Hypnosis and the Mind-Body Problem

If I think that I want to raise my arm, and then I raise it, how did the mental thought get translated into a physical act? What is the connection between the mind and the body?

This is traditionally known as the "mind-body problem." In hypnosis, it usually takes the form of a debate as to whether hypnosis is a state, in the sense that fainting, coma, and shock are separate states of the organism, or whether it is best conceived of as a non-state, i.e., a set of "believed-in imaginings," as Sarbin once called it, or "the ability to think along with and vividly imagine the instructions and suggestions one is given," as Ted Barber said. If we first take a closer look at the mind-body problem which underlies it, I believe we will have a better idea how to approach the state vs. non-state controversy in hypnosis.

Several answers to the mind-body problem have been proposed, which usually fall into one of four categories:

We could say that it's all physical to begin with, and consciousness is just an illusion. This is the answer many behaviorists have, but it leaves many others unsatisfied. When a behaviorist asks you what you mean by consciousness, many people are inclined to scornfully reply, "I mean what you feel when you ask me that question."

We could say that it's all mental, and what we call matter is just an illusion, as did the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who believed that everything exists as an idea in the mind of God.

We could say, as did Descartes, that mental and physical get translated from a "pineal eye" located in the center of the forehead. But others will object that if you are going to talk about a connection between them, you must first establish that they are two separate entitites, i.e., you must establish something which is not true in the first place.

Or we could say, "Why make the problem?" If we don't state things in either-or categories, then we don't have to wiggle out of them. This is the solution I would like to explore in this posting.

Amoeba can only react to stimuli as they occur. But when you have amassed enough brain cells to have a "horsie-doggie brain," you can be aware enough of the world around you to anticipate events without waiting for them to happen. Erving Goffman referred to the preliminaries of a dogfight as a "conversation of gestures." Thus, in the ability to anticipate the actions of another, you have the beginnings of a rudimentary mind.

Then, when you have wired together enough neurons to form a human brain, you can anticipate much more complex events. You can operate as part of an organized sports team, and regulate your own behavior according to the rules of the game and what your fellow players are doing. This ability to generalize to this extent is what allows us to have a concept of self apart from others, and to become aware of ourselves as part of a larger society.

Ta-daa! Mind, Self, and Society, all without leaving the realm of brain function. Take away enough brain cells, and you go back to a horsie-doggie brain, and take away even more of them and you become capable of only reflex responses as were our distant ancestors in the evolution of life.

Going in the other direction, it would be theoretically possible for computers with enough microchips or nanochips to not only function with a mind, but to abstract a concept of self and society as well. If you were to put in a reward system which would prompt your supercomputer seek to repeat certain types of stimuli by actively seeking them out, as our brain's pleasure and emotional centers prompt us to do, and if you provide your computer with some type of ability to move around in search of these reinforcements, you would have the potential for all kinds of mischief. (At the very least, you could research a lot of episodes of Dr. Who!)

To return to the question of whether or not hypnosis is a state or a non-state, perhaps it may be most useful to avoid making an "either-or" distinction here as well. Hypnosis is a state of the organism, as is any constellation of thoughts -- but it is also a function of the imagination. And there is no need to separate them through the creation of any artificial linked analogies.

Sources

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.