[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yes, it is. While I have no quarrel with your objections to what people are saying about hypnosis, I do want to make a point about analogics.
In an earlier post, you had struck down an analogy someone made by saying that something particular about it was different from hypnosis, and then declared that on that basis there was no comparison at all. But that’s what analogics are for: comparing two things that aren’t the same thing. Yes, with analogics, you CAN compare apples and oranges. Both are fruits, for example. Both grow on trees.
If two things are the same in every way, then they aren’t analogous — they’re identical.
[/QUOTE]
But in this case - ianzin was not saying “oh, you cannot use an analogy to compare the two!” He was saying - your analogy assumes something that is false. (Specifically - that “chunking” is an altered state of consciousness).
In your example, you mentioned apples and oranges. Both are fruit - ok, we’ve found some similarity to compare them. It seems to me that ianzin’s point was that the analogy given was like comparing apples and racecars and saying both are fruit. Of course you can use an analogy to compare them - but you cannot say that both are fruit because it’s untrue.
On to the specifics:
Here, the comparison was between “losing” perspective of time when driving to a destination, and a hypnotic state. The similarity being that they are both special, altered forms of consciousness.
The point that ianzin made was that this is a bad comparison because they are NOT both special, altered forms of consciousness. Hypnosis may be (that’s debatable to say the least), but losing perspective of time on a driving trip is “normal consciousness, doing something that happens normally when one task if very familiar and routine.” Quote from ianzin, underlining mine.
Thus, while your primer might be helpful in another case, I’m not sure it’s so helpful here.