism, Hinduism and Advaita Vendanta (study of non duality).
These belief systems emerged from the teachings of priests, shamans or enlightened individuals as they were known at the time for their insight into Self Mastery and consciousness. What they all address is the basic platform of energy that is the movement within all life and matter.
Turning the senses inward rather than outward leads the witness to a different experience of life where one experiences matter not as the cause of life but rather the result of living consciousness within the known and unknown or perceptible universe. Those that were known to possess such experience and knowledge were as Jesus described "Christed".. (anointed with the staff of knowledge). Or in Buddhism to be filled with the presence of the "Buddhi".

Today's Christian religion is pretty much devoid of such knowledge since the Church and its authority took any knowledge of self discovery out of its practice to instill the idea that no man could perceive reality in the way the masters given godhood or God status could in the past. This gave the Church power over the masses as the authority of God and Gods will.
Today most of the population is weened on similar religions of science, politics, social and demographic policies. What most people accept as the authority is dictated in schools and government regulated materials of study. Few actually get into what is accepted as the norm to question or gain first hand experience.

Did you know humans are the only animals on this planet to design a flu and cold season? Even tho science knows its not the weather that activates a virus, society allows pharma to sell their product in spite of this fact under the pretense that viruses are most active during certain months of the year.
Goes to show you how influential the authoritative decrees are to the unconscious (unaware and inexperienced) mind that accepts a thought without question.
Often someone who has no experience other than the experience of what they have read or been told will fight to the death for what they believe regardless of whether it is true or not.

Some will die from the belief that something can kill you, whether that something is benign and totally harmless.

Psychologically speaking the power of the mind not only manufactures results, but can spread itself into any belief system no matter what it is.
There is no system that is unaffected by the power of consciousness, and no person that is engineered to fail or become ignorant. Standards are broken and then reset in the hypnotic complacency of the present experience while the mind projects futures based on the ignorance of future discoveries and unknown realities beyond the measure of fabricated instruments looking in directions that face away from the future discoveries and the unknown realities to establish the dictates of authoritative relationships with the known universe.

At a science level then I was right and I understand all the rest of your comment as a discussion you and Rev have been having about the underlying beliefs of religion.

So given your answer above if I claimed to be a Christian organization (for want of a better name) but had no concept of Jesus or his interpretation in my religion .... you and Rev would object and call me pseudo-Christian which is basically all science does.

I might if I was a scientist. But then since I'm not, I might ask what you meant by Christian to begin to understand where you were coming from rather than impose my own ignorance of your understanding or experience. In doing that I could expand on the single point of view, or any definition that might be designed to limit the future and any other experience.
If you were to claim your religion devoid of previous interpretations it would be a personal belief system and a personal religion with the possibility of expansion into a realm that was not previously discovered.

I think I would be interested in the mutual benefits of incorporating more than one belief or experience rather than to isolate one belief or experience into the definitive standard, only to watch it be torn down like the disproved theories or standards of the past that were previously claimed to be the authoritative limit of discussion.

I understand your position TT and strangely you would make a good scientist because we work on the basis there is no GOD not because we believe there is none but because we do not force our definition of GOD on anyone.

Put simply science has no out of bounds questions there are no assumed priors and there are no privileged views which are assumed.

So lets push you to the limit because you are the perfect religious pupil and you don't want to force you understanding of religion on anyone .... so the obvious questions

1.) Does there have to be a god?
2.) Is it okay if I make my own god up?
3.) All believers of other religions are doomed to hell so it's okay to kill them as soon as possible ... this okay with you?
4.) In my religion I believe our goal should be to kill each other with as much pain and suffering as possible is it okay to call myself a religion?


I can think of a pile more but it shows the problem of trying to take a tolerant approach .. it really is an all or nothing thing

A God defined is going to be subjective either way.
Besides you can't force anything on anyone unless you deny free will.
You shouldn't have told me Science has a God..
as in one God or any God? That question is kind of moot since the word exists within the minds of man, and that word represents an idea within the psyche of man. By default the word as a Title can mean anything and no thing. So it depends on your definition and who you ask. The world is a subjective reality determined by the individual. How you see the world and experience it is determined by association.
It would appear that the world as we know it has had many or one depending on who you talk to. Using the logic of science if you can't prove something one way or the other that subject is suspect. So without proof subject God is an open topic left to the imagination until further notice.

Imagination is key to drawing forward manifest reality. If we didn't have an imagination we wouldn't have creativity.

Fanaticism is not something anyone supports if it (as a personal freedom) threatens life and freedom of others. Yet you cannot yet prevent the free will or imagination of humanity. Science may have a plan to genetically manipulate human will and thought to act like wheat, so it functions only within the parameters of the authoritative rule. But until then, fear and prejudice are part of the human psyche and will continue to manifest as a reflection of what is in the whole. As much as a killer exists in each one of us as well as a saint, the consciousness of the whole draws forth these things because it is a part of our beliefs and out thoughts that they exist.
You could say God is a similar inner seed which manifests not only by those who believe but by those who believe others will. What that subjective God is..
Well that is to be determined isn't it?

You could call it a religion and you could call it something other. Like a human psychosis. As long as we need to use terms for the identification of reality we will find form fit and function within the language of human understanding.

Black and white? Really? No color, variations or derivatives?
Damn I'd hate to be a child with a Father that demands I walk or sit still without being able to crawl..

Sweet I love your religion sign me up

I don't have to believe in GOD at all and I am still off to promised land when I die .... wait better ask I take it you have a heaven in your religion?

I guess the second question to the above is can I be a devil worshipper if you have a hell and still be in your religion?

I think Paul already signed up partially to your religion because worshipping a goat as GOD is perfectly acceptable.

It is fine to kill people and there is no downside to that just whether you can live with it yourself .... for a couple of people I can think of trust me I could live with it

This sounds like the sort of religion many would sign up for all positive subjective decisions and no downside .... woot.


No wonder you and Rev can't see eye to eye

Sure. Send me your bank account info and all title to your family property and you're in.
Wait.. I seem to remember you saying:
Not very scientific of you.
Based on any loose interpretation of my religion you might want to ask someone if the religion you say you want to join is a devil worshiping cult. Don't you think you should ask someone for their opinion of what and who you are based on your beliefs and activities? How are you going to know without peer review?
I'm still waiting for the money. He's not in until I see some money and titles to property. Oh and I want his goat too.
Well then if someone kills you, at least we will know you approve of their beliefs so long as they don't suffer any remorse.
Imagine that.

Orac, thanks for this. It is always a pleasure having a dialogue with you. In posting here, you are keeping the thread on "PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGIONS ... " alive and well. Thanks! With your permission, let make this a dialogue between you and me, as follows: You say, I say,You say,I say,You say,You say,I say, You continue,May I ask,You say,You say,and, Me. You say, May I remind you, You say, Then you add,I have no problem saying,

Process being inclusive or exclusive? You seem to have your own ideas of what is Good, useful or beneficial to the being of this forum, to life in general, or the universe, since you like to decide who has value according to a written profile.
That being said, you imply God does not exist within dimensional reality inclusive of form, function or humanity? Does this mean now that what exists as you explore it, is God?
What you explore..., do you see yourself valuing that which you explore as God would value and explore it? If so would you say your opinion has rights to permanence, and do you give same rights to all?Ah, so with all your changing positions and emotions, you see yourself separate from God.

What is implied in the Bible as a quote from Jesus: "I and my Father are One" was or is outside of the realm of reality being that God has no emotional or human qualities,.. or that human qualities and emotions are outside of the realm of God. Fit form and function. As long as its Outside of the human form... God can be explored. God is exclusive to a quality outside of humanity based on your belief. Must be why you so easily devalue humans based on a lack of references.

Being that human form lay outside of the realm of God, how would that form be able to explore or even know God?

Perhaps what you explore, and what you assume science explores is simply imagined and doesn't exist at all.

You've changed your acronyms and your definitions over the years. That would seem to suggest that you haven't been satisfied with any of the previous thoughts and definitions given to those acronyms that have been left behind and replaced by the new ones. Perhaps when you find dissatisfaction with your current definitions and beliefs, you will change them again.

Obviously age doesn't guarantee a permanent awareness in any particular idea, as ideas become subject to change. Do you think you will settle on one particular thought regarding God before the exploration is over, or will you fade away and leave behind a legacy in the futility of trying to define yourself by your beliefs and your belief in God?

Me? I look at people--all races, classes and creeds--for how they live and what they do with their lives.

Good people is what this world needs. ARE YOU A GOOD-LIVING PERSON? If so, keep it up! OK!

The problem to me Rev K is you are doing what many religious people do trying to dodge taking a position because they consider they don't have the authority to take a position.

I asked the question to TT and he answered so try answering the blunt question ... if I am a devil-worshipper or a murder and I refuse to make any effort to amend my ways can I still be a Christian?

So the person can't be viewed as a sinner but more someone who is belligerent in there ways making no effort to reform ... can they still be Christian or considered part of your religion.

What we are looking at is can a person break central tenants of your religion willingly and belligerently.

In science we are not tolerant at all you break the central tenants and we condemn you and banish you to being non scientific ... that is why science doesn't care about GOD or religion.

I should also say you can't change the central tenants of science any more than you could change the 10 commandments of your GOD simply put no person or body has the ability to do that.

Orac this is really minor editorial comment. I think you mean 'tenets' not 'tenants'. Not a real problem but for some reason it is bothering me.

Now back to the discussion.

Bill Gill

But he does take positions, and he casts judgment upon those he observes.
As well as declaring his authority as a graduate of religious practice, a practicing hypnotist and all around educated man of 80+ years with testimony to his years in the excessive dialogue exemplifying his experience of life and association to men and women of good name and reputation whether googled, or having read a passage in a book or addressing someone on an internet forum.

Perhaps he hasn't addressed your question in the way you expect him to. Funnily enough, he has a similar problem with others.
When they don't play his way (similar to the irritation you describe) He tries to recruit other members of the form to take his side and to gang up on them. Building upon their perceived negative qualities so that he can 1. elevate his position, and 2. take the opposing thoughts and actions of those he doesn't like or comprehend, (or that won't fit into his G~O~D like box) down.
Or he pretends to ignore them by claiming to use the ignore button. Tho he really reads everything and then rants about his frustrations claiming to ignore them.

I guess he hopes they will feel bad so he can feel better.

Anyway. You could try his methods and see if they work for you. He seems to stand by them and resists changing his dysfunctional behavior. So he must like being judgmental and self righteous.


A person can imagine they are anything they want (for what its worth). People imagined the world was flat once.

Sin by definition (originally) meant wrong thinking. Today it is associated within religion as a deformity or separation from divinity created by God. This however is a religious contrivance, to denounce man as not worthy of God without the struggle and conformity to religious authority.
Like the Reverend demonstrates and believes, God is defined and so are God like properties as they apply to man and creation.
G~o~d His acronym for what is Good, orderly and desirable by definition. His definition.

Tho the Universe does not of itself reject anything (as all things within it as a part of it are what make up the universe). Religion separates the universe into black and white or good and evil. That being said, so does science, and it sees duality as qualities within nature. Thru the accepted social mores, (be they identified and labeled as religious or non-religious) any institution by democratic process may decide what is useful and not.
Sometimes science describes and prescribes formulas derived from components within the universe as good for man, only to reverse their claims in light of the evidence contrary to peer review, laboratory testing and scientific theory and principle.
Whether they as a group could repent (Change their mind) or their mindset of what science protocol is and how it is performed so as to absolve themselves of any blame from the damage that might occur in the process of the authoritative scientific declarations, (that have created human injury and suffering, i.e. recent studies and posts here on sagg regarding fish oils, thalidomide etc.) remains to be seen.
Seems they (scientists) like to cast dispersions upon other groups, but like those groups who take offense when derided, scientists take offense because of a shared attachment to personal idealisms/values and actions motivated by feelings in pride and self worth. A human like condition of ego within both science and religion.
Religion has shown where differences in opinion and expertise lay, a division of principals in the form of Christian denominations occur
1 Catholicism

1.1 Catholic Church
1.1.1 The Latin Church
1.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches
1.2 Other churches
1.2.1 Independent (self-identified as Catholic)

2 Eastern Orthodox

2.1 Eastern Orthodox Church
2.2 Other churches

3 Oriental Orthodoxy

3.1 Other Churches

4 Church of the East
5 Other early Christians
6 Protestantism

6.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants
6.2 Lutheranism
6.3 Anglicanism
6.3.1 Anglican Communion
6.3.2 Other Anglican Churches
6.4 Calvinism
6.4.1 Continental Reformed churches
6.4.2 Presbyterianism
6.4.3 Congregationalist Churches
6.5 Anabaptists
6.6 Brethren
6.7 Methodists
6.8 Pietists and Holiness Churches
6.9 Baptists
6.9.1 Spiritual Baptists
6.10 Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
6.11 Pentecostalism
6.12 Charismatics
6.12.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches
6.13 African Initiated Churches
6.14 Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians
6.15 United and uniting churches
6.16 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
6.17 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
6.18 Southcottites
6.19 Millerites and comparable groups
6.19.1 Adventist (Sunday observing)
6.19.2 Adventist (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
6.19.3 Church of God movements (Sunday observing)
6.19.4 Church of God Movements (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
6.19.5 Sabbath-Keeping Movements, Separated from Adventists
6.19.6 Sacred Name groups
6.19.7 Movements not related to the Millerites but comparable to them
6.19.7.1 Sabbath-Keeping movements, predating the Millerites
6.19.7.2 Sabbath-Keeping movements, Mormon
6.20 British-Israelism
6.21 Christian Identity
6.22 Miscellaneous/Other

7 Nontrinitarian groups

7.1 Latter Day Saints
7.2 Oneness Pentecostalism
7.3 Unitarianism and Universalism
7.4 Bible Student groups
7.5 Swedenborgianism
7.6 Christian Science
7.7 Other non-Trinitarians

8 New Thought
9 Esoteric Christianity
10 Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity
Well some scientists aren't. Like some religious folk, egoic fanaticism is part of the human conditioned, prior to claiming a position within any institution or belief system.
Like bill mentioned, you probably meant tenets. Must be the fact English is not your first language...

ten·et
[ten-it; British also tee-nit]
noun:
any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.

Religion does the same thing. They have in the past initiated holy wars against those of opposing belief, instigated martyrdom, witch hunts, and burned people at the stake.

Religion and science have a lot in common (you and the Rev. have some similar qualities when it comes to personal opinions and judgement). When it comes to human principals or beliefs within the maintenance of those institutions of religion and science ego is still ego.
People are taught to measure the values of human quality which sets the pace for entry into any institution. Both Religion and science cast their authoritative value systems upon their children with the influence that permeates humanity in all belief systems, and the institutions formed from those belief systems.

Orac, in this thread the topic is hypnosis. Here I am interested in what posters know about its history; what you think of its nature, its function and its practical value.

To answer the questions you ask me in your post, I will send you a personal message, a PM.

If you want to have a dialogue with me, and one open to the public, I would not object to you posting a thread titled: Meanwhile, check your PM, OK?