I read an 1800's book about a man who had hypnotised a girl into stopping her heart (her breathing stopped also) and dying on cue.

I read an 1800's book about a man who had hypnotised a girl into stopping her heart (her breathing stopped also) and dying on cue.

 

Sounds like an amusing work of fiction. Who was it by, and what was it called?

That's the problem with trying to hold your breath until you die.

 

Eventually you pass out and start breathing again.

It's theoretically possible,

but in practice it would take a lot of willpower(which could be substituted by hypnosis) and practice(practice in killing oneself) which are both not very practical.

It's theoretically possible,

 

No it isn't.

 

And you can't be hypnotised to do something against your will (or to do something impossible).

Ìt isn't possible breathing is an involuntary reflex which will force you to breathe when the oxygen supply in the blood is getting low or the blood ph falls (CO₂ increase in the blood causes a drop in ph)

Edited April 21, 201510 yr by fiveworlds

OK, I'd like to map the ground we've covered here. Is there any more evidence needed to confirm that breathing is an autonomic function? That part is very well known.

 

As part of the parasympathetic system, the only thing that can override breathing is the sympathetic nervous system, for a fight or flight scenario, and that won't stop you from breathing, it will only make you breath harder to supply more oxygen. This should support further that it's incredibly unlikely that anyone could stop their breathing or heartbeat. The whole system is designed to prevent just that. Is there any evidence contradictory to this? Are there any documented examples refuting what we know about the autonomic system?

 

Because if there isn't, I'd like to discuss why people might believe things like this, from a unnamed 200 year old book, somehow trump what we actually know? What is it about this particular scenario that is appealing to entertain? Is it just because of the mind-over-matter control it implies?

Because if there isn't, I'd like to discuss why people might believe things like this, from a unnamed 200 year old book, somehow trump what we actually know? What is it about this particular scenario that is appealing to entertain? Is it just because of the mind-over-matter control it implies?

Or maybe the horror that someone might be able to make you think yourself to death (in some fashion).

 

It's not a new concept in horror or science fiction.

There are some examples of stories which use hypnotism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis_in_popular_culture

But none that seem to correspond to the novel discussed here. Maybe someone should write it as a post-modern Victorian melodrama.