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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Well said :)

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

what does that tell you? — ISeeIDoIAm

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...

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... — TheMadFool

Really nice, TMF. I like it.

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

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. — ISeeIDoIAm

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

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.

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.

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. — Eugen

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...?

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.

I understand, Eugen.
Stay safe, my friend.

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.

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

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.

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? — Eugen

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?

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.

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? — Eugen

It's possible.

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? — Eugen

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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?