SeanOM wrote:

There's way more to Erickson than the Milton Model.

What makes sense to me now is to think of NLP as a philosophy and tools for learning. It's not a "how-to", as in how to hypnotize people, but a "how-to" of "how-to" all things learnable by humans.

chris_morris wrote:

I don't go along with the idea that people have an unconscious. Some things occur outside of our conscious awareness, and changes can and do occur before we're consciously aware of them having occurred, but I'm not into the idea that there's an unconscious and hypnotists chat to it.



I think we're constantly changing state and constantly changing other things too, and there are many ways to do both that aren't within the scope or Ericksonian Hypnosis.



It might be the most effective way you know.



Yup.



They stand apart because they're different things.

People in Britain used to eat berries before anyone imported bananas, and they're both fruit, and they can both be eaten, so is there a difference between a strawberry and a banana?

(I don't know the answer, but I know my strawberry and banana smoothie tastes good.)

Do you believe that we have mental processes that we are not conscious of but can be effect by stimulus?

Point taken on everything else.

Sure. By definition, if it's a stimulus it has to affect something!

Cool, thanks.

"I don't go along with the idea that people have an unconscious. Some things occur outside of our conscious awareness, and changes can and do occur before we're consciously aware of them having occurred, but I'm not into the idea that there's an unconscious and hypnotists chat to it."

It seems that most of us use the term in this sense. Consciousness and Unconscious need to be first of all denominalized, because in fact what we talk about here is as you say - functions of the brain that we are aware of at the moment or not... I think that historically it was believed that because some of the brain functions (like the signal to start salivating) are only with difficulty brough to awareness, there has to be a "separate compartment" in the brain that is responsible for these "hidden" functions.

In line with this, hypnotists chat to the "whole" client, but special phrases and language patterns are proven to be better picked up by the part of the brain that is functioning below the surface structure, and as such it seems or looks like the communication is directed straight to "unconscious," which you know is true, because your unconscious part has already believed in it...Didn'y you know it reads faster than you?

Sorry for a stupid joke, its Friday. Cheers

NLP is a nomilization. Success is a nomilization.

I think many people do get that we're talking about processes outside of conscious awareness, rather than a sector of the brain called "the unconscious". But many people also get really confused about it.

I've heard lots of people say things like "ask your unconscious", as if that's a thing, and as if it belongs to us but isn't us.

It's a useful ambiguity ("you're unconscious"), but it sets up confusion for later.

They could say "connect with another part of your whole".

But that ambiguity isn't as nice.

salvorob wrote:

Those NLP trainings did not teach me post-hypnotic suggestions, inducing amnesia, speaking privately with the unconscious mind, which I would not expect to learn at an NLP training as, to me, those processes belong to the Ericksonian Hypnosis cetegory (an NLP model / application but NOT NLP).

This varies widely from trainer to trainer. On my prac we were inducing trance by midmorning day two, and learned quite a bit about Ericksonian Hypnosis. And I've spoken to quite a few people whose Prac trainers didn't mention hypnosis at all.

Chris


Thank you for


'NLP is essentially the study of how people think'

.

chris_morris wrote:

I don't go along with the idea that people have an unconscious. Some things occur outside of our conscious awareness, and changes can and do occur before we're consciously aware of them having occurred, but I'm not into the idea that there's an unconscious and hypnotists chat to it.

Hi Chris

I have never gone along with this either. Until I started chatting to clients 'unconscious minds' and they started chatting back. Now I am not saying that this is what is really happening, but the clients seem convinced. And f**k does it get some great results!

All the very best

James

chris_morris wrote:

I think many people do get that we're talking about processes outside of conscious awareness, rather than a sector of the brain called "the unconscious". But many people also get really confused about it.

I've heard lots of people say things like "ask your unconscious", as if that's a thing, and as if it belongs to us but isn't us.

It's a useful ambiguity ("you're unconscious"), but it sets up confusion for later.

They could say "connect with another part of your whole".

But that ambiguity isn't as nice.

If there is no such thing as an unconcious mind, how do we remember thoughts we weren't conscious of? It had to be stored somewhere. And how do you know that there isn't a part of your mind that is processing information without your awareness?

jamesrolph wrote:

I have never gone along with this either. Until I started chatting to clients 'unconscious minds' and they started chatting back. Now I am not saying that this is what is really happening, but the clients seem convinced. And f**k does it get some great results!

Sure. That's the great thing about having flexibility and doing "whatever works".

You can interact with processes outside of conscious awareness using any number of creative metaphors... including "an unconscious mind".

simpcore wrote:

If there is no such thing as an unconcious mind, how do we remember thoughts we weren't conscious of? It had to be stored somewhere. And how do you know that there isn't a part of your mind that is processing information without your awareness?

Research into blindsight shows how external information can be processed unconciously... for example blindsight sufferers have no conscious awareness of seeing obstacles strewn across a room, yet have no trouble carefully navigating through the room.

The question, how do we remember thoughts we weren't conscious of is a question of acitvation and threshhold. Wilf Singer of the Hamburg Institute has provided modern neuroscience with an explanation for when and how 'thoughts and external sense information' reaches consciousness. The 40 Hertz hypothesis proposes that when activation of any neural circuit is activated about 40hz then it will break through into conscious awareness (our phenomenal experience)... however once activated it will only remain with either continued input from external sources, or continued directed attention (trance) on a concept, memory or imagining.

Now, I don't think Wolf Singer et al have tested their 40hz hypothesis with blindsight patients (very few of them), but if he was correct, the spatial navigation areas of the brain would be activated, but not up to the 40Hz power level.. however blindsight patients are working with limited brain matter, as the primary visual "what" pathway to the visual cortex is damaged, it is still interesting that neurscience has be able to identify the "UNCONSCIOUS VISION" pathway, which those blindsight patients were using without conscious awareness.

As I've mentioned before, one of the most remarkable quotes I've heard was from a blindsight patient who said, "After a while I learned to trust that other part of me, my unconscious part."

Carrying along with this train of thought then, how do the memories/thoughts get activated and come into conscious awareness.. OR how do memories/thoughts get activated but remain below conscious awareness?

Some might say intention, but what is that and where (maybe spread throughout the brain) is the brain does it live?

Some would answer, language, and I would agree it triggers activation of verbal areas, which then activated limbic system, and pre-frontal cortex either inhibits the activation 40hz or allows it (unless language processing areas in the brain are damaged)

Some would say sensory triggers, and again I would agree (neural networks are distributed throughout the brain but a fMRI snapshop of a person's brain seeing, hearing and feeling should all show up on such a scan) and so they are activated (or not by pre-frontal conrtex) about 40hz and gain en-trance to consciousness.

To avoid dualism, there is a brain and a body, and we have an experience because of what happens in both, but to talk of "minds" takes us back to souls and ghosts and Descartes dualism of mind-body, when there is simply brain (language predisposed) and body.

What I've just written about comes largely from the Consciousness subject I completed a few months ago while studying on exchange here in Holland at Maastricht University. Such a subject, after also only just going through my 1st Ericksonian Hypnosis practitioner training, was a blessing as I learned of the neurological mechanisms that underly consciousness. I highly recommend anything from Chalmers, Singel, Revonsuo & Searle (all working in the Philosophy of Mind field).

Good question!!

Rob

www.maashypnosis.com

Making a schism between hypnosis and NLP...is like trying to say what's a cake like without adding flour...