Let me clarify the expression, ‘change my mind’ because it has a different meaning against my educational background. And you are actually bringing up an important point about the genesis and anatomy of belief.

So, let’s ask: How does an intellectually responsible person arrive at their set of beliefs about the world?

Training starts as a child. The child, in trying to make sense of their world, asks why they have to eat their broccoli or why they can’t go out to play, etc. Mother can respond either with facts and arguments or with say-so (with “because it has nutrients that your body needs for growth” or with “because I say-so and I am your mother; i.e., the authority here). In either case, the child will learn accordingly. He will learn either to ground his beliefs and behavior in facts and reasons or he will learn to acquiesce to authority. The purpose of education is to illuminate the difference between the two with hope to induce motivation to the former option; viz., to develop the child’s innate ratiocinative abilities so that he will be able to think for himself about aspects of his life and in new situations and be able to come to good decisions from which instances of behavior would emanate.

Suppose that a busy mother regularly gives her child candy for breakfast. She is busy, not enough time even to offer cereal, the calories in the candy assuage hunger pangs, the child is timely on the school bus. Breakfast matter over. Suppose the child learns in school that said routine is not a healthy one and one day asks Mother why she gives him a candy breakfast. Mother gives her reasons. Child comes back to Teacher with these reasons. Child comes to realize that the reasons on which he has been operating are not good ones. Teacher has changed his mind.

Against this background, reconsider your statement: “…say if I can change your mind, would that NOT mean I can control you life (thus future) and make you think what I want you to think?”

The answer would be no on assumption that one has learned to base their thinking (and hence their future behavior) on sound facts and valid principles of reasoning. It is only if one acquiesces to sheer say-so as their guiding principle that “one would be able to make you think what I want you to think.”

In US, people believed what the gov’t told them based only in part on say-so. Fundamental to their acquiescent behavior were the assumptions: (1) that gov is a good agent; (2) that gov is charged with the duty to protect their population; (3) that gov has access to critical information not yet available to the educated in this field; and so on. Note that these are the same facts or premises that propelled the child to believe that candy breakfasts are correct. Just as when the child brought Mother’s reasons to Teacher and was caused to have his mind changed, members of the medical and scientific communities changed their mind about gov’s directives after examining the facts. Most striking here is Robert Malone’s acquiescence to governmental authority. Such a level of fear has been instilled in him that he took 2shots. Malone is a licensed virologist who had some important role in developing the mRNA technology. As did many people, he trusted his gov. But after he did his own research, his mind got changed — not as a result of some other authrity but as a result of facts and arguments (reasons). Reasons are arguments which, together with sound facts, give basis for a particular behavior.

When I said to Amaranth, “change my mind,” she prudently responded, “Let’s open a topic on this issue alone so that the matter can be discussed.” She understood that people arrive at beliefs and conclusions based on facts and arguments. So, by opening a topic, she was inviting her commenters and readers to set forth their intellectual goods. Now, like the child bringing Mother’s candy arguments to Teacher, we, as reasoning adults, can evaluate the soundness of our beliefs and the validity of our reasoning. In so doing, some will be caused thereby to have their beliefs changed.

I took a position on a matter and then said, change my mind. The meaning of this statement is: Here are my reasons for believing such and such. But I have an open mind because truth is my lodestar, my guiding principle for beliefs and behavior. So if you have facts not currently available to me for consideration, I am, like was Malone, open to changing my mind. To say “change my mind” is tantamount to saying: show me your criteriological goods, the criteria on which you hold a position opposite to mine.

Now let’s turn to another quote, you said: “… the globalist mind trap… would have you believe [that] you have no way out as they are all powerful… is it NOT?” To this I would note that the power (or certain powers) wielded by certain govs together with other premises can be a valid reason for belief. The devil here, as always, is in the details.”

…

The conversation took a turn and QC? came with some Eastern philosophy:

I’ll add my comment about Brazil in the comment section.  This is just an opener for a longer discussion of which I’ll be a discussion partner only, and not a discussion moderator.  If I missed something really important from the original discussion .. kindly add it.

It could be wise to remember how little we know.