Islamic Terror, brainwashing, new thoughts.

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: A great advantage of cliches is that they are easily expressed and widely understood, the fact of being a cliche has no bearing on a statements truth value. As has been pointed out, you are continually arguing with strawmen. You are also using your own argument, in the form of assumptions and conclusions derived from those assumptions, in defense of that very same argument. This amounts to false reasoning.

The situation mooted by TheFaithfulStone is one of general repression, it's not specific to islamic cultures or systems of government and it is not about hypnosis.

On the question of hypnosis, I will repeat, your ideas are naive and confused. You haven't demonstrated any effect that qualifies as hypnotic, and citing a thread conducted by yourself and KickAssClown doesn't pass muster as an authoritive reference.

In short, you have not demonstrated hypnotic effects and you have not demonstrated anything specific to the nature or practice of islam.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I want you to not be disappointed since, although this is the middle of the post, it is actually the very last part I've written and it is now late. So I'd like to answer that tomorrow. Sweet dreams and good night.

 

I look forward to reading your answer.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

You haven't demonstrated any effect that qualifies as hypnotic

 

Have you read the literature I referred you to? Until you have there is no way you can possibly understand hypnotic suggestions and therfore my arguments. Please read an NLP book by a respected author.

 

What circumstances are necessary for you to become a terrorist? A criminal? A mass murderer?

 

That's a good question. The question is to some degree a philosophical question in that there is no clear exact foolproof answer. However, as a lawyer, I can attempt to give some kind of clear cut definition but I can't guarantee that I might miss some small but significant detail. So if you think anything needs to be added or removed by all means point it out.

 

A terrorist is not a criminal. A criminal is somebody who acts against both the laws of the courtry and a reasonable set of ethics. Their aim is to commit a crime for some kind of PERSONAL gain be it financial, power or personal satisfaction.

 

A soldier is somebody who commits acts that might be considered a crime but for the right of self defence. They usually have not made a political decision but they always fight for some bigger political cause rather than for any particular personal gain [other than some kind of payment for their services].

 

A terrorist is a willing member of a criminal army for the purposes of furthering the political goals of that army. They seek the political cause just like a regular army but they show no regard for the laws of war. In particular, they knowningly and deliberately commit acts that cannot be justified by the right of self defence. And unlike a normal army, the terrorist is motivated not just by some kind of payment or allegance to the state, but primarily by the political goals in which that criminal army was founded.

 

This now leaves open the question of what can be justified by the right of self defence, and if you want me to tackle that one too, just ask.

 

One needs both the political motivation and a willingness to commit criminal acts to be a terrorist. Nazis, for example often lacked the political motivation and many were motivated because they were paid or forced to fight. So even the Nazi army are not terrorists as they lack the correct motivation. Similarly, the French resistance to the Nazis are not terrorists since they did not knowningly and deliberately commit acts that could not be justified by the right of self defence. Members of the IRA, ETA, Al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and perhaps, though it seems to me to be arguable either way, the Tamil Tigers, are all by this definition terrorists. While members of the Nazi army, French resistance groups, Allied army, US army in Iraq, Napolian's army and the Israeli army are all simply soldiers.

 

And psycopathic serial killers who kill for personal satisfaction of some kind are just criminals.

 

So those are the conditions / circumstances necessary for somebody to be a terrorist / criminal / soldier described as best as i possibly could.

 

However, every type of terrorist and criminal will have their own distinguishing factors. Infact, there are thousands of statutes that differentiate one type of criminal from another and each type of criminal / terrorist poses a unique and different severity of threat.

 

And, although you did not ask for this, it is my belief that Islamic terror lies at possition number one of terrorist threats.

 

As has been pointed out, you are continually arguing with strawmen

 

Right, I've looked up the term 'strawman' on wikopedia. I agree that you are entitled to use it as a criticism as many times as you want because it refers to a specific logical falicy of asserting that one side has made a specific argument when they have not only because it is one you can destroy.

 

Based on that, I can truely say that nobody has come up with more stawman type arguments than Buffy. The number of times I have been quoted as saying something I have never said must number in the thirties.

 

I was also attacked of creating a straw man when I attempted to put Buffies ideas into a logical structure of a mechanism. But I asked Buffy to confirm that the words I wrote accurately reflected her views before I then attacked it. Thus it is not a strawman argument.

 

The only other possible thing I can think of is where I state a sentence that you never said and point out how flawed it is. Looking at it, this is what I think you are suggesting is the 'straw man'. However, you do not understand what I am doing. I'm not saying that you have said those words. I'm simply saying that the sentence I say that you never explicitely said IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT IS ABOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR YOUR ARGUMENT TO WORK.

 

It's my testing of your argument. I try to see what assumptions are necessary to make for what you say to work. Eg, I have not said that you think Muslims are inferior to people. But the mechanism you proposed about poverty driving people into extremism seems to me to absolutely rely on that assumption.

 

If you think I am creating a strawman argument, instead of saying 'it's a straw man', try to say that the statement that I have said does not follow from your mechanism and show how your mechanism can work without that statement being true.

 

Eg, show how a normal person like you and me could dedicate our lives to killing as many of the enemies of Allah as possible simply because we want for resourses. Learn from TFS who successfully showed how a want for resourses could encourage theft type offences.

 

And perhaps you could even state whether you agree with rejection of a particular statement I have made so that we can establish common ground.

 

You are also using your own argument, in the form of assumptions and conclusions derived from those assumptions, in defense of that very same argument. This amounts to false reasoning.

 

This is a completely useless comment. The logical falicy of a circular argument is obvious to all but simply asserting that I have done that is useless unless you point out where you believe the circular argument is.

 

I am very happy for people to check over the LOGIC of my arguments but you must point out where you believe the logic is flawed.

 

The situation mooted by TheFaithfulStone is one of general repression, it's not specific to islamic cultures or systems of government and it is not about hypnosis.

 

I think you mean Buffy.

 

citing a thread conducted by yourself and KickAssClown doesn't pass muster as an authoritive reference.

 

That's a nice challenge. Unfortunately, when people who are knowledgeable reach a consensus and nobody challenges that conclusion, it is a pretty good authoritive reference.

 

If you disagree with the conclusions that were undisisputably reached in that thread, then it is not too late to create your own challenges. I look forward to hearing your criticisms of communication science in that thread.

 

In short, you have not demonstrated hypnotic effects and you have not demonstrated anything specific to the nature or practice of islam.

 

I accept that. The problem is that nobody has actually asked me to demostrate the hypnotic suggestions. You clearly have no knowledge of what hypnotic suggestions are so pointing out the arguments in which they are contained will mean nothing to you; and Buffy who clearly has the knowledge has never, and even refused to, request exactly which arguments common in Islamic discourse contain hypnotic suggestions.

 

In my view, this is one of the only places where my theory can actually be attacked. But I won't waste my time until people who accept it's relevance challenge it.

 

If you want to be that person, you must demonstrate you understand what a hypnotic suggestion is preferably by quoting lots of examples.

 

And now to address Buffy's points.

 

1) IT is global in its effect in that it is not limited to any particular geographical area or group of people; it is happy to kill anyone anywhere anyhow even their own and is one of the most indescriminate extremist ideologies around.

 

The objection has been raised that there are in fact examples of such extremism today that are not by Muslims (e.g. Tamils, see below) and in past history, religious fervor has resulted in exactly the same homicidal death and destruction (e.g. the Crusades).

 

I accept that in the past, similar forms of extremism have arrisen that have effected large parts of the globe. However, who cares? I'm not arguing that we are genetically superior to Muslims; only that our culture's discourse is less dangerous. Western culture has moved on considerably from the Crusades. The church has even appoligised for the attrocities of the Crusades and outside the church, nobody thinks that stuff anymore.

 

But Islam has not moved on as well and is corrupted with some of the very same cultural problems that plagued our past.

 

I'm not sure looking at past problems that no longer effect us is as constructive as looking at present problems unless the past is used as a way of finding solutions and not a justification of the problem. I'm trying to improve today's world, not yesturdays and standards of right and wrong have got much stricter in the last few hundred years. A good thing to because the stakes of bad behavior have also got much higher.

 

Having said that, thanks to gobalisation and modern technology, I think the similar ideologies of the crusaders and Islamic terrorists are far more dangerous today than they were hundreds of years ago when soldiers were armed with swords not highly explosive weopons and when it took months to travel accross continents rather than hours and when populations had undergone very little mixing of cultures unlike today. But the issue is minor as past ideologies are irrelivent to today.

 

As for today, you presented the Tamil Tigers. Looking below, this is what you said about them. Having now looked, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing 'below' that says anything about the global reach of the Tamil Tigers.

 

I'll help you out with my knowledge. The Tamils mainly focus their efforts against the Sri Lanka government. They are usually funded by India as they are Hindu whilst the Sri Lankan government is Muslim. Once when the Indian prime minister tried to make peace with the Sri Lankan government, the Tamils targetted the primeminister in India. So the Tamils acts do occasionally spill over into other countries.

 

But there are 2 main differences between the Tamils and Al Quaeda.

 

1) The Tamil Tiger's activities do not spill over entire continents. They are confined to a much smaller number of countries and the chances of them ever expanding to threaten, say, the whole of Europe are vertually nil. However IT knows no boundaries and it's network and intended targets spans virtually the whole of Asia, Europe, Austrailia, the US, Africa and even at times South America.

 

2) Even where the conflict in Sri Lanka spills beyond Sri Lanka's borders, the intended target ALWAYS has a very direct connection with the politics of Sri Lanka. However IT is not confined to the politics of one or other country. It wants to cause sweeping changes to the politics of every country on Earth to establish a global Muslim calophate.

 

So IT is very unique in the extent of it's global nature, far beyond any other terrorist group for the last hundred years.

 

2) It has a culture of death. Few other extremists are prepared to 'celebrate myrterdom' in the same way though there is one exception; the Tamil Tigers.

 

First of all "culture of death" is pejorative. Your characterization shows bias. Second, you grant the Tamil example but do not even try to explain it when it is a perfect example of how there must be more to "desiring martyrdom" than Islamic Culture being unique. Further, although we have to go back in history (which again you seem to dismiss because its not today), religious or nationalist fervor has been used *more often than not* to get people to sacrifice their lives for a cause. Its arguable that *not* doing so is *only* a late 20th century phenomenon, and you only have to go as far back as WWII to see widespread belief in America that dying for one's country is good was a widely held belief.

 

Bias or not bias, we both know what phenominon the 'culture of death' is talking about so lets not get heated over definitions. I mean of course, the desire to kill yourself for the purpose of the cause. I have made no pretence that Islamic culture is THE ONLY culture that has ever had this. Lets not forget the Japanese Kamakazees.

 

But the culture of death is nevertheless rare with only few extremist groups having adopted it. One of which is Islamic Terror.

 

See my later point about the effects of combining the above factors.

 

But I do take issue with the bit about "Its arguable that *not* doing so is *only* a late 20th century phenomenon". Whist patriotism particularly in warfare has decreased, one should not confuse the culture of death with the willingness to 'die in war for one's country'. Dying in war for one's country was not an actual desire to die. It was a desire to be brave in the face of death rather than to actually seek new and glorious ways of dying. The two are completely different things. This is shown by a chronic shortage of volenteers for suicide missions [to the point that they were never planned] rather than an over flow of willing volenteers seeking death as is common in cultures of death.

 

Also, you too seem to be somewhat confused about the type of hypnotic suggestions I am talking about. Some statements may accidently contain unintended hypnotic suggestions. For example, some people say 'please don't be angry with me for sleeping with your ex'. This is actually counter productive because it sends the hypnotic suggestion for that person to be angry with the speaker for the reason of sleeping with the listener's ex. So even if they wouldn't have been angry before, they may become so.

 

In Islamic discourse, I think many arguments claiming to try and understand how the mind of a moderate changes to an extremist, even if it is genuinely meant, works in a way to actually encourage extremism by hypnotic suggestion.

 

3) It is the only extremist ideology whose aim, not means, is to kill as many innocent civilian casualties as possible. All other extremist groups I know are trying to fight for a cause (howsoever twisted) and do not view themselves as murders.

Neither do the Tamil Extremists, and neither did the Crusaders.

 

More importantly, you've started talking about the extremists themselves here, when this view is not shared by the "moderates" as I mentioned in a previous post. Your tendency here is to conflate extremist views into moderate views without much evidence although this linkage is central to your argument.

 

Crusaders as above. Tamil Tigers, see next post.

 

That's right. I'm talking entirely about the fanatics, not the moderates. I'll be clear, factors 1-3 apply only to Islamic terror and therefore Islamic extremists. I am explaining why Islamic extremists are more dangerous than other non Islamic extremists.

 

And I am not saying that the arguments of an extremist are similar to that of the moderates. They are totally different. But I am saying that the arguments of the moderates contain menaces that spark extremist behavior.

 

The Tamil Tigers for example, usually attacks military targets.

 

This is patently false. They blow up trains and set off bombs in downtown Columbo. Again you are avoiding counter evidence.

 

Please can you provide a link from a reasonably neutral broadcaster of the particular incident in question. I will scritise for the following: evidence of a legitmitate military objective, a revenge for a strike on the Tamil civlian population, the exact details of what went of and where and whether the thinking was to maximise civilian casualties or just cause a stir, evidence it was a one off, evidence of a spliter group responsible or evidence of an appology.

 

IT seems to me to be more of a group of psycopathic seriel killers than an extremist organisation that makes at least some attempt to be 'freedom fighters'.

Here you're dismissing the wide evidence that the extremists themselves *do* use oppression and other arguments common to freedom fighters (just look at their martyrdom tapes),

 

Agreed but IT takes those arguments much further so that they do not only justify a willingness to tollerate civilian casualties in the pursuit of a greater goal, but so that they actually justify a desire to kill as many people as possible as a goal in itself. The only other thing in which that this attitude shift occurs is genocide and if the Islamic terrorists had the means to commit genocide against all infadels, they would even if it means large numbers of them die. The Tamel's for example would not. They would be satisfied simply by having an independant state.

 

You could though say that this belief is common in all states on the verge of genocide so that this is not entirely unique to Islamic terror. If you said that, I would agree.

 

FINAL AND MOST IMPORTANT NOTES

The three factors in isolation are not three reasons that Islamic terror is different from all other terror. They are factors that make an extremist group far more deadly. I have no doubt that you can find other extremist groups that may also have one of even possibly two of the above factors. But the only group to exhibit all three at the same time is Islamic terror.

 

But with each factor that applies to an extremist group, the danger posed by that group becomes expenentially worse.

 

The following numbers are purely for illustration and should not be taken literally.

 

Lets say that your average extremist group has a danger rating of 1. For every factor that applies to them, you multiply their danger by a factor of 5.

 

So an extremist group (EG)that has a culture of death is 5 times more dangerous than one that does not. And an EG that has a culture of death and a psycopathic desire to kill for the sake of killing is 25 times more dangerours than an average EG. And a culture that has a culture of death that actually seeks to kill people as a goal in itself that spans the entire globe is about 125 times more dangerous than the average EG and 25 times more dangerous than an EG with only one of the above factors.

[TheFaithfulStone]

No you didn't get it.

 

What circumstances are necessary for you to become a terrorist? What circumstances are necessary for you to become a criminal?

What circumstances are necessary for you to become a mass murderer? (Not psychopathic serial killer, but "mass murderer".)

 

What turn of events could lead to YOU, PERSONALLY electing to suicide bomb?

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: Frankly, I've had enough of this. Of course I know what a hypnotic suggestion is, this is not rare or specialised knowledge. And I'm familiar with the works of Milton Erickson et alia, I do not need to read Speed Seduction.

You have claimed to use hypnotic suggestions in posts addressed to me. These suggestions have had no effect, naturally so because simply adding 'some people might think. . . ' to a sentence does not create a hypnotic suggestion. The failure of your demonstration is a failure of your argument and in your latest post you have yet again avoided the issues, you have not defended your argument.

[sebbysteiny]

Okay ughaibu. What is a hypnotic suggestion?

 

"These suggestions have had no effect, naturally so because simply adding 'some people might think. . . ' to a sentence does not create a hypnotic suggestion."

 

Actually that is an excellent way of turning a statement into a hypnotic suggestion. You have demonstrated ignorance.

[sebbysteiny]

No you didn't get it.

 

What circumstances are necessary for you to become a terrorist? What circumstances are necessary for you to become a criminal?

What circumstances are necessary for you to become a mass murderer? (Not psychopathic serial killer, but "mass murderer".)

 

What turn of events could lead to YOU, PERSONALLY electing to suicide bomb?

 

TFS

 

What relevence?

[infamous]

 

Actually that is an excellent way of turning a statement into a hypnotic suggestion. You have demonstrated ignorance.

Sebby.........read our FAQ/rules page. I've been watching your posts for a while now and am a bit, to say the least, dismayed by your lack of respect for other members of this forum. Calling someone ignorant is not acceptable behavior here at Hypography and if these occurences persist, you may find yourself in jeopardy with the staff. A word to the wise is sufficient..................Infy

[TheFaithfulStone]

What relevence?

 

I'm interested in seeing what you say. Humor me.

 

As far as I am concerned there is only one "incorrect" answer.

 

I'll answer first if you like.

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: A hypnotic suggestion is a suggestion administered to a person who is in a state of hypnosis. A state of hypnosis is commonly defined by EEG readings:

http://www.hypnosis.edu/glossary/a.asp

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Hypnosis%20OZ.pdf

http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/hypnosis.htm

The phrase "some people might think. . . ." is in very common use, so much so, that I would estimate the number of people who enter a hypnotic state, merely by hearing this phrase, at zero.

[sebbysteiny]

Sebbysteiny: A hypnotic suggestion is a suggestion administered to a person who is in a state of hypnosis. A state of hypnosis is commonly defined by EEG readings:

http://www.hypnosis.edu/glossary/a.asp

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Hypnosis%20OZ.pdf

http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/hypnosis.htm

The phrase "some people might think. . . ." is in very common use, so much so, that I would estimate the number of people who enter a hypnotic state, merely by hearing this phrase, at zero.

 

Exactly what I thought you would say.

 

A hypnotic suggestion is used when somebody is in a hypnotic state to implant new thoughts and ideas. But a hypnotic suggestion can work without a hypnotheripist making you stare at black and white inward spirals.

 

Your second link gives me enough information from your own sources to explain to you where you have misunderstood. Again, most decent NLP books will contain this.

 

Although

Clinical hypnosis is the deliberate

induction of an altered state of awareness

 

A hypnotic state can occur naturally and spontaneously,

such as when you are absorbed in a pleasant task, or

when day-dreaming.

 

You are in a hypnotic state almost all the time to some degree or another. You may not be in a deep state, but you are nevertheless in some kind of state. All that really matters is that your conscience is distracted and / or relaxed sufficiently for the message to go straight to the subconscious without your conscious mind acting as a filter.

 

Right now, for example, you are reading this post, but if a song is playing in the background that has a catchy tune, you might start to hum it later. Likewise you might find that some messages I say as a hypnotic suggestion are be far more memerable.

 

Thus hypnotic suggestions, deliberate or accidental, can work at all times.

 

If you go back to the 'brainwashing' thread that you have thusfar refused to read, you will see that it works by distracting the conscious mind with some irrelivent argument whilst slipping in the real message without even realising it. Look at the McDonalds add in that thread. I have not found a better example of a hypnotic suggestion than the way McDonalds tried to suggest that all it's cows come from healthy grassy fields.

 

Do you at least understand what I'm saying now?

[sebbysteiny]

Sebby.........read our FAQ/rules page. I've been watching your posts for a while now and am a bit, to say the least, dismayed by your lack of respect for other members of this forum. Calling someone ignorant is not acceptable behavior here at Hypography and if these occurences persist, you may find yourself in jeopardy with the staff. A word to the wise is sufficient..................Infy

 

Not the first time I have been in trouble with the moderators. However I have lost all confidence in many of the moderators here when I found particular moniters breaking hypography rules themselves with impunity (admittidely not yourself).

 

Where were you when people on this thread were attacking me personally branding me as a racist as well as other comments which can only be interpretted as disrespectful?

 

And what is the difference between saying that somebody is wrong, mistaken or ignorant about a certain subject. They all mean the same thing!!!! Is this a blanket ban on saying that you think something somebody said on a subject you know a lot about is just totally wrong?

 

If you want to ban me, then ban me. I will not return. If you acting in your capacity as a moniter (ie not personally) want me to listen to your criticisms and act accordingly, I expect to see them applied more consistantly.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You are in a hypnotic state almost all the time to some degree or another. You may not be in a deep state, but you are nevertheless in some kind of state. All that really matters is that your conscience is distracted and / or relaxed sufficiently for the message to go straight to the subconscious without your conscious mind acting as a filter.

 

You seem to be describing subliminal messaging more than "hypnotic suggestion."

 

Were you going to answer my question?

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

Sebbysteiny: You are misusing terms and none of this has any relevance to your claims in post 1. You have specified "hypnotic suggestions" and you have specified the form of suggestion that you define as "hypnotic", your claim that a person is always in a state of partial hypnosis is a non sequitur and renders the qualification "hypnotic" meaningless, you are now talking about 'suggestions'. Most significantly, you have not demonstrated any hypnotic effect in your posts to me, do you seriously maintain that using the initial "some people might think. . . ." induces "an altered state of awareness"?

If you go back to the brainwashing thread you will see that I pointed out that you were doing the same thing, abusing terms, you will also find a link posted by me, and on the page linked to you will find mention of neuro-linguistic programming, so kindly stop attempting to justify your position by portraying me as uninformed on these matters. I haven't had any problems understanding what you mean since the inception of this thread.

[sebbysteiny]

Fair enough Ughaibu.

 

I'll assume that you are being genuine and reasonable in your posts.

 

If we are simply arguing over definitions rather than substantive issues, it may mean that we are in agreement even though we both think we disagree.

 

I want to first ask you not to think about an elephant. Many people who do think about an elephant start thinking about an elephant having sex.

 

The reason why I call it a 'hypnotic' suggestion is because it works because that is the way the mind works and that is the same reason why hypnosis works. They are both using the same mechanism of using the mind's weaknesses to send messages more powerfully than by direct communication. So it is 'hypnotic' even if it is not necessary for a deep hypnotic state to be induced.

 

I would also add that a hypnotic script (stuff people read to get into hypnosis) is completely full of hypnotic suggestions.

 

Would you agree that the phrase, 'don't think about an elephant' has a meaning that is not contained within the clear logical meaning of the sentence. Whereas the words are telling you not to think about an elephant, the actual effect is to get the listener to think about an elephant and that the way this is done is much more powerful than if the listener were instead to say, 'I want you to think about an elephant for about 15 seconds'.

 

Do you agree that it works because by saying 'don't think about an elephant' it hits the listener at a deeper level than when someone says 'do think about an elephant'. Would you even say that the message hits the subconscious rather than the conscious simply because the sentence is phrased with the word 'don't' rather than 'do'?

 

If you do, that's what I mean by a hypnotic suggestion: a sentence who's verbage is phrased so that it contains a 'hypnotic' message that hits at a much deeper level than normal communication sometimes even without the listener consciously realising it. Hypnotic suggestions are thus basically a way of putting an idea into somebody's mind without actually coming accross trying to putting that idea into the person's mind. Eg the revolting image you had in your mind of an elephant having sex you sicko :hihi: .

 

If you look at a female friend of yours and say 'I don't think we would get on if we dated' you are putting the idea of you and her dating into her mind even though it seems like you were trying to do the opposite. And that message will stick long after the conversation is over.

 

That's what I mean by a 'hypnotic suggestion'. What ever you think it is, do you accept that what I call 'hypnotic suggestions' work as I say they do?

 

What relevence?

 

 

I'm interested in seeing what you say. Humor me.

 

As far as I am concerned there is only one "incorrect" answer.

 

I'll answer first if you like.

 

I would like that. Thanks.

[sebbysteiny]

You seem to be describing subliminal messaging more than "hypnotic suggestion."

 

Interesting sentence. It seems that the use of the word 'hypnotic' has thrown people off the scent regarding what I mean by 'hypnotic suggestion'.

 

I can see why what I am describing may sound like subliminal messages. But technically it's a hypnotic suggestion not a subliminal message, which works in a very different way (if at all). But as both are designed to hit at the subconscious without the listener being consciously aware of it, there are similarities.

[ughaibu]

The word elephant is a symbolic representation, one associates a thought with the symbol during the process of assimilating the sentence, there are no actions consequent to the attached thought. This is quite different from hypnosis.