The Four Causes of Hypnosis

Abstract

Aristotle's model of comprehension involves the description of a phenomenon and identification of its efficient causes (triggers), material cause (substrate), formal cause (models of structure), and final cause (function). This causal analysis provides a framework for understanding hypnosis and the hypnotic state. States are constellations of parameters within specified ranges; they name, but do not explain, a phenomenon. Concerns about reification of states are matters of semantics and pragmatics, not ontology. Isolation of efficient causes (e.g., procedure, context, social variables) is but one component of understanding. Experimental, technical, and conceptual advances have carried us into a century where the substrates and functions of hypnosis may be represented in synoptic theories that comprise all 4 causes of hypnosis.

Hypnosis and the Law

“…The legacy of this tradition is still very much with us; hence, terms such as "hypnotic trance," "hypnotic and waking states," and "dissociative states" remain in common use (see, for example, Bowers, 1983;Gruzelier, 2000;Hilgard, 1986Hilgard, , 1991Killeen & Nash, 2003;Woody & Bowers, 1994;Woody & Farvolden, 1998). Arguably, the more recent application of neuroscientific techniques to the investigation of hypnotic phenomena continues some elements of this tradition.…”

“…Modern supporters of the "state" school continue to argue that central to the concept of hypnosis are alterations in the participant's psychological and/or physiological state or condition (see, for example, Bowers, 1983;Gruzelier, 2000;Hilgard, 1986Hilgard, , 1991Killeen & Nash, 2003;Woody & Bowers, 1994;Woody & Farvolden, 1998). However, although supporters of the sociocognitive or cognitive behavioral view also acknowledge that alterations in subjective experiences are core phenomena in the study of hypnosis, they reject the traditional notion of hypnosis as an altered state as misleading.…”

On Finding the Balanced Path of Hypnosis Definition

“…In setting out the procedure followed to develop this definition, Green et al (2005) usefully note criticisms of The 1993 APA Division 30 Definition of Hypnosis (Kirsch, 1994), the influence of the working definition of hypnosis that was developed at the University of Tennessee's Conference on Brain Imaging and Hypnosis (Killeen & Nash, 2003), and the contentious issues that emerged in crafting the definition that they present. In a sometimes strong comment on parts of this definition, Nash (2005) argues that "vicious intellectualism" can be seen in the definition, and that the definition "is a clunky half-measure that leaves the definitional door wide open to unfortunate research designs that are grounded in a priori theoretical biases" (pp.…”

Non-obvious influences on perception-action abilities

“…Dissecting causal structure Killeen and Nash's (2003) dissection of causal structure helps one's appreciation of the phenomena in question. A causal context C will bring about an effect E if C contains all the necessary causes and at least one sufficient cause.…”