Can people change other people's extremely rooted beliefs?

No.

They can act in a manner that would allow them the option to change their view on their own. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is willing to change their mind unless they feel they made the choice.

People can be manipulated though, but I assumed you wasn’t talking about that.

I think an equally interesting question is, can/do people change their own deeply rooted beliefs?

Of course. Provide them with proof that they are wrong and that you are right.

If one cannot provide such proof, perhaps it is time to rethink one's own standpoints.

Quoting Eugen

With the necessary time and methods can a man change the belief of another man, no matter how powerful that belief is, or are there certain beliefs that are rooted so strongly that they simply become irreversible and they cannot be changed not even in an eternity?

I think it is rare that someone can decide to have as a goal to change someone's mind and then do it - regarding deep set beliefs. Unless one can torture them or control their lives and even then it will take a while and may not last.

But people can certainly change their beliefs and other people can be a part of that. Experience, however is key.

If the person has experiences that challenge their beliefs, then change is quite possible.

In online forums there is 'in the air' this idea that one can and should be able to convince people via argument. I think this can happen, though around deep beliefs, very rarely and over very long periods of time and probably other factors would be key in the change.

We learn by experience, much of it as children and much of it is set in deeply there, though even those can change. But usually we
need
new
experiences.

See, I have no faith in the power of argument, so I repeat myself.

People need to experience things to change, and generally not just the thoughts of other people. They need to live through something that changes them.

Reply to Pantagruel I think they can, but generally if they do it, then they wanted to, to some degree, and went looking for experiences and arguments that undermined their previous beliefs.

And people's deep beliefs can also be changed by experiences that one did not choose but just came along and had the impact.

Racism can change in both the former and latter ways, for example. If one has not been around a specific race and one has a lot of judgments, experience that goes against those ideas can change the belief. Someone uncomfortable with their own racism could choose to go out and find counterexamples and undermine their own beliefs.

I went from being a practicing Catholic to being an agnostic.

It was a sea change.

I doubt I will ever change from being an agnostic, because one thing I know for certain...is that I do not know if any gods exist...or if no gods exist.

Reply to Tzeentch

"Proof" is a strong word. How about "evidence" instead?

Reply to Pantagruel
It is a interesting question. To expand on that thought: if people are capable of changing their inner framework what is the catalyst that causes that change?

Reply to Coben
The first question I would ask is what does it mean to successfully torture someone/something?

"Experience" is either a major component or the sole factor in what moulds a individual's world view.

But my thought is what of the influences on a person? To what degree is change created internally vs externally?

Reply to Frank Apisa

It's funny how life appears to be straightforward when in truth there's a bend in the road. I was Protestant, turned agnostic then atheist, and now I self describe as spiritual.

Was I convoluted in my reply? I thought y'all had some momentum before I showed up..

With the necessary time and methods can a man change the belief of another man, no matter how powerful that belief is, or are there certain beliefs that are rooted so strongly that they simply become irreversible and they cannot be changed not even in an eternity?

When we have changed a belief of another man, we normally say that we have convinced or persuaded him. You have said it in your own example: "Could someone/something convince those Budhist monks who...". If we want to convince anyone of doing anything, we must be good at convincing. There are people who are good at convincing from birth. But in this case, when we are in front of beliefs rooted so strongly, it seems not to be enough that natural capacity of convincing. You say it will be necessary a certain time and methods. Well, it would be said that the time is not as important as the method, because if you master the method to convince, you won’t need so much time to persuade anyone about anything. What is the method for persuading? Indeed, it is not a method, but an art or a craft. Gorgias called it rhetoric, and he said it is the power to persuade by speech. Even more, to Gorgias, “it practically captures all powers and keeps them under its control”. And he gave us this example of the power of rhetoric: “I have often in the past gone with my brother and the other doctors to some sick man refusing to drink a medicine or let the doctor cut or burn him; when the doctor couldn't persuade him, I persuaded him, by no other craft than rhetoric”. So, it seems that it doesn’t matter how powerful is a belief when you master rhetoric, because, as it keeps all the powers under its control, that who controls rethoric can defeat any belief.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

The first question I would ask is what does it mean to successfully torture someone/something?

IN terms of changing their beliefs, success would be where they are so broken they want to please you and will take in your ideas much as a child will in relation to a parent. I mean, I think such a process is a horrific one. Success only in the sense of achieving a goal, not in any sense that implies I approve.Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

"Experience" is either a major component or the sole factor in what moulds a individual's world view.

Yes, i think so. I mean, we have temperments, we are not blank slates, so our temperments and eariler experiences and desires and proclivities will affect how we are affected by experience. But when we talk about fundamental changes I think new types of experiences are a must.Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

But my thought is what of the influences on a person? To what degree is change created internally vs externally?

I think you can head yourself in a direction. You can choose to explore. You can choose experiences that will change you and even perhaps in a specific direction. One can challenge one's own beliefs. In a sense risk them. One can try to get rid of beliefs that plague you - cognitive behavioral therapy can be quite successful with this, for example. You can't simply decide to belief X, but you can move yourself in that direction and see if you can, through a variety of experiences come to that belief.

And then stuff just happens, and this can change your mind.

Reply to Coben
So that hinges on the individual willingly giving up their agency. In other words: no you can't force your will on others. So success is dependent on the torturee agreeing to give up.


Here's my understanding of how change occurs:
I call them the levels of influential development:
1. Acting out
2. Thinking
3. Feeling
4. Seeing
5. Hearing

1-2 are individual traits. 4-5 are group traits. Feeling is a communicative trait imo so it bridges the personal and interpersonal.

Sorry to sound pompous, that's just the best way I can illustrate my understanding.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

So that hinges on the individual willingly giving up their agency. In other words: no you can't force your will on others. So success is dependent on the torturee agreeing to give up.

Well, that's not what I believe. I think you can force it.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

Sorry to sound pompous, that's just the best way I can illustrate my understanding.

i don't know what part of that sounds pompous. I didn't understand it however.

Quoting Eugen

Can people change other people's extremely rooted beliefs?

No, change my view.

Reply to Coben If it can be forced how?

I know that men have forcefully changed other's will through the coercion of pain throughout time. It can be done. But in all those cases the people being tortured decided to give in. They decided to think the thoughts that allowed their tongue and vocal chords form the sounds that describe submissiveness. No matter what both parties must agree the torture was successful. Until then the torture would be considered a failure.

A man can own another man's body. A man can never own another man's mind. Men decide to give in the will of others because their own is fragile; weak.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

A man can own another man's body. A man can never own another man's mind. Men decide to give in the will of others because their own is fragile; weak.

Wow, that's harsh. Been through torture yourself?

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

But in all those cases the people being tortured decided to give in.

Minds can be broken. You don't decide to break, though there are likely gray areas and some who decide before being broken. So, sure, sometimes people give up and in. But you can destroy a mind and then fill it. Long term probably that person can regain their mind. Solitary, sensory deprivation, then various pain assaults, interfere with sleep. We need thing to remain whole. Minds need things to remain whole. If we starve a body it does not make a decision to give in - at a certain point it simply has not had enough nutrition and stops functioning. Some may give up early, sure. But bodies have needs. And minds need things to stay organized, to have boundaries, to even know what is happening.

Approaches like psychic driving (in the Montreal experiments for example) and other modern torture techniques that combine pain, fear and depriving the mind of what it needs to remain whole are extremely effective. Throw in some hypnosis, drugs and rape and minds fall apart.

If you think you could hold out, I think you're an armchair general. If you think it's a choice then, it seems to me, you think we only have emotional and sensory wants, no needs. I think we have needs to hold a mind together.

I don't think we can get past this impasse. But start a thread if you ever survive with your mind the way you want it after being tortured and mindraped by professionals.

Professionals with freedom. Not like say, the torturers on Guantanamo, who had a lot of freedom compared to, say, law enforcement, but nothing on the level of what is going on outside of any monitoring.

For a person to be changed, then need to be open to change. "Rooted beliefs" are beliefs that the person already believes is true, and anything else is wrong. They also make emotional attachments to their belief, as if anything that contradicts what they believe is emotionally detrimental to them.

To change someone's beliefs, they would already need to be in a mode where they are questioning their own "rooted beliefs". For instance, I was raised a Christian. I believed in the existence of the Christian god. In my late teens, I began to see inconsistencies and asked questions to try and resolve them. The answers I received created more inconsistencies instead of resolving the prior ones. I began to understand my emotional attachment to my belief in god. I realized that truth is not reliant on my emotional state. The truth may be something that I may not like to hear. I decided to be true to myself (intellectually honest) and seek the truth wherever it leads me even if it's not the answers I like.

I began reading alternative views - open to an explanation that was consistent with observations and with other views. The truth would need to be able to explain why we have a variety of beliefs and why a majority are based on where you were raised and who you associate yourself with (the bubble you surround yourself with, ie religion and politics).

So others did change my views. I should probably say that they helped to change my view because I was already in the mode of changing, but they gave me a direction and a method - science.

Reply to Coben I don't need to have experienced it, I've anecdotally heard of it experienced. The Buddhist monk that lit himself on fire with gasoline. That event was referenced earlier in this thread and I can't imagine a worse way to die. And he didn't scream, he just sat there in lotus position (apparently). If the condition for torture is pain and that monk could withstand potentially the worst form of it I would say logically successful torture is conditional.

Reply to Harry Hindu
There's a Nietzsche quote that I think is parallel to your thought: "I was in darkness, but I took three steps and found myself in paradise. The first step, was a good thought. The second, a good word; and the third, a good deed."

I stand to think that my previous question was left unanswered. To what degree is influence derived from internal sources vs external?

Reply to Tzeentch What if there is a matter in which the truth is not demonstrable? Eg religious vs atheist

Reply to Coben Interesting that you've mentioned torture, I actually wanted to bring that up into this discussion. Do you think unlimited torture can make absolutely anyone break his principles?

Reply to Eugen Yes. I think so. Hard to demonstrate. I think combinations of sleep deprivation, pain, isolation from any social contact, sensory overload and deprivation, physical and sexual abuse over a long period of time would break anyone. A number of torturers have had great success with just position torture alone. Putting people in uncomfortable physical positions. That's nothing compared to depriving people of hope and contact and then not letting the brain recover. Sleep if food to the mind. You starve them. I don't think anyone can avoid being broken.

Reply to darthbarracuda Good one! I personally think that many of our beliefs, including very strong ones, can be changed. I also believe that there are certain people who actually identify themselves with their beliefs.
1. I am not sure if "identifying" with something would shift the paradigm from "finite resistance to change" to "infinite resistance to change".
2. I am not sure what it takes to reach that level.

Reply to ISeeIDoIAm He died in a very short time. He did not have his personality mind and body ravaged over a long period of time. I could not possibly sit still like he did in that situation. But to protect my children I could probably set myself on fire and not reveal where my children were hiding before I died. Time and torture rip the mind apart. Most of us can sprint. But long distance torture runners, no way. And torturers know this. They throw in waiting and undermine the health of the mind that allows people to be stoic over short periods.

I also believe torture has a huge role in this matter. I involved torture in my previous posts and I hardly kept myself from bring it up here as well. The interesting aspect here is that Coben always mentions that mind will eventually break and I think we could all agree that if someone induced us into a state where free will is simply turned off, than anyone would break. So for the sake of the argument let's presume that one has unlimited resistance to any trick that could put his free will to sleep; now let's take the Budhist monk and also give him eternal life. Now the question is: under unlimited torture, will the Budhist monk eventually freely break?

Reply to Coben
You'd be surprised how many GI's died after horrendously creative and drawn out torture sessions implemented by Imperial Japanese. You apparently don't know your history too well. Maybe you would give in, but would they? I'm not sure and I know I never could be when discussing hypotheticals. But my intuition tells me that torture has gotten progressively worse throughout time because people have the tendency to resist torture.

Reply to Eugen
I am not on board with the idea of "deeply rooted beliefs." Belief is not a function separable from others. I can breathe. I can chop wood. Belief is neither a function of an organism nor an action upon a set of objects.
When someone is wrong about what they believe, it is not a defect like a missing member or a badly designed machine. Any story about incorrect belief is always welded to another story of really good belief.
I don't understand the idea that being able to change another person by one means or another is a measure of value. The original question assumes that a right thinking person is trying to stop the wrong thinking person from their worst impulses. The stubbornness goes much deeper than that.
Righteousness may be a way to organize and see oneself and other people. But I am not certain of that either. It would be wrong to make it an article of faith.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

You'd be surprised how many GI's died after horrendously creative and drawn out torture sessions implemented by Imperial Japanese.

There's nothing I have said that remotely implies or acts as evidence I didn't know this.And, in fact I did know the Japanse treated, for example, POWs horrifically in WW2. Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

But my intuition tells me that torture has gotten progressively worse throughout time because people have the tendency to resist torture.

Of course people resist torture, many for quite a while.

Reply to Coben Doesn't the fact that many who resisted for so long eventually broke represent a tricky temptation to believe that eventually anyone would break under continuous torture?

Quoting Eugen

With the necessary time and methods can a man change the belief of another man, no matter how powerful that belief is, or are there certain beliefs that are rooted so strongly that they simply become irreversible and they cannot be changed not even in an eternity?
EG. Could someone/something convince those Budhist monks who set themselves on fire for their cause to become atheists and think Budhism is wrong?

If we look at it from the point of belief-centered mental illnesses I'd refer you to the most common psychological failure I'm accused of - the delusion. The last I read up the topic, a delusion is a belief that 1. doesn't conform to one's socio-cultural and religious milieu and 2. can't be changed despite strong evidence to the contrary

It seems therefore, in psychological terms, beliefs are either inherited from one's culture or are supposed to be reasoned positions. Given that there are two modes of acquiring beliefs and that these two are independent of each other the most common occasion where a belief's acceptance or rejection, i.e. a change of mind, is the issue, is when a culturally inherited belief clashes with evidence that contradicts it.

So, the question is, should we hold onto beliefs even when evidence points in the other direction? I reckon most people will answer this question in the negative and so, it follows, that if one wishes to alter beliefs, such beliefs should, first and foremost, be disproved.

Quoting Eugen

What if there is a matter in which the truth is not demonstrable? Eg religious vs atheist

You tell me. Should I try to convince others of things I have no evidence for?

Reply to Eugen Yes, I think everyone would break. And in his example, the POWs the Japanese had, they generally just tortured them. They suffered, some broke, some did not. But when you are really trying to work on the mind, you are not simply torturing. You are trying to shatter their sense of self in a variety of ways, weaken the mind via loss of sleep and nutrition, but also, after a time, begin to replace thoughts. I do think one can recover from someting like that. IOW I do not think you can count on creating Manchurian candidates who will forever be in your power. With some, but not all, but that you can get people to start believing certain things and stop believing others, and to honestly say X, when they would not have before, that I believe one can do. But it is not enough to simply torture and break down, you also have to start adding in stuff, using hypnosis and drugs and rewards and all the unfortunate skills and knowledge we have acquired via cognitive science and well, from messing with people's minds. It's a two part process. And it takes a while. I would give away secrets within an hour, I would guess. Maybe regarding loved ones, I could hold out longer, but I think someone cutting my genitals, and pulling my intestines out and squeezing them or using needles on my eyes would get me to betray anthing fairly fast. That however is not the same as getting me to actually believe new things. That takes another skillset.

God this is aweful.

Quoting Tzeentch

Of course. Provide them with proof that they are wrong and that you are right.

Quoting Pantagruel

I think an equally interesting question is, can/do people change their own deeply rooted beliefs?

Too optimistic. The fact that the greatest scientists of the 20th century were discussing the principles of quantum mechanics for decades and none of them substantially changed their opinion seems to be a bit discouraging.

Reply to Tzeentch I don't know if you should, but you could.

Reply to David Mo I think it is an a fortiori situation. If people cannot be bothered to challenge their own fundamental beliefs, why would they every think that that someone else might be persuadable?

Best way to sum this up is by mentioning a wise comment on an adage.

The adage is: You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink.

The wise comment is: Don't try to make him drink...make him thirsty.

Yup...if your intentions are to change a persons "beliefs"...do the equivalent of making him thirsty. And keep in mind that making someone thirsty is not something that happens instantly. Making a person thirsty takes time...so patience is ESSENTIAL.

It can be done; you CAN change a person's "beliefs." But you've got to do it by planting a seed...and letting it germinate at its own speed.

Reply to TheMadFool I can describe your ailment in four words: you are narrow minded. You're right in that we must construct our world around things we know in contrast to that we don't. Afterall: there is a infinite amount of ways something isn't but a (theoretical?) finite limit to ways it can be described or used. But it's a human folly to assume that since something hasn't come to be demonstrated then casually it doesn't exist.

What are your thoughts on multiple universes/realities coexisting? I find it a fun thought. What if Napoleon hadn't held his troops back at Waterloo? What if JW Booth's pistol misfired? The social construct we find ourselves in is just that. A construct. A building of ideas that can be dismantled and reassembled at will.

What we can see is only a infinitesimally small amount of what defines existence. We are mere apes that in comparison to the universe and meaningless in our comprehension of it. You, me, and everyone on this board are nothing more than cavemen and women with fancy glass, metal, and plastic.

So who the hell are you to say you know what it means to define existence? If there is a god, I couldn't prove it. If there isn't then you couldn't prove it. Thus both are rational observations given that both are unverifiable theories.

What we can see and measure is such a small amount of what makes up our reality. A mere 5% of the mass of the universe is composed of matter that we can interact with. The remaining 95% of the mass is composed of dark matter/energy. So smart guy: what does that tell you?

It's very difficult to change people's beliefs, which is why I always say that the psychology of belief is much more powerful than any argument. All you have to do is look at political beliefs, religious beliefs, and atheistic beliefs, it rarely happens that these people give up their beliefs. Logic usually has nothing to do with deeply held beliefs. What you usually find is that dogmatism rules the day; and dogmatism is the enemy of truth.

Reply to Sam26 Well said :)

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

what does that tell you?

That I remain within the bounds of reason to the extent that I wield it well; that I don't confuse what I can imagine with what is real; that I don't confuse my hopes with facts; that I don't give up the truth for a false promise; that I'm content with what is than be ecstatic about what might be...

Quoting TheMadFool

That I remain within the bounds of reason to the extent that I wield it well; that I don't confuse what I can imagine with what is real; that I don't confuse my hopes with facts; that I don't give up the truth for a false promise; that I'm content with what is than be ecstatic about what might be...

Really nice, TMF. I like it.

Reply to TheMadFool And you are right in those feelings, for you could be right. Yet also you could be wrong. That's where faith comes in.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

ISeeIDoIAm
31
?TheMadFool And you are right in those feelings, for you could be right. Yet also you could be wrong. That's where faith comes in.

And for you, ISIDIA...what does "faith" mean in that context?

Reply to Frank Apisa You may call me "IDol" for shorthand. When I describe "faith" I'm illustrating the leaps we take in presuppositions that are built on each other. In other words: logical conclusions. Since "A" appears to be true and "B" is related to "A" in some form therefore "B" must also be true. As in to say there are no guarantees beyond the "immediate". I might not possess the ability to fully articulate my thoughts on this, so apologies if I come off as convoluted.

Reply to Coben But the "loss of self" implies the fact that it is not you, the one who strongly believe in something, the one who freely chooses to change himself under the pressure of pain and torture. No, what you're saying is that the torturer has the power to reduce you at the level of a life being with no principles who acts under instincts - no free will.

I think I have found something: it is wrong to look at this from the limited and unlimited power for a belief point of view, but rather from the existence of certain degrees point of view. Allow me to exemplify:
Case 1: I strongly believe that a large part of Modern Science is wrong. But if I were to be exposed to more information and empirical evidence, I could change my mind. But this is also because I haven't been exposed to a high degree of information regarding all the theories and I am not a scientist myself. New information and experiences could change my view.

Case 2: I believe in God and I think no one could convince me not to believe. And I believe this because I don't believe in God because my parents taught me so. I went through a long process of thinking, I listened to the pros and cons, and I finally got to the conclusion that God exists. So I've been exposed to the information so far. The only thing that could theoretically make me change my mind would be something very original, a totally new argument against the existence of God. The issue here is that everything that could be said about this topic has already been said in my opinion.

So at the end of the day it is not because I have an infinite belief in God, but because the number of arguments against faith is finite and I think I've heard them all in a form or another, nothing could make me an atheist.

But what's still very intriguing to me is the matter of sticking to the principles under the harshest times, and it's inevitable not to mention again the sensitive topic brought up here by Coben - torture. Good news is that I have found something for that too. But that remains to be said in another post.

Quoting Eugen

Case 2: I believe in God and I think no one could convince me not to believe. And I believe this because I don't believe in God because my parents taught me so. I went through a long process of thinking, I listened to the pros and cons, and I finally got to the conclusion that God exists. So I've been exposed to the information so far. The only thing that could theoretically make me change my mind would be something very original, a totally new argument against the existence of God. The issue here is that everything that could be said about this topic has already been said in my opinion.

You do see that what you are essentially saying here is: Of the two possibilities (at least one god exists) or (no gods exist)...

...of those two possibilities, your blind guess is the former. (You also seem to be making a guess about the nature of that god...by referring to it specifically as God rather than as "a god.")

BUT...no matter how long your "process of thinking" was nor how carefully you "listened to the pros and cons"...your conclusion was no more scientific or logical than a coin toss. That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess.

It is usual for people to call their guesses on the issue "beliefs."

Bottom line: Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?

Reply to Frank Apisa It's rather a matter of perspectives than probabilities: personally, Science is a catalyst for my faith, as for others it represents the opposite. But my personal opinion is not important, what's important is that unless a totally new perspective appears, my faith cannot be changed, at least not by any existing arguments.

Reply to Eugen

I understand, Eugen.
Stay safe, my friend.

Reply to Eugen It matters how "rooted" such beliefs are. If you put a gun to the head of enough people the believer loves, they will surely "uproot" such beliefs for whatever you want them to say. Of course, this only has power up to a certain point, where an "uprooting" of select beliefs would have immediate dangerous consequences for the life in question, of which they would not change, even in such a drastic situation.

Quoting Pantagruel

If people cannot be bothered to challenge their own fundamental beliefs, why would they every think that that someone else might be persuadable?

That is a good question.
I think the selfish impulse is the answer. The guilty ones are the others and the others are wrong. Never me. Lucidity is a rare virtue.
It remains to be seen what part insecurity plays in this. Deep down, the dogmatic man is suspicious of himself.

Quoting Eugen

With the necessary time and methods can a man change the belief of another man, no matter how powerful that belief is, or are there certain beliefs that are rooted so strongly that they simply become irreversible and they cannot be changed not even in an eternity?

Blehck...I certainly think it's a possibility, but what would be the point. Insofar as philosophical debate goes (especially here on TPF), the "convincing game" is simply a case of argumentum ad populum. Anyone who possesses truth would understand that a desperate grab for validation of one's beliefs by consensus is masturbation.

Fortunately the "convincing game" is not the only value that philosophical debate has to offer.

In my last post, I've stated that there are several cases when beliefs cannot be changed with the power of arguments. But what about "stick to your own principles" when it comes to really challenging situations.

So let's assume John has a very strong belief that implies a certain behavior, let's call it X. Now let's say Ben is trying to make Ben break his principles (eg. eat a rat by his own will, which is considered blasphemy and John would be automatically rejected by his god according to his belief). So X = never eat a rat.

Case 1: X is important but less important than life itself -> Ben puts a loaded gun to John's head = John eats the rat because his life is more important.

Case 2: X > life -> John will die but he won't break his principles.

Case 3: X> life; then Ben decides to torture John. John is very strong, but he doesn't want to get crazy or lose one of his important organs or senses. In this case, John will probably endure a lot of pain, but he will eventually break due to sleep deprivation and the threat of losing his eyes, minds or to remain paralyzed.

Case 4 (the ultimate John): X > life, senses, mental sanity, existence itself. This is simply the most important thing to him, he identifies himself with his principles. In this case, there's only one option for Ben: to induce unlimited pain. Now let's assume John is immortal and he doesn't get crazy no matter what. But Ben has the possibility to increase the level of pain all the time. The question is: will John be able to resist unlimited pain and stick to his principles?

Reply to Eugen The psychic driving experiments by that sick doctor in Canada showed one pattern where you shatter the personality and break the person down into an open scared near personalityless human. Then you start filling in stuff. I read a book a long time ago by one women who went through this. She did manage to get her self back to some degree - though she was forever damaged psychically. I'd guess that secret programs have built on that guy's work and the work of others.

Quoting Eugen

With the necessary time and methods can a man change the belief of another man, no matter how powerful that belief is, or are there certain beliefs that are rooted so strongly that they simply become irreversible and they cannot be changed not even in an eternity?
EG. Could someone/something convince those Budhist monks who set themselves on fire for their cause to become atheists and think Budhism is wrong?

It's possible.

Quoting Eugen

With the necessary time and methods can a man change the belief of another man, no matter how powerful that belief is, or are there certain beliefs that are rooted so strongly that they simply become irreversible and they cannot be changed not even in an eternity?

In my experience it's not normally the case that one person changes another's mind in the way you indicate. Rather, each person's encounters with the speech of others contributes to change in that person's philosophical outlook over time.

That change is often quite gradual. I register changes in my own views and in the views of my long-term interlocutors on the scale of decades. The conversations we have are not an isolated series of exchanges. Each of us is influenced by encounters with many others. Our interpersonal exchanges are small parts of a greater cultural process in which worldviews shift over generations and centuries.

Yes, it seems reasonable to expect that your conversations may have some effect on the thoughts of another. No, it is not reasonable to expect that you can in general direct the course of change in other people's philosophical views by the power of your arguments, if only you have enough time.

Reply to Cabbage Farmer If you're trying to convince someone that 1+1=55 you will eventually convince him, it's just a matter of time.
Example: you're trying to convince me that Communism is better than Democracy and you provide me with certain arguments. You can't convince me at first, but during time, providing me the same arguments in different ways, you will eventually convince me. I think this can work for certain things, but definitely not in all cases.

Reply to Coben Again, shattering the personality by force is different from auto-destruction with free will. It's similar to killing somebody, the only difference being that you don't kill them physically, you just kill their personality. In this case, I agree with you: if you can't simply resist due to biological limits, then you will eventually be transformed.
But if under torture one says "I could theoretically resist, but I am just sick and tired of this pain and misery, so I'm gonna give up.", then this is totally different.

Quoting Eugen

If you're trying to convince someone that 1+1=55 you will eventually convince him, it's just a matter of time.

I assume we're talking on essential beliefs of a person's original project or basic ideology. These beliefs are not usually based on rational logic but on psychology and a complex mix of desires, fears and rationalizations. This is valid for fanatics but also for moderate people. The Cartesian rational man is a myth.
Reasons only convince someone who wants to be convinced.

Thomas Kuhn said that scientific paradigm changes never happened because they convinced the proponents of ancient science, but because they died. If this is in a rational field like science, you can imagine in morality or politics. The USSR did not fall because of the moral superiority of the arguments for democracy, but because the communist leaders realized that they could make more money from capitalism.

Reply to Eugen I doubt that is what a person would think. I am being a bit fussy, since you might be able to change the wording to make it seem more believable to me, but it just strikes me as too rational. I have weighed the suffering and I now choose to give myself over. The little conscious thinky thingie in the forebrain would be noticing the decision the bulk of its unconscious made for it.

Yes, I agree. Some people would choose to stop. *I am going to talk sooner or later* my holding out does nothing and it's hell*

Sure.

My main point is that there is a kind of blaming the victim in saying that 'really' they could have held out and they 'chose' to give in, they were not forced. I don't think that's useful or correct. It's also got a kind of, to me, magical Arnold Swartzenegger macho fantasy in it.

Reply to David Mo "I assume we're talking on essential beliefs of a person's original project or basic ideology. These beliefs are not usually based on rational logic but on psychology and a complex mix of desires, fears and rationalizations. This is valid for fanatics but also for moderate people. The Cartesian rational man is a myth.
Reasons only convince someone who wants to be convinced."

I do not agree. I consider myself rational when, for example, I say communist Romania was far worse than nowadays Romania: the wages were lower, the purchasing power was lower, there were no products, there was no electricity for most of the day, no hot water for more than 2 hours/day, GDP/capita was lower, the freedom of speech was totally nonexistent, people had to wait for a few years just to get the car that they had already paid for, and that was just a low-quality car, etc. All these things are not subjective things, they're facts. Yes, there were few things (maybe 5-10%) better than in present. But overall, what we call living standards, they are far higher now. The reason many people in my country say Romania was better under Ceausescu it's because they are nostalgic, ignorant or they simply have this reflex of complaining, and all these are subjective views.
Was life more interesting back then? Maybe, I have no idea, but one could convince me it was, but no one could convince me that living standards were higher.

"The USSR did not fall because of the moral superiority of the arguments for democracy, but because the communist leaders realized that they could make more money from capitalism."
USSR broke because its economy collapsed.

Back to the rational matter: being irrational doesn't necessarily mean you will eventually change your view. For example, some people still believe in ghosts, and some of them are actually very into science. I myself have an engineer friend who is very smart and he thinks magic or ghosts are real things. I simply see nothing that could convince him otherwise. How can he "realize" ghosts are not true?

Reply to Coben "The little conscious thinky thingie in the forebrain would be noticing the decision the bulk of its unconscious made for it." - that's NOT free will.

"My main point is that there is a kind of blaming the victim in saying that 'really' they could have held out and they 'chose' to give in, they were not forced." - this is still a debate on the Pitesti experiment matter. Victims were transformed into aggressors by torture, and there's still this tendency of blaming the "new aggressors". I myself DO NOT agree with this. Even if they acted freely, you couldn't put the blame on them, "Bring my mother here, I want to kill her for giving me birth!" this is what one of the prisoners shouted after few weeks in Pitesti. Put the blame on him for breaking? Never!

Quoting Eugen

that's NOT free will.

I'm not taking a stand on free will or determinism and in fact I consider myself agnostic on the issue. I do think we can do to minds something that parallels using force on bodies.Quoting Eugen

Put the blame on him for breaking? Never!

Great.

Reply to Coben "I do think we can do to minds something that parallels using force on bodies." - We almost agree on that. Why almost? I do agree that if you shatter the mind and personality, then you could make one rape and kill his own family. But this is a physical limit. That's not free will, because it's not the mind acting, it's the brain
What I'm saying is that indeed, in most cases people give up long before the mind is shattered. But in some cases, incredible people just won't give up until it's simply physically impossible to oppose. But when that happens, it is NOT the mind that takes the decision, but the reptilian brain.

Reply to Coben"It's also got a kind of, to me, magical Arnold Swartzenegger macho fantasy in it." - no, to my mind those who resist for a good cause are pure heroes, nothing macho.

Reply to Eugen It's exceedingly difficult to get someone to change a deeply rooted belief in real time, but sometimes it does occur.

More realistically, persuasive arguments tend to act over time by slowly wearing down confidence and giving rise to reflection and examination, until finally intellectual furniture gets spontaneously rearranged in the hush and dead of night.

If you ask people for their opinion, they might haphazardly form one right on the spot, and then argue to the death that this was their true and well reasoned perspective. People don't like to feel wrong, so we tend to just rationalize when necessary, but at some point, perhaps even without being consciously aware, our opinions change. Once there's sufficient emotional distance between our old beliefs/ our historical wrongness, we feel comfortable talking about how we graciously and intellectually evolved toward nuance....

If you really want to see someone transform in real time, then your argument needs to utterly encompass their own (your argument must be more persuasive in every possible way), and you've got to offer it to them as an alternative to their own position. It's more of a sales game than it is a matter of reason, logic, or philosophy. Most importantly, your position must come with all the same irrational or emotional cushions of your interlocutor's position, else it will be more comfortable for them to stay at rest. Focusing on the wrongness of their position almost never works because people would rather be wrong than be confused and uncomfortable; without an attractive alternative position or understanding which is robust enough to fully replace their own (and simple enough for them to learn it in a single sitting), it never happens in earnest.

Counter-intuitively, the more you focus on the wrongness of someone's position (as opposed to the superiority of an alternative position), they more stubbornly they tend to defend and cling to it. (As if they are committed to their own brand)...

Maybe one way to look at it is that we don't live within many of our convictions. They are experienced as boundaries of our experience. They are preserved, not because of any action repeated by the "believer" but because nothing else came along to require a reassessment.

When I apply that measure to my own beliefs, it is kind of scary. The reassessment is starting to look pretty darn important.

Quoting Eugen

I consider myself rational when, for example, I say communist Romania was far worse than nowadays Romania

Quoting Eugen

USSR broke because its economy collapsed.

A "true communist" will discuss this conclusions in many ways, usually refusing to accept that Ceausescu was a communist or blaming the USSR leadership for having abandoned a true communist economy at one time or another. These are not hypothetical cases. I have argued with "real communists" many times and I know them well. I never convinced any of them.

I'm not going to launch an argument about communism with you. This is not the time to do that. Just one thing: don't hasten to shoot the " true communist". "True Christians", "true democrats", "true neoliberals" and a lot of "true this or that" are the same thing."Truism" is a very common plague that no one wants to admit to being infected with. So are you and I.

Debates serve only one purpose: to refine our basic beliefs... if you have an open mind. If you are an open-minded man (that is, you are capable of revising your basic beliefs, -a rare specimen of humanity), reality will most likely change them. Not a "fool" who contradicts you.

Go into any forum and see.

Why aren't we able to change ingrained beliefs through discussion? Because ideologies are not just belief systems but ways of life. They are anchored in our personal and public relations, our economy and our desires and hopes. In other words, our life project. Changing a basic belief means changing one's concept of oneself and one's position in the world. And this is not the same as recognizing that two plus two does not always make four.

It is either life itself that pushes you, or you have to be brave.

Quoting Eugen

What I'm saying is that indeed, in most cases people give up long before the mind is shattered. But in some cases, incredible people just won't give up until it's simply physically impossible to oppose. But when that happens, it is NOT the mind that takes the decision, but the reptilian brain.

I don't see the mind and the brain as different, just self on a spectrum. This is because I don't think 'physical' means anything other than 'real'. It used to mean something but no longer. They're both self and neither one is solid.Quoting Eugen

- no, to my mind those who resist for a good cause are pure heroes, nothing macho.

The fantasy is not that one can resist or does, it's that you can choose regardless.

Reply to Coben I think mind/consciousness + unconscious = brain. I also think free will is the capacity of the conscious brain (mind) to act against all instincts, desires (physical/biological/deterministic desires). If free will does not exist, this discussion is a non-starter. It's all about a physical state of the brain, nothing more. But if free will does exist, then there's a fight between the unconscious brain who says "please make it stop!" and the mind who says "this thing is bigger than life, pain, mental state and everything else, so I will not give up!". There are two ways:
1. The torturer physically shatters the mind, so even if the mind decides to resist it cannot do so, because the unconscious is in control - your view.
2. No matter how hard it is, the mind has the last word, so theoretically it has an unlimited room of maneuver. If sticking to the principles is the most important thing in the world, the number 1 priority for the victim, with an unlimited power of decision, can that person resist unlimited pain?

Reply to Valentinus You said something very important: "... we don't live within many of our convictions.". This is a key element in my opinion: we think that we are strongly attached to one idea and that we would never give up on that idea, but the reality is that the fundaments of our beliefs are weak and untested, so they are just an illusion.
In my opinion, truly identifying with something is when that thing is embodied in our senses, both rational and emotional, when it had been tested in all known ways, understood and it became part of our understanding, like knowing 1+1 = 2. I know there are things like faith or personal views that are fundamentally different from 1+1 = 2 because they also contain lots of relative and subjective things, but sometimes the emotional attachment is even stronger than the rational side.

Reply to David Mo I just couldn't agree more with everything you said.
1. Yes, our beliefs have to be tested constantly, no matter how strong they are - arguments or reality itself may confirm or invalidate them. I think the reality is the best point of reference, but what can you do when you mix it with the internal subjectivism?
Eg: When I'm arguing with people who state Romania under Ceausescu was better, I bring objective arguments on the table, like salaries, inflation, freedom of speech and all the other elements that are universally defined as "living standards". But at the end of the day, these are just conventions. My opponent could say "I liked it more back then, we all had a job and we all knew that tomorrow we'd go to work, and that was a sense of security. Moreover, the music was better, people were more inclined to real art unlike modern pop culture, and foreign countries use to respect us, not like today when they call us gypsies." So who am I to judge that some numbers are more important than the human state? If tomorrow I lost my job and suffered a trauma because of it, I would probably change my view on the before '89 life in Romania, who knows.
At the same time, if my argument against nostalgics is referring strictly to the living standards conventions, then, in my opinion, I win simply because I am stating objective figures, so I am attaching myself to an objective truth. The only way I could change my mind is to find out I live in a sort of Matrix world where everything is forged, but this is not even an argument for the pro-Ceausescu folks.
2. Regarding your second post: yes, I do believe the ingrained beliefs are strongly connected and integrated into our daily life and our personality, but once the sources of these beliefs are changed, then beliefs themselves are likely to change too. Eg: one believes in a deity who will always protect him from cancer no matter what. One day he gets cancer and suffers, therefore his belief is likely to disappear as well because reality gets in contradiction with the foundation of his faith.
But I also believe certain faiths/beliefs have a deeper layer and they are to be found the abstract part of nature and their fundaments are not concrete, therefore it's very tricky to destroy them.
Eg: one believes in a deity that created the Universe/Multiverse and life, but doesn't intervene or interact in any way, therefore the argument of evidence does not matter because by definition this God doesn't want to be found in this way. The same person believes in this God because he simply cannot conceive life or conscience without an abstract part of nature. He had encountered all the deterministic and materialistic known arguments before, but these arguments couldn't convince him, and there were plenty of real flaws in the materialistic vision. So how could this guy be convinced he's wrong? Only if one day he draws the conclusion life is just a bunch of atoms. How could this happen if all the existing arguments haven't convinced him so far? It's a mystery :)

Reply to VagabondSpectre "More realistically, persuasive arguments tend to act over time by slowly wearing down confidence and giving rise to reflection and examination, until finally intellectual furniture gets spontaneously rearranged in the hush and dead of night."
Interesting view. So you're saying that insisting is a key element. I would also add that the way you expose your arguments matters as well. I do believe this works in many cases, but again, repeating the same thing again and again even in many ways doesn't convince me it's a 100% success rate. Eg: I don't believe repeating to that Buddhist monk over and over again that Buddhism is false would ever succeed. I think he'd rather set himself on fire for being so annoyed by the situation.

Quoting Eugen

I think mind/consciousness + unconscious = brain. I also think free will is the capacity of the conscious brain (mind) to act against all instincts, desires (physical/biological/deterministic desires).

I wouldn't want to act against all desires. More or less by definition.Quoting Eugen

But if free will does exist, then there's a fight between the unconscious brain who says "please make it stop!" and the mind who says "this thing is bigger than life, pain, mental state and everything else, so I will not give up!".

But in the end it isn't bigger than that. I want to take care of me. That's a big priority. I don't want to sacrifice myself.for ideals. I would see it a bit like an animal that freezes and stops feeling when the lion is eating its guts out. Or, a pause that reduce the long term damage by giving in now. This need not be a mental conscious choice but an organismic one. Just as I would not fight physically in some situations with a swat team bearing down on me. Survive, live to (hopefully) later return to myself another day. I think the organism should make this turn. I am not even sure it is a giving up.

Reply to Coben "I wouldn't want to act against all desires. More or less by definition." Free will represents exactly the power to act against these desires when they're against your targets, principles or ideals.
I understand your point of view and I actually tend to agree with you that under such terrible pressure there's a point from where the organism takes control over mind in the process of decision. But this is not convincing, this is simply forcing. It's like killing someone and say " now he doesn't believe in God anymore".

But just think for a moment... what if we're both wrong and the mind has the last word to say in the term of decision making? It's probably not true, but let's assume that for the sake of the argument.
Reply to Coben "But in the end it isn't bigger than that. I want to take care of me. That's a big priority. I don't want to sacrifice myself.for ideals. "
Not you, some people would, there are plenty of examples out there. They just don't give a damn about themselves in the biological sense when it comes to ideals. So assuming the mind will always decide, are you sure every human being, regardless of their personality, would rape, torture and burn their family alive if a torturer persuaded them to do so?

Quoting Eugen

Free will represents exactly the power to act against these desires when they're against your targets, principles or ideals.

Those are just fancy desires. I desire to be good to others and not just myself. I desire to achieve such and such a goal because of X. It's just more desires. Desires are not just about food and sex, etc.Quoting Eugen

But this is not convincing, this is simply forcing.

Well, that's what I mean. I mean, if your convincing cannot be stopped then it is forcing. But yes, my whole point is that the mind can be forced.Quoting Eugen

It's like killing someone and say " now he doesn't believe in God anymore".

Except they are alive and will contradict their previous belief. So, it's not like that.Quoting Eugen

Not you, some people would, there are plenty of examples out there.

They might want to in the abstract, but if they are honest and know themselves and have decent introspection, they will know that they will not want this at a certain point. People have all sorts of fantasies and misconceptions about themselves. I mean, I have been through some shit in childhood that would have broken a lot of people. I am hardly a hedonist or an avoid painist. In fact I think I have at times had too high a tolerance for emotional pain. Physical pain, at least some kinds I am a wuss, other kinds, I can take a lot. Stick needles in my eyes, well, I am gonna talk. If you mind/brain is starved for what it must have, while also being forced to experience pain/horror and isolation those people break just like I would. There are sloppy torturers, but if you have a competent modern expert, they break everyone.Quoting Eugen

They just don't give a damn about themselves in the biological sense when it comes to ideals.

In short term decisions, sure. Dive in front of the bus to save someone else's kid. Rush into fire to save fellow soldiers. And of course resist torture up to a point in relation to ideals. I have made some very dangerous spontaneous choices that put me at great risk to help others. But none of this is like being tortured over a long time to where you barely know yourself and people can start putting shit in. It's not about having ideals and priorities. It's what one needs to be whole.Quoting Eugen

So assuming the mind will always decide, are you sure every human being, regardless of their personality, would rape, torture and burn their family alive if a torturer persuaded them to do so?

Oh, that I'm not sure of. Cause then ther person has to be functional. I think it is possible that if you systematically rape someone over long period of time while breaking down their minds in ways I have decribing and then build it up, that yes, everyone would be vulnerable to that. But I don't know. I have been arguing that anyone will give up secrets to end their suffering, regardless of the consequences - if the torturers have the time and know the tortures that do not risk killing the victim. Or that the person can be convinced they believe the opposite of what they do. To me that is different from being released to perform acts. I think it is possible we can all be Manchurian CAndidated. But I don't know.

Reply to Coben "Those are just fancy desires. I desire to be good to others and not just myself. I desire to achieve such and such a goal because of X. It's just more desires. Desires are not just about food and sex, etc." Just because they have a cause doesn't make them fantasies. Sacrifice your body for what you consider a greater cause is as real as hunger. Moreover, the nature of wishes, desires, etc differs. Hunger is different from wanting to lose weight. If the body asks for food and you don't eat, it doesn't happen because of another stronger instinctual impulse that oppose the former. It is a conscious act based on a desire that has no biological effect in the moment of hunger. But that's a free will debate and it's not my desire to debate it.

Reply to Coben "Except they are alive and will contradict their previous belief. So, it's not like that."
You are right, I gave a wrong example. It is more like a rapist violating his victim and saying "now she wants me".

Reply to Coben "They might want to in the abstract, but if they are honest and know themselves and have decent introspection, they will know that they will not want this at a certain point."
Nobody wants to be tortured from the beginning, but I think you wanted to say that after a fair introspection, they will realise that they will eventually be incapable of resisting. That's very different from wanting.

Reply to Coben"I have made some very dangerous spontaneous choices that put me at great risk to help others. But none of this is like being tortured over a long time to where you barely know yourself and people can start putting shit in. It's not about having ideals and priorities. It's what one needs to be whole."
Spontaneous things are different from going into a dangerous business after long introspection. There are people who do stuff knowing all the possible consequences if this is right or wrong is a matter of perspective. It's hard to judge. I really tend to agree with you, but history showed us many cases of people who simply didn't give a damn about remaining a whole. And I don't know if that happened because of sloppy torture.

Quoting Eugen

Just because they have a cause doesn't make them fantasies.

I didn't say anything about fantasies. I wasn't saying anything to denigrate them. When I said
'fancy' I did not mean 'fantasy' but rather complicated or nuanced. My point was that they are, regardless of their qualities, desires. I referred to all desires. I would not want to go against my desires in general. Why would I WANT that? If I want to be a good man, for example, that's a desire. If I want my actions to cause harm or to serve the greater good or whatever even more refined, ideal, supposedly egoless goal one can come up with, these are desires. We are humans, we can have all sorts of things as desires.Fancy as a noun can refer to fantasy, but as an adjective:

elaborate in structure or decoration.
"the furniture was very fancy"

Just because there may be other desires these desires seem to override, does not make them any less desires, even very simple animals can be torn between desires, albeit less fancy ones. And hidden behind seemingly noble desires can be any motives such as the desire to not be what dad said I was or the desire to be special or not evil. IOW interpersonal goals with really rather primitive social mammal relational aspects.

Quoting Eugen

If the body asks for food and you don't eat, it doesn't happen because of another stronger instinctual impulse that oppose the former.

If you want to lose weight it is generally, for example, because you desire to live longer or you desire to look more attractive. Desires. Since we are social mammals, our desires can have a lot to do with other people. They are still desires. Often about how we want to think of ourselves or feel ourselves to be. Quoting Eugen

You are right, I gave a wrong example. It is more like a rapist violating his victim and saying "now she wants me".

I don't think so. You are viewing it as NOT BEING some specific claim by the torturer. For some reason you are focusing on the torturer, here, rather than, as I am, on the effects of torure. Like the torturer is really claiming to be charismatic or a great arguer and you don't think he is. I agree with you, and I am not saying that. It doesn't matter how the torturer might boast, in these inaccurate frames, about what he did. That's not what I'm focused on. I am not focused on any claims by the torturer. I am just saying the torturer can force X. Can make x happen. If he, and presumably most are a he, frames what he has done in the wrong way, this doesn't change what can or will happen to us if we experience skilled torture. Quoting Eugen

That's very different from wanting.

In those final moments they will want to agree with the voice that offers water or sleep. They will want the pain to stop, they will want to say X is good and even believe it when they did not believe it before.Quoting Eugen

And I don't know if that happened because of sloppy torture.

And I can't know for sure. But I think we can all be broken.

Reply to Eugen

The examples you propose are accompanied by answers you propose. So you are always more objective than your opponent... according to your subjective criterion of objectivity.
But the problem I was raising with you concerns issues that are basic to a belief system. There the different positions, yours and your opponent's, are no longer objective and are based on principles that are not objective. For example, what is better communism or capitalism? Which is better, a system that favors equality or a system that favors individualism?

This is the kind of discussion that your opponent can most easily engage in. He will probably reject your criteria and divert the discussion into preferences rather than rational arguments. That is why the discussion never ends with the basic beliefs of either party. It can be said that there are no winners or losers.

Reply to David Mo The people I argue with are not concerned with communism, they actually consider the pre-Ceausescu period very dark and so do I, it was much worse than what came after 1965. They just praise Ceausescu and the period when he ruled Romania and they have this feeling that our country was really strong back then. What I am saying is that this is not an ideological battle, but a living standards one. Moreover, people usually have the idea that salaries, exports or GDP were actually higher back then, which is simply false. The fact that I truly consider myself more objective doesn't mean it's not true. On top of that, studies show that 80% of those who are nostalgic for that era wouldn't return to that period if they had the possibility to. So I truly and objectively believe I am more objective than they are.

Reply to Coben I agree they are all desires, but there are many types of desires different from each other in their nature. Even if they are all initially created by biological/genetical and environmental/cultural factors, they act differently. Eg: hunger is a biological desire and it acts through biology, while the desire to lose weight appears from a combination of biology and culture, but it can only act through mind. Cut the power of mind to act against hunger and you'll eat like a wolf.

Of course, boasting wasn't the central part of my "rapist" analogy. I am perfectly aware that the main objective is more important for both the torturer (to make a person speak) and the rapist (to have sex). I was saying that it may be wrongly perceived in this way by some people. As we both agree, it is simply a matter of force, not will.

Reply to Coben "In those final moments they will want to agree with the voice that offers water or sleep. They will want the pain to stop, they will want to say X is good and even believe it when they did not believe it before."
Again, this is a battle of desires. Of course they will want the pain to stop, and I think this is a desire that occurs in the first moments of torture (biological desire). At the same time, they want to remain loyal to their ideals (desire of mind). These two will get in conflict and you're saying that in the end, mind will be nothing more than something that just observe what the body decides, or, in other words, you're stating that even if free will exists, it has a limited energy in comparison to the body. To make another analogy, the victim despises her rapist, but still has an orgasm produced by her body.

Quoting Eugen

but it can only act through mind. Cut the power of mind to act against hunger and you'll eat like a wolf.

in philosophy, generally, and for me, I find hunger as part of my mind, my experiencing of myself, part of the feelings and thoughts I have,. Rather than over here, in my mind, I have my desire for community connectedness and over there in my body I have my desire for food. Of course if you are distracted by your own words and think you are only logical, then anyone could not notice that their desire for, let's say, harmony with neighbors is also embodied. I have but one exeriencer, which is mind, which is me and it is embodied. Quoting Eugen

These two will get in conflict and you're saying that in the end, mind will be nothing more than something that just observe what the body decides,

now my desire to end ain is body, not mind, not me. I find all of these things as one thing, me. I want the pain to stop. In my mind, as my mind. As a body, and in my body those feelings.Quoting Eugen

To make another analogy, the victim despises her rapist, but still has an orgasm produced by her body.

Very rarely, though it does happen, and if we are talking about more grooming type rapes - rather than the stranger pulls you into the bushes one shot events - then the chances go up a lot that a woman may have an orgasm. I am not sure if the analogy to rape holds or not in as fitting my position. I don't really this part.

I am desire. I am emotions. I am thoughts. I am a body, I am a mind.

That's all me. And my desires yes, can be more frontal lobe run as opposed to brain stem or limbic system run. But frontal lobe desires can lead to things like the Holocaust. You cannot document and organize the systematic eradication of a people and cut off empathy without using the frontal lobes. Without centering in them. Frontal lobe decisions can be monstrous or great. I don't buy the higher lower desire thing. (You did not use those metaphors, but it seems like there is something similar underlying your argument.

As if I should feel distaste for eating like a wolf. Wolves share food with weaker members. They are family and community members and these qualities are likely a big reason we domesticated them more and more. The only problem with eating like a wolf is that my stomach and intestines don't deal with raw meat and big chunks very well. Animals eat in ways suitable for their digestive systems and diets. I don't think the
natural
human would eat like a wolf. The natural human stressed by modern life that does not fit its needs, does not allow the natural kinds of physical actiivities its mind and body need, that overstimulates those things often late into the night with digital devices and too much light, that with an animal (us) that didn't get what it quite needed as a child, may very well wolf down food. Handling this as a frontal lobe is going to be the jailer of the limbic system never really solves the problem. In fact many of the problems have been caused by judgments that the frontal lobes know what they are doing and by pathologizing the other parts of the brain.

Empathy, and curiosity, for example come from below the frontal lobes, and in fact you need to suppress these things (via racism or schooling) using the frontal lobes, if you have certain goals. I am much more interested in solutions moving towards unity, not hierarchy.

Quoting Eugen

So I truly and objectively believe I am more objective than they are.

I'm sure they will think otherwise.

What matters in a discussion is not "true objectivity," whatever that means, but the depth to which beliefs are rooted and the rhetorical capacity to make arguments that sound fine.

In a discussion everyone talks to themselves as this brief exchange between you and me shows. Have you ever thought that you were wrong? Ask yourself.

Reply to David Mo "I'm sure they will think otherwise."
I do not necessarily agree. There are times when they truly think the salaries back then were higher. If you show them today's salary > 1989's salary, then I am sure they get it. It's pure logic, it's a fact. If they still argue, it means they just don't accept the defeat for the moment, or they are simply deluding.
"What matters in a discussion is not "true objectivity," whatever that means, but the depth to which beliefs are rooted and the rhetorical capacity to make arguments that sound fine." I do and I don't agree. Yes, you are right, rhetoric is damn important. I used to fight against Americans arguing that Romania has better living standards than USA. I remember I used to bring up DPRK type arguments when criticizing USA (poverty, inequality, racism, trailer parks, ghettos, etc), in other words truths. My opponents did the same, they brought up truths. In the end, it was a "my truth" is more important than yours, everything became relative. But I do not agree with the final purpose: convincing. At the end of the day, I knew I wasn't right and inside me, I knew I was just cheating. A good rhetoric is not the same with the truth. And this also answers your last question.

Reply to Coben "in philosophy, generally, and for me, I find hunger as part of my mind, my experiencing of myself, part of the feelings and thoughts I have,. " I can only agree mind is also part of the brain. But hunger is not the same as wanting to lose weight. In the deterministic view, they are both the same and when they meet each other is something like this:
Feeling of hunger vs Feeling of losing weight, moment of time t -> hunger chemicals vs losing weight chemicals, if, at the moment t, hunger chemicals > losing weight chemicals -> you'll eat and your conscious brain/mind will only witness. For me this is bollocks. My opinion is the following:
When you're starving, there's no damn chemical that makes you feel NOT to eat. Your unconscious brain produces chemicals that only mean "EAT! EAT! EAT!...". There's no part of your unconscious instinctive mind that says "Nooo, starving is beautiful!", it's simply not there. Yes, there is a part embodied in your unconscious mind that wants to lose weight, but in times of hunger, they are not active, they produce an infim quantity of chemicals compared to hunger. So now what I call mind comes into action. The mind is not about chemicals or instincts, it's about information. That information influences the unconscious brain and it makes it stay away from food. This is a two-way process and this is why all determinists state that consciousness is there only to witness, nothing more. For me it sounds so silly especially when it comes from people who play the role of rational fatalistic. This is the Achile's heel of the deterministic view. You stated hunger is part of your mind as well. Yes, I agree it is a part of you and I agree it becomes a part of your mind at the informational level. Yes, wanting to lose weight could be the same. But when you're hungry, you don't feel the need to lose weight, you just feel the need to eat. This is where what I call mind comes into play, it prioritizes and it has the capacity to fight against deterministic reactions of your brain and body.
I also agree that "me" is more than mind. I am also my brain and my hands. They act as a whole. I am not sure if we have a fundamentally different opinion on this one, I think I am calling mind what you're calling the frontal lobe.

"...eating like a wolf" - my bad, I used it as a metaphor for "eating a lot/digging in", not eating uncooked. I was trying to say that even if there's a desire to lose weight, and that desire is also part of your unconsciousness or instinct, it cannot act in times of hunger without the "what I call mind" part of the brain.

Reply to David Mo I remembered something even more interesting. I am a fan of Real Madrid football/soccer(US) team. Their rivals are FC Barcelona. Well, when I was a child I had a friend who was Barcelona's fan. He told me that Nou Camp (Barca's stadium) had a bigger attendance capacity than Bernabeu (Real's stadium). I just couldn't agree. I searched everywhere I could, but all sources indicated to me he was right. But I would still argue with him and I would bring up all sorts of lies just to contradict him. The truth is that inside I was convinced I was wrong.
I think one of the mysteries of this topic represents a sort of emotional attachment to our beliefs that sometimes makes us irrational.

Quoting Eugen

I can only agree mind is also part of the brain. But hunger is not the same as wanting to lose weight.

I don't think I suggested they are.Quoting Eugen

Feeling of hunger vs Feeling of losing weight, moment of time t -> hunger chemicals vs losing weight chemicals, if, at the moment t, hunger chemicals > losing weight chemicals -> you'll eat and your conscious brain/mind will only witness

Sure, and I am not a determinist. But a parallel unpleasance comes from free will.

I am hungry. I remember that I want to lose weight. My hunger is the animal in me. Using free will I override the animal (mechanical) part of myself and choose a higher value.

I don't think that has helped us in the least. It has increased actual battles in the self and between brain portions, a bit like how religions sided with those parts of the brain that could suppress the so-called beast in us.Quoting Eugen

That information influences the unconscious brain and it makes it stay away from food.

To me it is just frontal lobes looking down on other parts. We are very smart nuanced mammals. I don't weigh in on the free will vs determinism for reasons I have taken up elsewhere, but I see your philosophy as a kind of taking the side of the frontal lobes and disidentifying with portions of yourself. Of course you can do this if you want, but I think it adds to splits and it goes against my desires, even, in the long run, have my frontal lobes realized that they don't want to disidentify with the limbic system the brain stem, etc. But it has taken CONTRAST for the lobes to get this. and also long noticing the problems with brain or self or mind factions.Quoting Eugen

I also agree that "me" is more than mind. I am also my brain and my hands

You're also that part of yourself that you think is utterly determined.Quoting Eugen

it cannot act in times of hunger without the "what I call mind" part of the brain.

And I think what you are calling mind is the frontal lobes. still brain, still body. For a couple of thousand years at least we have been told that those lobes are good and the other parts are bad, problematic, need to be suppressed and controlled and so on. Yes, by religions, but also by the scientific and 'see-themselves as rational emotional phobic portions of the human race. Both ask for a disidentifcation, where one part of the brain says 'I am the person, the rest isn't really' and also with different ways we are supposed to suppress those other parts. One part of the self disengaging from, saying it superior to, other parts.

I think this has done untold damage. But, then, personally, I have found it much more valuable to work towards unification.

And your example is eating/diet. We can have a mirror image of this. I grew up around other races. I had no idea there was racism. My limbic system told me they were human like me and I automatically felt empathy and the full range of good and bad feelings about them just as I did mainly for other kids, since I have more interaction with them than adults. Later various things tried to engage my frontal lobes to suppress my natural identification with, say, black children. Racist propaganda generally needs the frontal lobes. You can't have a holocaust without incredible propaganda and arguments. You need words and categories and justification and these can then override the obvious.

I don't want to side with one part of my brain over the other parts. They are meant to act as a unit, though from the moment of birth babies start getting subtle non-verbal and later as toddlers explicit and verbal judgments of emotional expression and certain kinds of body movements. We've been trained so long in the split, we think it is natural and the only way to live.

Reply to Coben I do believe most of the elements that make us who we are are deterministic. Moreover, I believe the things that free will acts on are actually determined. For example, the desire of losing weight isn't a matter of free will, it is determined by socio-biological factors. Most of those people who kill women with stones can't be morally blamed for that because they really think killing a woman in this way is a divine duty, therefore a good thing. Can you blame someone doing what they think is right or for having a different system of values? But in the case of Hitler, I personally believe he knew he was wrong even by his own moral standards, but he simply went through with it.
I don't believe free will is good or bad and I don't believe instincts are good or bad. I think free will is like technology: it represents a part of evolution and it was originally meant to improve lives, but use it in the wrong way and it will be much worse than not having it.

Reply to Eugen
Yes. And Messi is the best football player in the world.

Quoting Eugen

I think free will is like technology: it represents a part of evolution and it was originally meant to improve lives, but use it in the wrong way and it will be much worse than not having it.

Who uses it who is not determined? What wouldn't that person freely choose according to socio-biological desires? Do they freely choose to do things they do not desire? To me the whole free will thing is moot, in the context of what we are talking about, because I have no reason to go against my desires. Or in a sense, myself. I would only fight torturers and try not to reveal something because of my desire to fight them/protect something I care about etc. Desires motivate.

Reply to Coben "Or in a sense, myself. I would only fight torturers and try not to reveal something because of my desire to fight them/protect something I care about etc. Desires motivate."
Yes. Your resist torture for something palpable, like protecting your family, or for something less palpable, like an ideal or simply because you hate your enemy. Why would you do this or not? I have no idea, I just know that some went through the torture and pain until the end.
There was this Romanian ruler killed by Austro-Hungarians. He was put in a steel armchair that was slowly heated with fire, they put a hot steel crown on his head and torture him in any possible way until he died because of the hot chair. History says he didn't even make a whimper. I don't know if that's true or not, but he definitely didn't talk and he defied his torturers until the end. And that was a super-brutal end. His friends were asked to drink his blood in order to escape torture, but they had refused so they were tortured and impaled. They suffered atrocious pain for days. I am not arguing this is a thing of desires, absolutely everything we do has to do with desires. But as I've previously said, there are different types of actions, and the capacity to act against your instinctual and unconscious brain, when you against all the physical signals that could be monitored in your brain, when all your chemistry orders you to do something but you're taking the opposite path, well, for me that's free will.

Reply to David Mo "The best" is something relative. 99.000 (Camp Nou) > 81.000 (Bernabeu), it's a fact, it's fundamentally different.

Quoting Eugen

Yes. Your resist torture for something palpable, like protecting your family, or for something less palpable, like an ideal or simply because you hate your enemy. Why would you do this or not? I have no idea, I just know that some went through the torture and pain until the end.

Sure, some have. I don't think their tortures were likely to have been patient enough, not like the nice base the psychic driver experiments used in Canada.

But that issue, the effectiveness of torture, or the ability to choose to resist it, is not the issue I was addressing there (though I have been in other posts) I was focused on the issue of choice that is not driven by desire. I don't know what that means. The only reason to choose to override the determined parts of the body (as you view it) that just want the pain to end, would to be satisfy other desires, often to protect what one loves. Well, that's a desire. I don't see what it means to make a free choice that is not based on desire. And desires involve bodies, emotions, what would metaphorically (and perhaps literally also) be called decisions of the heart.Quoting Eugen

There was this Romanian ruler killed by Austro-Hungarians. He was put in a steel armchair that was slowly heated with fire, they put a hot steel crown on his head and torture him in any possible way until he died because of the hot chair. History says he didn't even make a whimper. I don't know if that's true or not, but he definitely didn't talk and he defied his torturers until the end.

OK with a reminder that my point was the above, that I don't know what free will advocates are talking about when they see free choice as somehow above desires, this is a perfect example of poor torture. If the idea is turn someone against their own values. Sounds like he likely died within one day. This is like comparing throwing a kitchen knife at someone's head to neurosurgery. Instead of starting by burning his ass and legs, they could keep him from sleeping for a month. Then put him in stress positions. Play loud music and shine bright lights on him or like was done in Waco at the KOresh compound, play sounds of animals being killed for hours a day. Then do interrogations that are not meant to cause pain but rather confusion. Then used drugs force sleep on them, so they are ony awake a couple of hours over every few days. Then...well, one can mine my earlier posts for more. Occasionally, sure, rape them. It's amazing what rape can to a male ruler. And do it on and on and tell him that they are stealing his manhood. Occasionally, sure, do some pain stuff. Burns create incredible challenges for the survival of the body. There are many ways to inflict pain that do vastly less damage, so you can send them back into brainwashing, sensory overload, manipulation, lies, stress positions and isolation. I would guess I am not as tough as that guy. But I consider it possible tremendous rage and love of my family might keep me silent for a day. I don't think so, but I can't be sure. It's a blunt attack on a person. And patience and destruction of the self take time.Quoting Eugen

But as I've previously said, there are different types of actions, and the capacity to act against your instinctual and unconscious brain, when you against all the physical signals that could be monitored in your brain, when all your chemistry orders you to do something but you're taking the opposite path, well, for me that's free will.

It seems to me the choice is based on what one values, the love of family - so how they treated you, social ideas, the love you feel for them, empathy......

CAUSES.

The problem for free will advocates is to show that somehow things that went before did not cause what comes after.

The love that is built up over time - and I think it would be odd to say one chooses to love one's children - would be a cause from the moment before the decision to resist.

The ideal that I got from my parents and culture about not giving in that is also a cause in such situations, comes from the moment before and has in turn, going back further in time been caused, slowly over time, by external factors and by my inborn temperment. A cause.

I am not sitting in some causeless realm randomly choosing to resist torture over my body's impulses. I am following desires and ideals that were present before they starting torturing me.

CAuses.

I am not a determinist. That position has other problems.

But free will people seem to think what has come before, for example in this situation, does not cause what comes after.

Well, that would mean I make a decision not based on my desires, which were there before, not based on my past, which was there before, not based on my culture, which was there before, not based on my psychology, which was there before, not based on my values, which were built up before, not based on my relationships, which were present before I was taken to the torture room.

No I make a causeless decsion, free from the past, which includes free from all of me.

Honestly, Eugene, this will be my last post, because I feel lke we are going in circles even if we do agree about some things, and I get frustrated when I feel like people don't want to look at something scary, while I do look at it. Determinism is scary. I can't prove it wrong, but I don't feel it has been proven. However when I see arguments like yours, I know they don't make sense. And I think you are smart enough to know that you haven't demonstrated free will, just postulated it. Perhaps there is free will, but your argument does not makes sense. And what value would a free will be if the choices I made were not directly caused by things prior to my making that choice? It would not be based on my values and desires. It'd be random.

I'm out.

Reply to Coben I had a hunch before, but now I am sure you haven't read my posts carefully.

1. I stated repeatedly, even in my last post that EVERYTHING WE DO IS BASED ON DESIRES. I have also mentioned that EVERY desire has a CAUSE. So why are you still arguing that?
I am not saying I have demonstrated something, I just said is obvious that when some desires get in conflict with the others and it is NOT the physical or chemical world that ultimately decides in some cases. Therefore, those situations are not deterministic. Determinism is not just scary, is also stupid and it becomes dangerous when people actually take it seriously. I am smart enough to realise that it is just one of those things that look smart and "TOTB" at the beginning, but that eventually gets sillier and sillier once you go through it.
For the last time: if you were to monitor one's body with high-tech devices (like Liebet experiment) and all his physical signals indicate he will eat because of hunger but eventually he won't, than you've just debunked determinism. There's no relevance in what initially caused his desire to oppose the deterministic world of chemicals. Maybe he just wanted to contradict determinism haha. Why do you think in Liebet's experiment they won't let you try "fight against" the machine? Because you can actually do it and invalidate their silly experiment.

2. I noticed every time I give examples of people who resisted torture, you just say torture was sloppy. It is like saying "...this contradicts my view, but my view is 100% right, therefore it must have been something wrong with the torture". But let's think otherwise: what if the victims of the Canadian experiment were just weak? After all, Pitesti experiment was far more brutal and crueler and it lasted long enough, yet, it failed in some cases. Trust me, the "Securitate" weren't sloppy.

"Pitesti experiment was the most terrible act of barbarism in the contemporary world." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel prize winner

Reply to Coben
PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY

1. I am sure with proper training you could get over a rape. If you throw away the symbolic part of masculinity and other alpha-male silly things, you'll realise it is just a matter of physical contact. There were many guys raped who didn't break. There were men who ate feces and they got used to and did it just like a routine. It wasn't pleasant, but with exercise and a deep understanding of the situation, you'll get over it.

2. The noise part - If a torturer rewinds a cassette with the same phrase over and over again, you can simply get used to it and become immune. Proper training could solve this one too, there are people who live in sleep in terrible noises, many of them being repetitive. In fact, these people get so used to them and it becomes hard to re-accommodate to a normal environment.

3. Simply making someone lose his/her mind - this was actually a problem for torturers in Pitesti. They actually stop torturing those who went crazy and treated them. Only after they re-became normal they re-started torture. If you want to deal with a schizophrenic and convince them of something... good luck!

4. In my opinion, with proper training and mental strength, one could resist any psychological torture. So the last frontier remains the physical pain.

I respect your decision to stop writing, even if I consider you took this decision because you hadn't read my things properly and you simply jumped to some conclusions. This debate with you has really helped me to find some answers. Maybe the most interesting part is that I was overall in line with your opinion, but now I am 50/50. Maybe torture can be withstood after all.

To answer your last question: the fact that there are causes (and I agree they are there all the time) behind my values, this doesn't mean I will act according to my values.

Thank you!

Quoting Eugen

To answer your last question: the fact that there are causes (and I agree they are there all the time) behind my values, this doesn't mean I will act according to my values.

So your free will allows you to do things that do not fit your values and desires. That might be true, but it's not a freedom that offers me much. In this model I could choose to slap my wife for making a joke better than I did. I don't want to and it doesn't fit my values and I don't feel a bodily urge to do it, but I can choose to do this.

I don't know what this version of free will offers me. Note: t hat's not an argument against it being the case. It just is a version of freedom that offers me nothing of value. I want to do things I want to do. I want to do things I positively value (consciously or unconsciously).

As for the torture: I don't think you are right. You think you are. Neither of us will test it. Perhaps some day one of us will be proven right, though I doubt.

But the least you could have done was concede that a burning hot metal chair that leads to a death at most in a few days is not a test of anything. It's primarily pain and fear over a short period of time.
I think you are quite incorrect about how incredibly effective sound tortures are and since we can vary the sounds, which is what they do generally, the repetition argument holds no water. You can have random pauses, radical changes in volume, intersperse moments of pleasant music so the person relaxes, and do the same with lights, smell, hit cultural taboos and so on.Quoting Eugen

4. In my opinion, with proper training and mental strength, one could resist any psychological torture. So the last frontier remains the physical pain.

I would guess the combination is the hardest.

Quoting Eugen

Simply making someone lose his/her mind - this was actually a problem for torturers in Pitesti. They actually stop torturing those who went crazy and treated them. Only after they re-became normal they re-started torture. If you want to deal with a schizophrenic and convince them of something... good luck!

Yeah, you stop for a while, then you can put things in or start again. And you don't make them schizophrenics, you give them psychotic breaks, PTSD, dissociate disorders.

But this is all details. Neither of us can demonstrate what can be ruled out.

I don't want to talk about it any more.

Quoting Coben

this is a perfect example of poor torture

This is a perfect example of the fallacy of equivocation by persuasive definition. It's only 'real' torture if it conforms to my definition...for which there cannot be counterexamples.

If someone specifically intends to submit to the worst effects of the torture, then torture must be ineffective. Torture only succeeds where the human will fails.

Reply to Coben Ok, hopefully, torture will disappear because I think it's the ugliest thing that exists.
For me free will represents one's capacity to oppose his/her primary needs in order to achieve a goal that is not physically active. I don't care about the freedom itself, this is an abstract notion anyway. If my sacrifice it's not the result of a direct physical cause (and this is not very hard to demonstrate), then there's no determinism. Some of our decisions are simply caused by our "free" choice to act according to or against our ideals, ideals which are also probably determined. Determinism = physical chain and if you can act against it, then you're not 100% determined. Therefore we have a degree of autonomy and we hold responsibility for some of our actions. Causality does not automatically imply determinism. Big Bang is the initial cause of everything, but not even determinists state that because there was Big Bang, therefore everything is determined.
If you had a supercomputer knowing all my past and body reactions, it would still be incapable of knowing if I will choose to eat or hold on to my diet at one moment, because it will only be capable to measure the "hunger" signals, because only those will be active.
Your mistake is that you consider that HAVING A CAUSE = BEING DETERMINED. Some physical causes transform into reasons and they act differently. Even if what I call mind is caused by some physical events, it doesn't mean it's also physical. There's also information and in some cases, information gets a degree of autonomy from the physical world. Of course it is influenced, but not always determined.
I can't demonstrate that, but I am sure in few decades the technology will be able to show if we're only physical reactions or not.

Reply to Pantagruel Flawless reply!

Quoting Pantagruel

This is a perfect example of the fallacy of equivocation by persuasive definition. It's only 'real' torture if it conforms to my definition...for which there cannot be counterexamples.

Hm, in the context of my long discussion of torture with Eugen, I had long emphasized that long periods of time, combinations of various kinds of torture, are both more effective at getting people to say or do what you want, if only temporarily.

I am not saying that putting someone in a burning hot metal chair is not 'real' or real torture. I used the word poor. Eugen and I were having a discussion about if people could hold out. He then, as evidence, mentioned a ruler who was placed in a chair and I think died in under a day without making a sound, so the legend goes. I think that's poor torture (if one, for example, wants information or want to change their mind about something - the latter being the main focus of our discussion. I think that something, however painful, tha t lasts one day, is poor torture, in the context of my discussion with him, given the goals we were talking about.

I don't know where 'rea' came from.Quoting Pantagruel

It's only 'real' torture if it conforms to my definition...for which there cannot be counterexamples.

I don't think you understand the context. It happens, but I was not in any way saying that what he described was not torture. That's torture. Quoting Pantagruel

If someone specifically intends to submit to the worst effects of the torture, then torture must be ineffective. Torture only succeeds where the human will fails.

I don't know what you are talking about here. There are a lot of reasons people torture, so the second statement is not something I have said or agree with. I don't know if the first sentence is supposed to be what I am saying (actually not sure about either of them) or you are now presenting your opinions. I don't know what the context is of someone intending to submit to torture. I don't know how it relates to what I said.

Quoting Coben

I don't know what the context is of someone intending to submit to torture.

If someone intends to be made a martyr, for example.

Reply to Eugen What???? It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Where have I argued that something is not real torture? (for exmaple) Of course what that ruler when through was real torture. The issue, as I understood it, was whether one could ALWAYS or some people could ALWAYS hold out under ANY torture.

If for some reason you have gotten the impression I think that being killing in a burning hot metal chair is not torture, I failed to be clear. Of course that's torture. Of course he resisted if it was a he.

I thought I made it clear when I said I would likely have been broken by that torture. IOW that's me saying it is torture and that he managed to resist where I thought I might not be able to. That's me being open and honest about my own sense that I am not someone who is great at resisting. I am 100% sure that there are many people much, much better than me, and also that some people can be trained to be better, even me. None of that contradicts anything I have been saying.

When I say it's a poor torture, I meant as an example of a torture form demonstrating that there are people who can withstand any torture. You have been asserting that people can or probably can resist any torture. You gave an example of a torture, presumably to show how well people can resist and I pointed out that this is not a very effective type of torture compared to long term ones that include psychic driving.

And all this is in my posts.

Reply to Pantagruel OK, what does that have to do with one of my positions?

Quoting Coben

?Pantagruel OK, what does that have to do with one of my positions?

I guess it contradicts it.

Quoting Coben

. I am just saying the torturer can force X. Can make x happen

Quoting Pantagruel

I guess it contradicts it.

That people are martyrs (some people) proves that torturers cannot break people`? Cannot force them to give up information. That regardless of the torture some people will never give up information or have their minds broken down through psychic driving?

Could you give me the steps in the argument, instead of just saying it contradicts my position?

I certainly admit that some people intentionally put themselves in situations where they will be tortured. I believe that it true. I just don't think it contradicts what I've said.

He's saying that some people cannot be broken. He used the example of someone tortured for a day. I think that's poor evidence that people cannot be broken because it's not very effective torture. Sure, some people put themselves into a position to be tortured. Taht doesn't mean they wouldn't break under the more sophisticated forms of torture.

I've already admitted that I can't prove my position, and neither can he for that matter. I wanted to leave it there. Your counterexamples are not counterexamples to my position. I never said that other torture wasn't real.

I never said that no one can resist torture, which would be utterly clear if you read my earlier posts. Fine you didn't, but then I pointed out that you did not seem to understand the context, and you keep coming with the same not understanding the context. And you couldn't even be bothered to concede that I was not saying the torture I referred to as poor was not real.

And now you post without even arguing the point, just announcing victory.

I am done with the torture discussion. And....Reply to Eugen that was just silly. He was not responding to my positions, he doesn't even understand that you think some people will be able to resist anything and I don't. What the hell. I even conceded that neither of us can prove our positions. Now I am out for good. I mean seriously, I can understand him joining in and not knowing the context, but you've been a part of the discussion with me from the beginning. Jesus.

Quoting Coben

I can understand him joining in and not knowing the context, but you've been a part of the discussion with me from the beginning. Jesus.

I was actually the second person to respond to the OP, ahead of yourself.

Reply to Coben Quoting Coben

What???? It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Where have I argued that something is not real torture? (for exmaple) Of course what that ruler when through was real torture. The issue, as I understood it, was whether one could ALWAYS or some people could ALWAYS hold out under ANY torture.

If for some reason you have gotten the impression I think that being killing in a burning hot metal chair is not torture, I failed to be clear. Of course that's torture. Of course he resisted if it was a he.

I thought I made it clear when I said I would likely have been broken by that torture. IOW that's me saying it is torture and that he managed to resist where I thought I might not be able to. That's me being open and honest about my own sense that I am not someone who is great at resisting. I am 100% sure that there are many people much, much better than me, and also that some people can be trained to be better, even me. None of that contradicts anything I have been saying.

When I say it's a poor torture, I meant as an example of a torture form demonstrating that there are people who can withstand any torture. You have been asserting that people can or probably can resist any torture. You gave an example of a torture, presumably to show how well people can resist and I pointed out that this is not a very effective type of torture compared to long term ones that include psychic driving.

Dude, I never said that. Relax...

Reply to Coben I didn't talk only about one-day torture, I have mentioned the Pitesti experiment several times. It lasted 2 years and the torture was virtually non-stop and it came all kinds of forms. It is considered unique in its effects on oneself. Mao copied it in Pekin prison but with a far lower degree of brutality.
If there was "proper" torture in this world, than the "Securitate" and the communist regime would be artists. Even in these circumstances, some people resisted.

I would love to debate more with you, I really do believe you have strong arguments.

Disclaimer: please read this post in the lighthearted manner in which it was posted.

Quoting Frank Apisa

That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess.

Quoting Frank Apisa

Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?

That's an awfully reductive approach to a metaphysical question. Is it reasonable to apply that approach to the entirety of axiomatic beliefs?

- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood.

50-50?

- Either you can accept that other people actually exist...or you're the only consciousness in existence and this is all in your head.

50-50?

- Either logic & reason are efficient tools for uncovering truth...or they're a placebo to make us feel better about our beliefs...or at least make you feel better about yours since you may be the only consciousness in existence.

50-50?

The importance of metaphysics is that the conclusions one arrives at snowball into the rest of their beliefs/knowledge. If you've only got a 50-50 chance of being right about not being the only consciousnesses in existence, how in the world do you feel confident enough to offer ideas on anything else at all? Isn't it just as likely you're a fool (the only fool) arguing with yourself?

Frankly, that sort of skepticism seems a strong argument for the existence of "something" (call it God, god, higher power, grand-puba, what have you). Else we could have no starting point from which to even begin discussing anything. ie. - either something knows the answers to these things and that knowledge is available to us...or we are wandering in the dark with no ability to find anything AND THERE'S NO POINT IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING.

Every thread on this board should dispense with reasoning and argument.

Quoting Frank Apisa

Bottom line: Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?

So, there's a fifty percent chance that there's at least one God?

Quoting Aussie

Aussie
18
Disclaimer: please read this post in the lighthearted manner in which it was posted.

Okay. And thank you for replying.

Aussie:That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess.
— Frank Apisa

Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?
— Frank Apisa

That's an awfully reductive approach to a metaphysical question. Is it reasonable to apply that approach to the entirety of axiomatic beliefs?

To the former: It may seem to be...but what I am asserting is so.

To the latter...the question: I'm not sure what "axiomatic beliefs" are, but I suspect it is reasonable to apply it to EVERY issue where "belief" is used to describe a guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. (You may be able to persuade me otherwise. We shall see.)

So that we are not overwhelmed, Aussie, let's take this discussion in small parcels...and after dealing with each, move on to the next. Item one:

Aussie:- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood.

50-50?

I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy. And even if the false dichotomy did not exist...I would disagree with the premise.

For instance, can you truly "trust your senses" with regard to whether or not the sun, moon, and stars circle the Earth...or must other non-sensory factors be brought into play?

What say you about the false dichotomy...and what say you about whether or not we can trust our senses?

Quoting Coben

Coben
1.4k
Bottom line: Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?
— Frank Apisa

So, there's a fifty percent chance that there's at least one God?

That is not what I said. Any estimates about the existence or non-existence of any gods is no better than a coin flip.

But one or the other has to be correct by dint of the meaning of being said using the English language. Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist. It is a mutually exclusive situation as set by language. It cannot be that no gods exist AND at least one god exists.

But if a person makes a guess one way or the other...there is a 50/50 chance that the guess is correct.

If you think that is not so...just give me your reasoning. We can discuss it.

Reply to Frank Apisa It's mostly I am checking, not that I have a different opinion I want to argue for.

evidence need not be binary. IOW you could have some information that make A more likely than B, though we cannot know. We might have deductive or empirical reasons to think B is more likely than A. But in the case of God, you are saying there is nothing deductive, empirical or otherwise that should make anyone think one of those two statements is more likely.

I think you were around when I brought up the example of the new species of feline.

If we shifted that to a not before noticed large species of feline in New England I would be agnostic. I don't know. Perhaps there is one, perhaps there is not. If we are going on a couple of sightings by people I do not know, while I am an agnostic on the issue,

I will consider more likely there is no undiscovered species. I think we would have noticed it before and with much greater regularity than a couple of people.

So, even in some situations where one cannot know, one may have some indications that one of the options is more likely. On the one hand, in this example, we have a couple of sightings. On the other side I have a more deductive based sense that it is much more likely they saw something else, they were drunk, it was a hoax, etc. We could shift around the context like to Manhattan or to a jungle in Borneo or increase the number of sightings, or give the sighters expertise and so on. And shift around the push and pull to one side or the other.

You, in seems to me, feel there is nothing that gives any extra weight at all to either side. This being radically different from anything remotely proving either side. Again, it does not have to be binary. But you are saying there is nothing to indicate at all either side of the coin.

If that is case, and I presume it is, God I wish you would go over to Sciforums and harrass them for a while. I don't know if the particular atheists are still there but likely one or two are. One was always saying that it has been demonstrated there is no God. I always thought that was not just wrong, but kinda funny. Wrong that is has been demonstrated.

Regarding faith, one of the main targets of communists in the Pitesti experiment was to make their victims lose faith in God. The result was actually the opposite, many of them becoming monks after they were released and most of them saying that they started to have a far stronger faith during the torture, and that faith helped them went trough the whole re-education process.
So convincing through torture may actually have a very surprising outcome.

Quoting Frank Apisa

I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy.

Suggest it if you like, but one does not exist. What other option exists? Our senses either provide us reliable perceptions of the world around us (at least to some reasonable degree)...or they do not.

Quoting Frank Apisa

...even if the false dichotomy did not exist...I would disagree with the premise.

For instance, can you truly "trust your senses" with regard to whether or not the sun, moon, and stars circle the Earth...or must other non-sensory factors be brought into play?

My statement said nothing about the interaction of non-sensory factors such as whether reason can further inform sensory perceptions or not. The qualifier "at least to some reasonable degree" leaves open the possibility for optical illusions and examples such as the relative motion of heavenly bodies. However, I would suggest, generally speaking, prior to invoking non-sensory factors, one must first have perceived (observed with their senses) something with some reasonable amount of accuracy - like there is movement of heavenly bodies. Additionally, isn't further invocation of non-sensory factors initiated by perceiving (observing with our senses) another phenomena that calls into question one's current understanding of the prior observation (such as Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus or Bessel's observation of parallax). Adding non-sensory factors to the mix doesn't negate the necessity of sense-perception being a reliable source of information (at least to some reasonable degree) in the affair from start to finish. It either is or it isn't. If it is, we're probably on the right track when it comes to our understanding of the movement of heavenly bodies. If we can't know if it is, then really we can't say with any degree of certainty that we understand the movement of heavenly bodies at all...if they even move...if they're even there.

To push my faux-cynicism just a little further regarding your example...one might say it was NOT the senses (observations/perceptions) of early humans that was in error. It was the non-sensory factors in actuality that lead early peoples to conclude the earth was still and only other heavenly bodies moved. What they saw (perceived/observed) is no different than what you and I see now. It is the understanding that is the different. But that line of thought leads into my 3rd question and I don't want to get ahead...

Quoting Aussie

Aussie
23
I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy.
— Frank Apisa

Suggest it if you like, but one does not exist. What other option exists? Our senses either provide us reliable perceptions of the world around us (at least to some reasonable degree)...or they do not.

You wrote: " Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood."

I suggested a false dichotomy.

Now I insist that to be a false dichotomy.

Let's deal with that first...and then go on to whatever else you said.

If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother.

Aren't opinions polished by life experiences and the more polished they get, the stronger and harder to change they become?
Eg.: Alex and David are friends and they criticize politicians for being corrupt. David decides to become a politician and starts to be corrupt. Alex meets him and asks how could such an anti-corruption fighter became corrupt? Alex answers that he was dumb and naive when he was younger and that life is just about taking care of yourself. After few years, David is charged for corruption and sent to prison. There he realises how fool he was and how wrong he was being corrupt.
In the end, he goes back to politics but this time with the desire to be fair.
Well... he basically went through all kind of stages, from an anti-corruption activist to a corrupt himself and then a straight man again.
Will all these variations make his next opinion stronger or he will become more confused?

Quoting Frank Apisa

If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother.

Ending your claim that my argument is a false dichotomy by presenting one yourself doesn't bode well for your case.

EITHER I don't understand that it is OR I'm unethical? How unimaginative, Thank you for the laugh.

But I will happily let this conversation drop seeing you don't appear interested in actually responding with more than a repeated counter claim absent reasoning behind it.

By your logic, I can only conclude that's because you EITHER don't understand the argument presented...OR because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement.

Quoting Aussie

Ending your claim that my argument is a false dichotomy by presenting one yourself doesn't bode well for your case.

EITHER I don't understand that it is OR I'm unethical? How unimaginative, Thank you for the laugh.

But I will happily let this conversation drop seeing you don't appear interested in actually responding with more than a repeated counter claim absent reasoning behind it.

By your logic, I can only conclude that's because you EITHER don't understand the argument presented...OR because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement.

I did not say that you either do not understand or are unethical, Aussie. I said, "If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother." I purposefully left open the possibility that you are not acknowledging the false dichotomy for some OTHER reason...a reason which might allow for a continuation of the discussion.

But, you still will not acknowledge your false dichotomy even though it is staring you in the face. And you still have not presented a reason for you not being willing to acknowledge it.

Okay...I get that.

Some people just cannot acknowledge when they are wrong...whatever the reason.

Quoting Aussie

- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood.

This is the first way you worded it. You worded it a bit differently the second time and it was less problematic that way, but still problematic.

I think Frank is right, this is binary where it is not binary. The first part of the sentence obviously includes the idea that there are degrees of accuracy, the second makes it seem like it is not.

Let's test this: Let's say someone has a mental illness and they know it. And they can't trust their senses (since sometimes or often they hallicinate and can't tell the difference on those occasions.
This does not entail that all their perceptions are falsehood. Perhaps when they went to what looked like a fridge that morning and saw a beer, it was a beer and they drank it. Now perhaps all through breakfast they butterflies that did not exist and heard the voice of God telling them to kill their neighbor...again this does not rule out many of their perceptions being the case.

If you had worded it 'If you can't trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) all your perceptions are suspect'. I think that is defensible. It is not claiming that if you can't trust your senses this means all perceptions are false. It does highlight how this situation is extremely problematic in situ, since then one is likely to and perhaps should put an asterisk next to most perceptions. What can one be sure of? Though even then one might be able to create degrees of certainty.

Only brainwashing or the grace of God can change a core belief. Ormaybe what Kuhn calls anomolies can build up to the point where they compel a paradigm shift. But ideologues are resourceful: there are still people who think that they can predict history,

Reply to Phil Devine I do find your answer challenging. I have thought about this many times. But what makes something to become irreversible? It's like having infinite power, and immunity. I could actually give an example: I have some things in my house that I care for, but I could give them for free. Other things are more important and I care more for them, so I would sell them only for a good price. As for my apartment itself, it is very important for me so I wouldn't sell it for 500.000 USD (although it costs around 50.000 USD). But at the end of the day, I would probably sell my apartment for 1 million USD. So everything I've exposed has a finite resistance. But if someone asked me to lose a dear member of my family in exchange for infinite money for the rest of my life, I would refuse. So basically, at least from this perspective, there is something with unlimited resistance. So where is the border between limited/ reversible and unlimited/irreversible?

We know what we value most highly only by testing. At a time when the bishops (or many of them) have shut the Church down, some Catholics have discovered that they value the Sacrament so highly that they are prepared to brave the civil authority's snitches and attend clandestine masses. (Don' even think of asking me for details.)

Reply to Coben I think to do this one must first understand what the person actually thinks. So questions must be asked.

Quoting ISeeIDoIAm

So that hinges on the individual willingly giving up their agency. In other words: no you can't force your will on others. So success is dependent on the torturee agreeing to give up.

I don't think one is willing. I think pain becomes and hopelessness becomes compulsion. I also don't think you choose to believe. He is hurting me so much so I choose to believe. In the broken, hopeless tortured state one finds one believes. I can't just choose to believe something to please someone. I can lie about it, but that's something else. There would be gray areas in there also.

Quoting Phil Devine

Only brainwashing or the grace of God can change a core belief. Ormaybe what Kuhn calls anomolies can build up to the point where they compel a paradigm shift.

Yes, experience can change beliefs. And other people can be part of that process, giving information, stressing that X happened, suggesting things to experience, reminding the person of what they said and why they believed something, suggesting reading, teaching certain skills that lead to experiences, challenging interpretations or dismissals and so on. I don't agree with the first sentence but the second is more expansive.