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.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. — Eugen
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.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. — Eugen
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......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. — 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. — Eugen
I would guess the combination is the hardest.4. In my opinion, with proper training and mental strength, one could resist any psychological torture. So the last frontier remains the physical pain. — Eugen
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.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! — Eugen
this is a perfect example of poor torture — Coben
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.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. — Pantagruel
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.It's only 'real' torture if it conforms to my definition...for which there cannot be counterexamples. — Pantagruel
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.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. — Pantagruel
I don't know what the context is of someone intending to submit to torture. — Coben
I guess it contradicts it. — Pantagruel
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. — 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. — Coben
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
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
Aussie
18
Disclaimer: please read this post in the lighthearted manner in which it was posted. — 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? — 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? — Aussie
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? — Coben
I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy. — 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? — Frank Apisa
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. — Aussie
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. — Frank Apisa
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. — Aussie
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.- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood. — Aussie
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.