... in fact, it is a very real interfering with the free will of another human being. How many really know what they are dealing with here? And for entertainment?

Better sticking with magic that creates wonder for the audience WITHOUT causing potential harm to our fellow man...

Rutabaga, I suggest that you do some real research on what hypnosis actually is, with all due respect, as your post sounds like you are buying in to much of the urban myths about the topic.

Hypnosis is a cooperative effort between the hypnotist and the hypnotee, regardless of what it seems like from the audience. It's the degree of cooperation that tends to surprise and fool people in the audence into thinking that hypnosis is really some form of sinister mind control.

Virtually every study done has shown that hypnosis is no such thing, at all. In fact, if a subject is given a suggestion that seriously conflicts with their hard-held beliefs, they will come out of hypnosis and usually express their anger with the hypnotist for trying any such thing, or simply ignore the suggestion!

Some resources I would advise you to take a peek at would include: www,ngh.org, which is the web page of the National Guild of Hypnotists, the largets professional organization of therapuetically-oriented hypnotists in the world, http://www.hypnosis.org and to read Hypnosis For The Complete Idiot by Roberta Temes, which is an excellent and low-cost overview of the field, written by a Certified Hypnotherapist.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Thank you Mr. Darrow for your reply. You are very correct when you say I am ignorant as to the actual workings of hypnosis, and I am sure following the links provided will allow me to become better informed about science's current undertanding of hypnosis. However, my point is that the deeper effects of hypnosis trancend what science can currently understand – in other words, that science itself is ignorant as to the actual workings [and therefore consequences] of hypnosis.

Science history illustrates many instances of harmful "dabbling" with as-yet-unknown forces, the folly of which only became clear when science had progressed to a better understanding of the principles in question.

Obviously, you have a right to your opinion, and I appreciate that there are many others who agree with you. I post this simply so others who may be tempted to pursue hypnosis [either for entertainment or therapy – as hypnotist or hypnotee] may be informed that alternative views on the use of the practice exist.

While I respect your right to your opinion, and would defend to the death your right to state it, I respectfully state that an opinion held in ignorance of the facts is an opinion that should be supported BY facts before it is relied on by anyone.

Science is very clear on what hypnosis is capable of doing and what it is not capable of doing. We have over 2,000 years of work on that and over 400 years of reliable, scientific methodological research of good quality (as opposed to phenomenological reports that were what was available prior to that) that supports my stance.

Science is also ignorant of the actual workings of asprin on the body's system, but the outcomes are FULLY understood. The same applies to hypnosis. No doctor can tell you how asprin alleviates a headache - just that it does and with a rudimentary understanding of the biochemical changes in the body. But they cannot tell you how it acts to alleviate a headache, because the full mechanics of some headaches are not fully understood as yet, either.

From a biomedical standpoint, science actually understands MORE about the neurophysiology, psychological and pharmacological effects of hypnosis than we do about the same as regards asprin. Would you then, using the same logic, ban asprin?

Science also does not know how gravity is created, just that it exists and its effects. Neither does science understand the mechanics of imagination. Do I need to go on?

Mere mechanics aren't always as important as the effects and limitations of something. And hypnosis, while a potent tool for change and an interesting method of entertaining others as well, is SEVERELY limited in its scope of effects, as has been demonstrated innumerable times, under replicable conditions, worldwide.

Please forgive my bluntness, but forming an opinion about something without a good understand of the topic strikes me as something to be avoided.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Yea what he said!!!!


Wow Lee very elequant and correct and quite frankley stated in a way that won't get me banned for 30 days!

short form here, Lee is very right.

Research research research, at least I read that someplace.

do more research from BOTH ponts of view so at least if you form an opinion contrary to others, which by the way can easily be supported also, you will have the ability to defend it with some facts.

It is easy to have opinions about things we have no clue, heck at least where Lee and I am writing from it is America and we are entitled to such things, but it makes more sense to educate yourself a little more when you hold strong opinions!

Gentlemen,

Thanks for your replies. But I restate my position:the deeper effects of hypnosis trancend what science can currently understand – in other words, that science itself is ignorant as to the actual workings [and therefore consequences] of hypnosis.

Hypnotism interferes with the FREE WILL of the one hypnotised, and is something the range of which one can only overlook to a very limited degree, and the final effect of which is not yet known!

Rutabaga my friend do some more research if you would please

hypnosis in NO way interferes with the free will as you have said.

you should know that ALL HYPNOSIS IS SELF HYPNOSIS!!!

read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

you are showing a complete lack of understanding and have no real standing to even be asking the questions. please research some more for us

What he said.

All hypnosis is self hypnosis. This is not only a maxim in the field, it is demonstrable scientific FACT.

There is no interference with free will in hypnosis, in fact, there is noticeably LESS interference with free will in the hypnotic state than there can be in the so-called "normal waking state!" See the studies done by Stanley Milgrom back in the late 60's, if I recall correctly, where psychology students were coerced into believing that they were giving other students increacingly higher and more painful levels of electric shock. In the normal waking state, they would take the shocks well into the levels that the meters stated were fatal.

In the hypnotic state, ALL the volunteers, in the replicated studies at Stanford and University of Chicago (Fromm & Schorr), REFUSED to do so and came out of hypnosis, spontaneously, which is something a hypnotized subject can ALWAYS do, regardless of the level of trance. See Hilgard and Hilgard's classic The Experience of Hypnosis for details on that - it's the culmination of over 50 years of university research in hypnosis at Stanford, where they headed the program.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.H.

I agree with the previous speakers, there is no way to break the free will, but there are ways to fool the free will, depending on the given suggestions...

dan parker

Science itself still has difficulty explaining vision and hearing let alone the more complex aspects of the mind.

If you want real arguments then see here. http://www.sciammind.com

Apart from that, your position is very weak and ill informed. You would do better by asking about modern ADVERTISMENTS and how they control your actions. Much more sinistar then your assumptions.

Gentlemen,

In order to state whether or not hypnotism interferes with the free will of a human being, one would need to fully understand exactly what the free will actually is. Do you have that knowledge?

Rutabaga,

Have you had a negative experience with hynosis that leads you to your opinion? I think that might help with understanding your perspective. Is your main point that you are opposed to the use of hypnosis as entertainment or hypnosis in general?

Scott

Rutabaga writes. "... in fact, it is a very real interfering with the free will of another human being."
Then he writes...
"Gentlemen, In order to state whether or not hypnotism interferes with the free will of a human being, one would need to fully understand exactly what the free will actually is."

Shot yourself in the foot sir.

Rutabaga you just lost your entire point and all credability. glad others have actual knowlege at least to refer too close to your misguided impressions

Partizan,

My statements reflect my confidence in MY understanding of what the free will actually is. I am simply asking now if others have a similar understanding, as it is a prerequisite to fully understanding my point.

Scott, I have no personal experience of hypnotism, good or bad, but I personally am opposed to hypnotism in general for the reason stated above. Current scientific knowledge of hypnotism is limited to the bounds of science itself – to that which is empirically measurable. The free will of which I speak trancends these limits, therefore obviously science is unable to survey the interfering I am refering to.

Rutabaga if your cat had kittens in the oven and you called them "biscutus" because it is YOUR understanding still dosn't make it right now does it?

I don't care how much "confidence" you have in this understanding it is still wrong. Anyone who has a similar understanding is also wrong and therefore to try to understand your point would make them understand a WRONG point.

People always crow "I am entitled to my opinion", and indeed you are. BUT with all due respect you are NOT entitled to it being correct.

Research more and develop an "educated" opinion. That is my, and I am pretty sure Lee's although I am not certian, opinion.

You remind me of those groups who automatically condem something even before they have researched it properly. You for example have listened to Urban Legends and myths to form what you feel is a scientific opinion and in reality it is the furthest thing from the truth.

Please simply actually educate yourself more and I feel you may be suprised. How can you be "opposed" to anything without any real knowlege?

I always thought 'free will' was a campaign to get William Rice released!
Now I understand thanks too Rutabaga and his wriggling. xxx

Rutabaga, my understanding of "free will" may well be different than yours, so please, enlighten all of us as to what YOUR definition is, so that we are all on the same page. We all know that presuppositions are the bane of any discussion and I do not want to make any of those, which I may have been guilty of in my earlier posts, so please, by all means, let us know what your definition of "free will" is so that we can all discuss this as rational, adult individuals.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.H.

I am always pleased when someone can add a phrase like "the bane of any discussion"

Especially since Bane was one of my favorite named Batman villians.

THANKS Lee.

It is one of those words I can understand but not really define. I know what people mean my it but can't really use it myslef.

sorry for that little insight into my meager mind, so rutabega....

What he said!

Mr. Darrow,

Most people today regard the free will as something brought into being by the earthly brain when the intellect [which is bound to space and time] indicates a certain definite direction for thoughts.

However, that is not free will, but the will bound by the earthly intellect!

As I said previously, free will trancends the material, has no connection with the physical body or brain – its origin lies in the spirit of man.

As spiritual beings, each of us is responsible for his own actions, and must reap the reactions accordingly. But the laws of justice decree that where such responsibility exists, there must also unquestionably be a possibility to make a free decision! And only the person who follows his spirit, his conscience, in making these decisions is exercising true free will.

Any action which would hinder such a free will, such as addictions [whether to drugs, alcohol, sex, money etc.], complete choking of or disregard for the conscience, or indeed hypnotism, which reaches out beyond the physical and binds the free will of the one hypnotized, results in the hindering of the human spiritual development, the consequences of which must return to impact both hypnotist and hypnotee!

Mr. Darrow, I don't expect you or others on this forum to agree with these writings. I offer them not for debate, but for those who might otherwise become involved in matters beyond their understanding, and who might yet be spared the consequences. All others may go their own way.