The power of Will

[The GM]

Well, for those of you who have followed my personal drama that I outlined in a thread called Faith, Miracles, and Crisis, I am home. My brother, who was badly injured in a near fatal car accident is coming back up north to a special rehab center that specializes in dissected aorta paralysis injuries. I was away from my home and family for over three months while he was hospitalized in acute care wards. I am glad to be back.
Now, some people are calling his recovery a miracle, sent from God, for whatever purpose. Maybe, maybe not. I do not have enough information to make that determination. That’s beside the point of this thread though.
We held a party for the hospital staff and the people who really helped us out while we were in Texas. For those of you who are interested, the CBS affiliate will be running a story on that and my brother’s recovery tonight (Wed. Feb. 02) on the 6 and 10 pm news. The segment is called Ask Mudd for those of you in the Lubbock area. FYI, I’m the hot blonde in the black suit.
The docs and nurses were very pleasantly surprised that we threw them a ‘victory’ party. They said that no one ever does that to thank them. I thought that was kinda sad, as what they do is important and special. People should thank them a million times over. I’ll never forget them. While I was chatting w/ the nursing staff, everyone of them said they never expected my brother to survive, let alone recover. So it made me wonder about the will to survive. Is it different in humans? If an animal suffered the same sort of injuries, would they survive given the same level of care? Is human will different, special, and dare I say, spiritual in nature allowing success stories like my brother’s to happen? I’ve begun to wonder about that of late. If you want something badly enough, can you really make the impossible happen? My brother wanted to live, and it would seem that against the odds, he made it happen by the power of his own will. (And with a fair amount of help from some great people!)

[RussDill]

I think the will to live is crucial, but not the only factor. There was a show recently on tsunami survivor stories, and there was one paticularly depressing one, where she had given up the will to survive, and starting purposely inhaling water. She got washed up on debree and lived.

[Mercutio]

"Will to survive", like "will to win", is a circularly defined concept. It is only seen after the fact. The only evidence for your brother's amazing will to survive is...that he did. Had he not, everyone would be saying that "after a brave struggle, he simply gave up the will to survive." Again, the only evidence would have been his death.

If this weekend's Super Bowl goes the way every other one has, it will be won by the team that simply showed more "will to win". They just "wanted it more". Great. Circular. We infer from their victory that they had more will to win, and then attribute the victory to that will.

I am very happy that your brother has recovered. He had the care of a lot of people; he had how many blood transfusions? 30, was it? More? He had experts, and good prior health, and, frankly, the luck of the draw. It could have easily gone the other way, and has for many other accident victims. There are enough real reasons for his recovery for me to be comfortable with "and we really don't know all the other things that might have played a part" rather than turning "I don't know" into "will to survive."

But, hey, I am cynical that way.

[c4ts]

You can't win if you don't try in the first place. You can't live if you don't do anything to keep yourself alive. That's where the will comes in. It's part of your reason for doing something.

[The GM]

Exactly. So how much of an edge does that 'will' give a person? Like Merc says, who knows? When my brother first woke up, and things were looking very poor indeed, I just kept telling him, 'all you have to do is live through the worst of it, the rest will take care of itself.' It became his mantra, and ours as we ticked off the days. All you have to do is survive the worst of it...makes it sound so simple, doesn't it?
We know people can lose the will to live. Do animals do this? What makes human will special?

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
You can't win if you don't try in the first place. You can't live if you don't do anything to keep yourself alive. That's where the will comes in. It's part of your reason for doing something.

How is this "where the will comes in"? You can't live if you don't do anything to keep yourself alive....ok, if you don't eat or drink, or any of those necessities...but where is the influence of the "will"? In every example I have ever seen, it is defined circularly, after the fact. Has anyone ever heard of someone who lost the will to live during an illness, and yet still recovered and lived to a ripe old age, never missing his lost "will to live"? Do we ever read of someone who dies, having never, even to the last moment, given up the will to live? (As for the first sentence, c4ts, didn't both teams "try" to win? Mere trying is not the same as the will to win; the latter is always confered onto the eventual winners. I predict that not one paper, next monday, will say "despite the Eagles' greater will to win, the Patriots prevailed." or vice versa. Always, the winner is dubbed the one with the greater will to win.)

Our normal use of the term makes it clear that it is an after-the-fact judgment, and not an actual cause of living or dying. It is a label inferred from our behavior, not a cause of that behavior.

Quote:

Originally posted by The GM
We know people can lose the will to live. Do animals do this? What makes human will special?

Because (other) animals tend not to write lots of stuff about themselves. Because it is scary to think that sometimes, people die. If we say to ourselves "he gave up the will to survive", it puts the decision back into his hands, and presumably into our own. We can assure ourselves that we need not die, so long as we do not give up the will to survive. It gives us the illusion of control in a circumstance which is largely uncontrollable.

Your brother was extremely fortunate, and you are justifiably grateful and justifiably celebrate his life (and the help of those who helped save him). To me, that is enough. That is truth. Attributing his survival to "will to survive" may make us feel more in control, but it says nothing other than that he lived.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by The GM
So it made me wonder about the will to survive. Is it different in humans? If an animal suffered the same sort of injuries, would they survive given the same level of care? Is human will different, special, and dare I say, spiritual in nature allowing success stories like my brother’s to happen? I’ve begun to wonder about that of late. If you want something badly enough, can you really make the impossible happen? My brother wanted to live, and it would seem that against the odds, he made it happen by the power of his own will. (And with a fair amount of help from some great people!)

I'll tell you my story, and you can draw your own conclusions. I don't normally share my private history with people on the internet, but this seems like a valid reason to make an exception.

My father died 4 years ago from pancreatic cancer. This cancer is particularly insidious in that it's virtually undetectable until it's in it's advanced stages. That's when several unrelated symptoms usually appear that causes an investigation - which ultimately reveals the problem. (Jaundice is among those symptoms.)

My father suddenly became jaundiced, and - after some tests - the doctors determined that he had pancreatic cancer. The reason for the jaundice is simple - as the tumor grows, it presses against the liver ducts. This eventually causes the symptom of jaundice.

My father immediately went to Sloan-Kettering in NYC, and got a second opinion from one of the lead specialists there on this disease. They confirmed the diagnosis, as well as the below treatment and prognosis.

Once the tumor has reached this stage, it is inoperable, and the patient only has a few weeks to live unless they have a major operation that re-routes the ducts - which my father did. After a successful operation, patients with this disease live on anywhere from 3 to 9 months. In unusual cases, they may last as long as 14 months, and in rare cases, perhaps as much as 16. This is what we were told at the time; I have no idea what the statistics are these days.

My father was adamant that he would "beat this thing", even though the doctors told him that only a handful had ever gone into total remission. The thought that he would eventually lose to it and dying wasn't even an issue for him - he was convinced that he was going to survive this and become one of the incredibly few that go into remission.

This was not a religious conviction for him; it was an almost obsessive belief. Pure denial, was how we all termed it privately, behind his back. It's very difficult to convey in words the degree of determination - even fanaticism - that my father had concerning this.

Two months after his operation at Stonybrook Hospital on Long Island, he was amazingly well recovered, and resumed golfing and tending bar full time.

5 months after his operation, he seemed perfectly normal, other than the side-effects from the chemo and radiation therapy, etc.

12 months after his operation, he STILL appeared to be perfectly normal, but he had lost a lot of weight, and was actually - for the first time in over 40 years - in the range of heathy weight. We joked with him often that he looked healthier now than ever before.

The doctors were quite surprised at this point. He wasn't in remission, but the tumor had shown no further sign of growth and his quality of life was stunning to them.

To make a long story short, my father lived for 21 months after his operation. His quality of life ranged from normal to acceptable up until the last 4 weeks, when he started to deteriorate. I visited him regularly, and during the last two weeks, it was apparent that he was sinking fast, and was going to die. He was still in denial about it, still insisting that he was going to eventually beat this thing.

I last saw my father alive three days before his death - he was heavily sedated, and drifting in and out of lucidity. He knew he was dying, and finally admitted to me that he was "in a bad way" - although he followed it up by saying he believe he could still beat this thing, reverting to his adamant refusal to give in. The next day, I got a call from my mother, who told me that my father had been admitted to the hospital. I offered to come, but she insisted that I stay home - she and my two sisters were there, and there was nothing I could do. My father drifted in and out of consciousness, delerious when awake, not aware of anyone being present in the room.

I admit that this was an easy decision to make. I had no desire to actually see my father die, and I had family and business obligations to fulfill, two young children and I lived over 120 miles away - so I took the easy way out. I don't regret it after speaking with my mother and sisters afterward, although sometimes I still regret not seeing him one last time.

After being in the hospital for 48 hours, my father was still hanging on, and hadn't deteriorated any further. The doctors told my mother - and I quote - "Some people just don't let go, and others just slip away. This could go on for a few more days."

My mother - a braver person than I - went back into the room with my father, and told him to let go and to stop suffering. That it was OK, that we'd be OK, and that no-one wanted to see him in pain.

According to my mother, my father turned his head toward her as if he were listening. Within minutes his status changed and he died about a half-hour later.

For myself, I am utterly convinced that the will to live has a tremendous impact on survival. It was the last lesson he ever taught me, and I'll always remember it. I hope my story helps you answer your question one way or the other.

[Phil]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
How is this "where the will comes in"? You can't live if you don't do anything to keep yourself alive....ok, if you don't eat or drink, or any of those necessities...but where is the influence of the "will"? In every example I have ever seen, it is defined circularly, after the fact. Has anyone ever heard of someone who lost the will to live during an illness, and yet still recovered and lived to a ripe old age, never missing his lost "will to live"? Do we ever read of someone who dies, having never, even to the last moment, given up the will to live? (As for the first sentence, c4ts, didn't both teams "try" to win? Mere trying is not the same as the will to win; the latter is always confered onto the eventual winners. I predict that not one paper, next monday, will say "despite the Eagles' greater will to win, the Patriots prevailed." or vice versa. Always, the winner is dubbed the one with the greater will to win.)

Our normal use of the term makes it clear that it is an after-the-fact judgment, and not an actual cause of living or dying. It is a label inferred from our behavior, not a cause of that behavior.
Because (other) animals tend not to write lots of stuff about themselves. Because it is scary to think that sometimes, people die. If we say to ourselves "he gave up the will to survive", it puts the decision back into his hands, and presumably into our own. We can assure ourselves that we need not die, so long as we do not give up the will to survive. It gives us the illusion of control in a circumstance which is largely uncontrollable.

Your brother was extremely fortunate, and you are justifiably grateful and justifiably celebrate his life (and the help of those who helped save him). To me, that is enough. That is truth. Attributing his survival to "will to survive" may make us feel more in control, but it says nothing other than that he lived.

Merc, sometimes you're too smart for your own good. And I'm glad we're on the same team, if for no other reason than I can quote your posts and simply say "Ditto".

[Gulliamo]

Quote:

Originally posted by The GM
We know people can lose the will to live. Do animals do this? What makes human will special?

Humans are special because we are self aware. I do not believe that other animals are. I am not fully convinced that we have a "will to live" but I think it is possible, maybe even likely. I think that animals that are not "self-aware" cannot have a "will" to live. But some animals do show a greater sense of "will" than others. For example: We've all read stories of the dog that ran into the burning house to wake the owner... A cat would never do that! Does that mean the cat has less will than the dog? Or have dogs simply developed a more defined sense of ownership through evolution?

At what point does the "will to live" get overridden by the "will to get out of pain?" Compare this to Merc's "will to win" by changing the sport from football to a "see who can hold the cigarette to their skin the longest" competition. I think the "will to win" would be a BIG deciding factor.

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gulliamo
At what point does the "will to live" get overridden by the "will to get out of pain?" Compare this to Merc's "will to win" by changing the sport from football to a "see who can hold the cigarette to their skin the longest" competition. I think the "will to win" would be a BIG deciding factor.

Really? Do you think we can measure "will to win" before the competition starts? How? Or would we, once again, just infer that the winner had the "will to win", based solely on having won? Can you conceive of an outcome where one person had more "will to win" than the other, but lost nonetheless? What would that mean?

Sorry for all the questions--I sound like Iacchus. I hope these questions are more to the point.

[Anathema]

Interesting topic. Recently, my father was diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer, inoperable. He'll start chemo Friday. We are all pretty freaked out by the prospects, but looking for hope in any quarter. In my search for solace amid the gloom, I ran across a beautiful article by Stephen J. Gould, about the statistical realities of the cancer that should have killed him 20 years before he actually died. I found his perspectives powerful and comforting:

Quote:

Attitude clearly matters in fighting cancer. We don't know why (from my old-style materialistic perspective, I suspect that mental states feed back upon the immune system). But match people with the same cancer for age, class, health, socioeconomic status, and, in general, those with positive attitudes, with a strong will and purpose for living, with commitment to struggle, with an active response to aiding their own treatment and not just a passive acceptance of anything doctors say, tend to live longer.

Still somewhat circular, I suppose; but anything at this point beats despair...

[The GM]

I should add that I make my observations about will, not based soley on my bro's recovery, but from spending two straight months watching people come through those acute care doors, most in hopeless situations, many of them died. However, there were some who made it out. Besides my brother, there was another kid who came in who was the talk of the ward. He'd been in a car accident as well. By all accounts, he's a fierce competitor, a ball player for Texas Tech, I believe. He was ejected from the vehicle and literally left parts of his brain on the highway. When his parents were called, the hospital staff told them he was brain dead. Basically they'd kept him alive long enough for his folks to come and say goodbye. His father talked to him, the nature of his message was very private, but you can imagine what dad said to his son. To the amazement of the docs and nurses there, the kid's brainwaves went from flat to a blip, from blips to activity. Within a week, he was awake. Within a month he was walking and talking. To this day, the kid still has a big chunk of his skull missing, but he's determined to return to his normal life.

I watched another case, where a lady was brought in after her b-friend pushed her out of a moving car on the interstate and left her for dead. Her injuries were massive, as you might imagine and her prospects were pretty low for survival. However, she came out of it because in her mind, if she died, the b-friend would never be punished. Her need to live was so overwhelming that it seemed she cheated death itself to have justice.

There are other anectdotes as well, but it seemed that the people who had a sole focus and who refused to give up, made it where those who didn't...well, didn't. I remember a woman who came in, pretty sick and told the docs straight out that she didn't want to go on. She didn't last long, despite their best efforts to save her.

I would all be so tidy if there was a way to gauge this stuff, but there has to be something to this will stuff. If nothing else it lays the groundwork for the kind of positive attitude that Gould said was neccesary for recovery. If that's true, then will is a very real thing that affects recovery and quality of life.

[Mercutio]

I do not mean, by my argument, that attitudes have nothing to do with recovery. There is good evidence about self-efficacy, locus of control, being a "bad patient" (in other words, challenging what your doctor says and not merely doing it because she or he says so), all are positively correlated with recovery. Each of these things, however, can be independently measured (however imperfectly) in advance of one's eventual recovery or failure thereof. Of course attitude makes a difference. But in my experience (and I have seen nothing yet in this thread to contradict it), "will to survive", like "will to win", is different from these other examples. We do not measure it beforehand, but confer it on the survivor or winner after the fact.

As such, I suggest that the "will to survive", as a potential cause of survival, actually is harmful to our understanding of why one person lives and another dies. It has all the trappings of an explanation, when in fact it is merely a label; it may seduce us into thinking we have found a useful predictor of survival, and make the search for real predictors less urgent. ("Ah, see, it comes down to "will to survive". If you have that, you live. Case closed.")

Let us suppose that "will to survive" is the best predictor of survival. Pray tell, how do we increase a given person's "will to survive"? Is there a switch somewhere? Of course not... Perhaps a particular set of instructions before an operation would do it--a pep talk, as it were...if this is the case, by all means let us investigate the effect of this instructional set on survival. But note...we absolutely can measure--before the fact--whether a patient receives a particular instructional set or not. We can measure whether he or she survives. We can only infer, however, that the effect was moderated by some alleged "will to survive". Occam's razor suggests we cut out this middleman, and look at the effects of instructional set on survival. (For "instructional set", you may substitute any of a number of potential influences on survival--from familial support to control over painkillers, from diet to prayer...and see, empirically, which things work.)

[jmercer]

Instead of "best predictor", would you settle for "significant factor in enhancing the odds?"

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
Instead of "best predictor", would you settle for "significant factor in enhancing the odds?"

I don't really care what label is given to it, so long as it can be measured in advance rather than merely inferred from the outcome. Indeed, "significant factor in enhancing the odds" implies a causal relationship, which one simply cannot conclude from the post-hoc assignation of "will to win".

My use of "predictor" (you may use "significant" instead of "best" if you wish--I think you are correct there, I do not want to limit investigation merely to one "best" thing) rather than claiming a causal relationship is simply due to my behavioral bias. In order to claim causation, we would need to demonstrate it (which has been done with some operationalizations of "control", for instance). For many factors, I don't think we are at the stage yet where we need to look at causation--we have our hands full merely trying to find things which are correlated with survival. Certainly, none have ever tried to manipulate "will to win", and so we can't really speak causally of it.

[Anathema]

With advances in neuroscience, it may in fact be possible to map out the brain states of "high will to live" candidates, and look for such patterns in terminal patients. For instance, if we could pin down a profile like, "patients with highest levels of activity in regions X, Y and Z demonstrate superior recovery rates." At that point, perhaps deep brain stimulation could put all patients on a level playing field with respect to "recovery attitude". Until that then, I agree: trying to measure and maximize "will to live" is a pretty squishy business.

[Gulliamo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
Really? Do you think we can measure "will to win" before the competition starts? How? Or would we, once again, just infer that the winner had the "will to win", based solely on having won? Can you conceive of an outcome where one person had more "will to win" than the other, but lost nonetheless? What would that mean?

Sorry for all the questions--I sound like Iacchus. I hope these questions are more to the point.

I do not think we can definitively measure "will to win" but I do think we can gauge it.

Bear with me through an extreme example:

Simplified Competition: Pain resistance=hold forearms of two people together, place lit cigarette between, first one to pull away looses.
Other Factors: Person A is told if they win they will receive a million dollars. Person B is told if they win they receive one dollar.

I'll bet dollars to dimes that Person A will win every time. The "will to win" is gauge-ably higher that the "will to avoid pain".

Sure, this is an extreme example, but I just wanted to show that "will to win" is sometime gauge-able. It may very well be that in less extreme circumstances that the higher "will to win" will not out way the other factors. But all things being equal (and they rarely are) I think it does come into play. In fact, in many events the higher will would not matter as much. Example: If you told me that I would get a million dollars if I could beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match and he would only get a half million to beat me. Mike would win, with one hand, and I would walk away with one less ear.

All of that said: I also believe that many people simply have more to live for than others. Roughly translated to a higher "will to win".

[davidsmith73]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
Really? Do you think we can measure "will to win" before the competition starts? How? Or would we, once again, just infer that the winner had the "will to win", based solely on having won? Can you conceive of an outcome where one person had more "will to win" than the other, but lost nonetheless? What would that mean?

Sorry for all the questions--I sound like Iacchus. I hope these questions are more to the point.

Perhaps we could equate "will to win" with the feeling of desire. Of course, we can't directly measure subjective feelings but does that mean that they do not exist? I am all for debating whether such a subjective feeling can be causal, but to deny it's existence based on the impenetrableness of the third person consciousness seems like a bit of a throw-back to behavioursim. It seems to me that the only way to measure the "will to win" would be by way of traditional verbal communication.

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gulliamo

Simplified Competition: Pain resistance=hold forearms of two people together, place lit cigarette between, first one to pull away looses.
Other Factors: Person A is told if they win they will receive a million dollars. Person B is told if they win they receive one dollar.

I'll bet dollars to dimes that Person A will win every time. The "will to win" is gauge-ably higher that the "will to avoid pain".

I think you have just made my point.

What has been manipulated here is not "will to win", but financial incentive! We could, as experimenters, randomly assign people to one or the other of your conditions, and infer a causal relationship between the condition and one's behavior. But--and this is crucial--the only thing we would have manipulated is the reward structure, and logically the only inference we can make is that their behavior is a function of the money involved.

The fact that you (and not just you, by any means) are so quick to say that the difference is "will to win" is testament to how attractive this circularly defined "explanation" is. Once again, though, "will to win" is assigned only after the fact; reward or incentive was manipulated beforehand.

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Perhaps we could equate "will to win" with the feeling of desire. Of course, we can't directly measure subjective feelings but does that mean that they do not exist? I am all for debating whether such a subjective feeling can be causal, but to deny it's existence based on the impenetrableness of the third person consciousness seems like a bit of a throw-back to behavioursim. It seems to me that the only way to measure the "will to win" would be by way of traditional verbal communication.

A throwback to behaviourism? Throwing toward behaviorism, and away from prescientific explanations, is in my opinion a throw forward. But then, I am a living fossil...a behaviorist. Of course, the fact that I hold that bias does not make me necessarily wrong.

No behaviorist denies feelings, though. The question about feelings is, are they causal, or simply caused? I welcome counterexamples, of course, but so far every single instance of "will to survive" has been circularly defined from the fact of survival. (Oh, and it is Watson's behaviorism which denied the existence of feelings--Radical Behaviorism does address them as private behavior, that is, just another of the myriad behaviors we engage in, under the control of environmental influences. In this view, "feeling a desire to live" would be seen as a private behavior, and we would look at the antecedents and consequences of that behavior to see its function in our lives. The third person problem is not a barrier for Skinner; private behaviors are simply behaviors, even though they have only one observer.)

If "feeling of desire" is positively correlated with survival, our next question, practically speaking, is A) can we directly manipulate "feeling of desire"? (answer: no), and B) what factors which we can manipulate are associated with "feeling of desire"? As before (in one of my above posts), even though we start out with "manipulate this, to influence "feeling of desire", to influence survival", the very fact that we cannot directly manipulate feeling of desire reduces our equation to "manipulate this, to influence survival". In a very practical sense, the feelings involved are irrelevant (I do not suggest that they are irrelevant to the patient, nor that they do not exist, but until we can directly manipulate them, pragmatism dictates that we deal with the things we can manipulate).

[The GM]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
If "feeling of desire" is positively correlated with survival, our next question, practically speaking, is A) can we directly manipulate "feeling of desire"? (answer: no),

Hey Merc,
I guess maybe I'm not following here. Why is the answer no? It seems to me that our feelings of desire are manipulated on a daily basis. Just ask any advertisement firm!
And where does a positive attitude come from? My answer would be 'the will to have one', thus making will a real factor. What am I missing here?

[The GM]

As a side note, here's some of the broadcast notes from the above referenced TV interview.
http://www.klbk.com/news/default.asp...hownews&id=699

[davidsmith73]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
No behaviorist denies feelings, though. The question about feelings is, are they causal, or simply caused? I welcome counterexamples, of course, but so far every single instance of "will to survive" has been circularly defined from the fact of survival.

I don't think the subjective feeling of desire has to be circularly defined. For example, why can't we simply ask our subjects to tell us whether they feel a "will to win" before the task in hand? Granted, this is not measuring the subjective quality directly, but what subjective quality can be measured directly? Instead, this dissociates the after-the-fact measurement of the outcome of the task from the before-the-task measurement of the level of subjective feelings.

I agree that the pertinent question in this thread is whether the feeling of "will" is caused or causal.

Quote:

If "feeling of desire" is positively correlated with survival, our next question, practically speaking, is A) can we directly manipulate "feeling of desire"? (answer: no), and B) what factors which we can manipulate are associated with "feeling of desire"? As before (in one of my above posts), even though we start out with "manipulate this, to influence "feeling of desire", to influence survival", the very fact that we cannot directly manipulate feeling of desire reduces our equation to "manipulate this, to influence survival". In a very practical sense, the feelings involved are irrelevant (I do not suggest that they are irrelevant to the patient, nor that they do not exist, but until we can directly manipulate them, pragmatism dictates that we deal with the things we can manipulate).

Which brings us back to the question of whether "will" is causal or not. Directly manipulating any cognitive processes might imply that "will" is causal, if a decent definition of "will" could be made. What one means by "direct manipulation" is a also a difficult thing to define indeed!

What we seem to be agreeing on is that the feeling of "will to win" is real. If so then I can't see how it must be defined circularly. The circularity only comes in when one attempts to ascribe a causal nature to it.

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by The GM
Hey Merc,
I guess maybe I'm not following here. Why is the answer no? It seems to me that our feelings of desire are manipulated on a daily basis. Just ask any advertisement firm!

What they are manipulating, of course, is the advertising you see, not your feelings of desire. If I could directly manipulate feelings of desire, no advertising firm could compete with me! Push a button and you suddenly want to buy my product? wow...

And of course, they really don't care if you desire their product, merely that you buy it. If I could increase the desire for something but not increase the actual sales, would you hire me? Your shareholders would hope not.

Quote:

And where does a positive attitude come from? My answer would be 'the will to have one', thus making will a real factor. What am I missing here?

Sure...where does the will to have one come from? Is there a will to have a will to have a positive attitude? Where did that come from? Perhaps a will to have a will to have a will to have turtles all the way down? This really is exactly the same logical problem as arguing for existence of god. Our evidence for "will" is simply the behavior we see (and yes, this includes the private behaviors we feel), which means that any attempt to say that "will" caused these behaviors (and feelings) is circular. The "will to have a will to have a will to have...." chain does, however, have an end. That end is the environmental factors which cause (or influence) your behavior. Those can be measured and manipulated (at least in principle), instead of merely inferred after the fact.

[davidsmith73]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
Our evidence for "will" is simply the behavior we see (and yes, this includes the private behaviors we feel), which means that any attempt to say that "will" caused these behaviors (and feelings) is circular. The "will to have a will to have a will to have...." chain does, however, have an end. That end is the environmental factors which cause (or influence) your behavior. Those can be measured and manipulated (at least in principle), instead of merely inferred after the fact.

That's interesting. Compare "will" with one of Newton's laws. If the evidence for Newton's laws is simply the behavior we see then is any attempt to say that Newton's laws caused the behaviors also a circular argument?

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I don't think the subjective feeling of desire has to be circularly defined. For example, why can't we simply ask our subjects to tell us whether they feel a "will to win" before the task in hand? Granted, this is not measuring the subjective quality directly, but what subjective quality can be measured directly? Instead, this dissociates the after-the-fact measurement of the outcome of the task from the before-the-task measurement of the level of subjective feelings.

Well, yes and no. This is considerably better, but it comes at the expense of ignoring our normal use of the term "will to survive". In practice, it simply is not used a priori, and that which you describe here already has a different term within the experimental literature--self-efficacy.

So...this begins to get at the heart of the question. It is good to examine the different factors that lead to success or to survival. It is inaccurate to suggest that the things which we label "will to survive" are the same things as these factors. (Again, my example from above: I will eat this computer if any news outlet claims that the losing team in the Super Bowl lost despite having the greater will to win. It just is not used that way.*)

*I have seen people argue that a "less talented" team lost a game; "talent" is then operationalized somehow--faster runners, higher percentage shooters, more all-pro players--to demonstrate that the losing team was indeed "more talented". Almost invariably, then, the conclusion is that the winning team simply had more "will to win". This is never operationalized, merely conferred onto the winner after the fact. I have never seen any team with "greater will to win" actually lose a game.

Quote:

I agree that the pertinent question in this thread is whether the feeling of "will" is caused or causal.

Agreed. But in practice, "will to win" is assumed to be causal. And that is my problem with it.

Quote:

Which brings us back to the question of whether "will" is causal or not. Directly manipulating any cognitive processes might imply that "will" is causal, if a decent definition of "will" could be made. What one means by "direct manipulation" is a also a difficult thing to define indeed

Also agreed. We have no adjustment knobs on our brains, let alone on our "cognitive processes" (please, don't get a behaviorist started on "cognitive processes"...).

Quote:

What we seem to be agreeing on is that the feeling of "will to win" is real. If so then I can't see how it must be defined circularly. The circularity only comes in when one attempts to ascribe a causal nature to it.

Which, I will argue, is the common use of the term. I have never personally seen it used in another way.

Also...what does "will to win" feel like? I can feel happy, sad, disgusted, surprised...there really are (according to the researchers, and this is not my specialty area) only a handful of basic emotions, and then some secondary ones...but "will to win" I have never seen on any list of emotions. What does it feel like?

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by davidsmith73
That's interesting. Compare "will" with one of Newton's laws. If the evidence for Newton's laws is simply the behavior we see then is any attempt to say that Newton's laws caused the behaviors also a circular argument?

Newton's laws are descriptive. No one (correctly, at least) says that objects are drawn to one another because of gravity. They are drawn together, and that defines gravity. The cause of gravity is not part of Newton's laws.

Thank you for this example. It is exactly the point I am trying to get across.

[davidsmith73]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
Well, yes and no. This is considerably better, but it comes at the expense of ignoring our normal use of the term "will to survive". In practice, it simply is not used a priori, and that which you describe here already has a different term within the experimental literature--self-efficacy. [/b]

Yes I see your point. The former meaning is certainly one for contention.

Quote:

Also...what does "will to win" feel like? I can feel happy, sad, disgusted, surprised...there really are (according to the researchers, and this is not my specialty area) only a handful of basic emotions, and then some secondary ones...but "will to win" I have never seen on any list of emotions. What does it feel like?

"Will" is usually associated with an end result for it to mean anything. I suppose it might be identified by holding a representation of a state of affairs in your mind. This state of affairs can either be desired or not. If you hold the state of affaits fixed and alternate between wanting and not wanting it then you might start to indentify it. That's the best I can do I'm afraid!

[davidsmith73]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
Newton's laws are descriptive. No one (correctly, at least) says that objects are drawn to one another because of gravity. They are drawn together, and that defines gravity. The cause of gravity is not part of Newton's laws.

Thank you for this example. It is exactly the point I am trying to get across.

mmm. The conclusion then must be that no scientific description can ascribe a cause to any event. I'm not sure where that leaves "will" now!

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
"Will to survive", like "will to win", is a circularly defined concept. It is only seen after the fact. The only evidence for your brother's amazing will to survive is...that he did. Had he not, everyone would be saying that "after a brave struggle, he simply gave up the will to survive." Again, the only evidence would have been his death.

If this weekend's Super Bowl goes the way every other one has, it will be won by the team that simply showed more "will to win". They just "wanted it more". Great. Circular. We infer from their victory that they had more will to win, and then attribute the victory to that will.

I am very happy that your brother has recovered. He had the care of a lot of people; he had how many blood transfusions? 30, was it? More? He had experts, and good prior health, and, frankly, the luck of the draw. It could have easily gone the other way, and has for many other accident victims. There are enough real reasons for his recovery for me to be comfortable with "and we really don't know all the other things that might have played a part" rather than turning "I don't know" into "will to survive."

But, hey, I am cynical that way.

I have also always had a problem with this "will to live" business. I am really curious - can people who do not want to live simply will themselves to die? I suspect not. While one may not have to will to take particular actions needed to sustain one's life, I think it is unlikely that will alone makes any difference one way or the other.

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by davidsmith73
mmm. The conclusion then must be that no scientific description can ascribe a cause to any event. I'm not sure where that leaves "will" now!

Oh, no, not true at all. We can, through proper manipulation of variables, infer causation to a reasonable degree of probability (that probability varying tremendously among the sciences, depending on the inherent variability of the subject matter).

What we cannot do is ascribe causation, after the event, that is due to an alleged factor, the only evidence for which is the event it has allegedly caused! In a situation like this, our most honest answer must be "I don't know what the cause was." Fortunately for us, we can add one word to the sentence: "yet". "I don't know (yet)" opens up the question for investigation--we can begin to uncover what variables really do make a difference in survival. If, instead of "I don't know", we make up something (sorry that sounds so disparaging, but at base, that is what we are doing) called "will to survive" and attribute survival to that, it tempts us not to look further. We have discovered the answer--it depends on "will to survive". And while that does not preclude asking the question "ok, then, what does will to survive depend on?", it is, in practice, seldom if ever asked.

But yeah, even in the "explaining paranormal phenomena" business, when somebody describes the ghost they saw and asks you to explain it, your only honest answer is "I don't know." We can try to recreate the experience with more controls, and see whether it was car headlights, or swamp gas, or booze, or what...but after the fact explanations do not have the controls necessary for us to properly infer causation. (yeah, I know, it has not stopped people, but it should have.)

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by The GM
As a side note, here's some of the broadcast notes from the above referenced TV interview.
http://www.klbk.com/news/default.asp...hownews&id=699

Neat story, but it is missing something...oh, yeah, a hot blonde in a black suit.

Erm...on topic... Note that the evidence for "god intervening" is exactly the same as the evidence for "will to survive". To wit...he survived. Both causal explanations (god and will) have only that as their evidence.

[Gulliamo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
What they are manipulating, of course, is the advertising you see, not your feelings of desire. If I could directly manipulate feelings of desire, no advertising firm could compete with me! Push a button and you suddenly want to buy my product?

I think the roadblock here is in the phrase "directly manipulate." Very few things with humans or medicine is "direct manipulation," rather it is more "influence."

Example: Taking aspirin immediately after a heart attack increases your chances for survival.

Of course we can find sample who have taken aspirin yet perished. As well as those who did not and lived. Yet it is common medical belief that an aspirin "increases the odds" of survival.

I believe the same is true of "will to live" where an outside influence can directly affect survival rates.

Example: Patient 1 is in critical condition- friends and relatives from around the country face trial and tribulation to be at the bedside. Thus increasing the patients "desire to live."

Patient 2 in the same condition- is told that her children would love to be there but his daughter has to get her hair cut. Thus de-motivating the patient to pull through.

Can we "directly manipulate" the "will to win?" No. Probably not.
Can we "enfluence" the "will to win?" Often, yes.

[Cleopatra]

I have noticed this thread thanks to Phil's nomination. Thanks Phil!

Before clicking on the thread after after I have read that Mercutio took part in the discussion I though : " Merc will suggest that it's the behavior not the will".

While I cannot really argue with that since I am sure that there is a lot of bibliography behind that statement I cannot help wondering Mercutio.

What do you think of the moral aspect of the power of will? If this belief ( correct me if I am wrong but even if you don't name it as such I feel that you perceive it as a belief) is a useful one why you appear tad negative in the way you approach it?

Is it because the phrase "The power of Will" has metaphysical implications, is it because it refers to a " super-human" ( the way Nitsche put it) , a concept that is quite religious in origin regardless of what ignorants say...or is it because religious people make use of it?

If it's the former then I have to point out that an atheist should encourage people to think like that because it places the human in the centre of his existence and not the God.

So what's the deal with you and the power or will? I am interested in the moral implications a useful belief has in a man's life. Why we dismiss it? Because it's the will and not the behavior? Who cares?! The man returned from Hades, this is all that counts!!

BTW Your initial post in the thread was great anyway. You seem to have cleared these things in you so well that I am impressed ( and tad envious).

[Mercutio]

Oh, boy.....there is a lot here to answer to. I apologize in advance for any rambling I no doubt will do. This topic, and very closely related notions, is a current topic in one of my senior seminars, so this thread is terribly useful for me...but it also means that my thinking may be clouded with questions not just from this thread...

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have noticed this thread thanks to Phil's nomination. Thanks Phil!

Before clicking on the thread after after I have read that Mercutio took part in the discussion I though : " Merc will suggest that it's the behavior not the will".

Remember, Cleo, that "behavior" is "everything we do". It includes thinking, feeling, remembering, as well as walking, talking, etc. There was a thread several months back in which I even looked at love as a category of behaviors...which I also spoke of yesterday in class... So...why is this "will" different? Why is Mercutio so adamant that there is no behavior called "will to survive"? As mentioned before, it is because of its use--it is, in practice, always seen as causal and always inferred after the fact. As such, it is a purely circular concept, rather than a private behavior. More on this later, I suppose...

Quote:

While I cannot really argue with that since I am sure that there is a lot of bibliography behind that statement I cannot help wondering Mercutio.

What do you think of the moral aspect of the power of will? If this belief ( correct me if I am wrong but even if you don't name it as such I feel that you perceive it as a belief) is a useful one why you appear tad negative in the way you approach it?

I am negative about it simply because it is fictional. In fact, the behavioral term for such things is "explanatory fiction"; an inferred causal element, the existence of which is evidenced only by the outcome it allegedly caused.

As such, my objection has nothing to do with any moral aspect at all, but I will make one small comment...and it may not really even address what you are asking...our society's notions of free will and personal moral responsibility overemphasize internal causation and underemphasize the impact of the environment. The stereotype of behaviorism denies any internal and overemphasizes the environment. (More accurately and less stereotypically, each individual responds to the contingencies of reinforcement and punishment. Just because we point to the environment for causation, we do not relieve the individual of their earned punishement or reinforcement! Individuals are held accountable by the contingencies, but the environment is not ignored, as it is when we assign moral responsibility soleley to the individual.) It is argued that, by assigning causation to the environment, we let the individual off the hook, blameless. The counter-argument to this is that when we assign causation to the will of the individual, we let the environment off the hook--we let ourselves out of any responsibility for the actions of others, when it is clearly and demonstrably the fact that we do influence their behavior.

Quote:

Is it because the phrase "The power of Will" has metaphysical implications, is it because it refers to a " super-human" ( the way Nitsche put it) , a concept that is quite religious in origin regardless of what ignorants say...or is it because religious people make use of it?

If it's the former then I have to point out that an atheist should encourage people to think like that because it places the human in the centre of his existence and not the God.

Trading in one fiction for another may be tempting politically (if I am using the term right), but if we are truly trying to help, building on one false foundation is as bad as building on another false foundation. If we wish to help people survive horrendous accidents, we must study the real factors in their survival and build upon those.

Quote:

So what's the deal with you and the power or will? I am interested in the moral implications a useful belief has in a man's life. Why we dismiss it? Because it's the will and not the behavior? Who cares?! The man returned from Hades, this is all that counts!!

I am interested in the practical implications a useful belief has. I do not dismiss it. I have mentioned a few attitudinal variables which are associated with survival (or with winning, in other examples). Self-efficacy, both generalized and specific to situation, perceived control (of many different varieties, according to the "control" researchers), and a couple others which elude memory right now, are attitudinal variables which can be measured in advance and which do predict survival (and winning). I am hugely in favor of researching such things, and doing what we can to make The GM's brother's story less rare.

But...as it is actually used (note that all attempts in this thread to operationalize "will to survive" or "will to live" have been forced to take it far from the natural usage of the term), "will to survive" is not something we can (even in principle) measure or manipulate, and so focusing attention on "will to survive" as a causal agent in survival is a waste of time and resources.

Quote:

BTW Your initial post in the thread was great anyway. You seem to have cleared these things in you so well that I am impressed ( and tad envious).

Thank you! It is the result of many years' work, and not arrived at lightly.

[Cleopatra]

What if I told you that " the power of will" can act as a reifoncer especially in cases of cancer?

What if I tell you that patients that seem to invest on this idea become more cooperative with the doctors, more sensitive to the drama of their own relatives abd ABOVE all the get over this dreadful feeling that cancer builts in you; the feeling that you are helpless and in the mercy of the illness.

The power of will can be used as a reifoncer for a positive behavior.

What about that.

[DarkMagician]

Will? Of course he has power. Check "I, Robot". He dragged a horrible plot into a decent movie, and made you forget the original "I, Robot".

...Oh, that will. Sorry. My mistake.

...next time, watch your capitalization!

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What if I told you that " the power of will" can act as a reinforcer especially in cases of cancer?

I would probably give you a long lecture on using behavioral terms properly. Your statement may well make sense colloquially, but because I am used to the technical definitions of the words, I would have to ask "what behaviors are being reinforced?" and "how are you measuring power of will?", and probably a few other questions, before I even could address the question itself.

Quote:

What if I tell you that patients that seem to invest on this idea become more cooperative with the doctors, more sensitive to the drama of their own relatives abd ABOVE all the get over this dreadful feeling that cancer builts in you; the feeling that you are helpless and in the mercy of the illness.

I would say "we must look at this more closely, because something would seem to be working; now, let us see whether it is 'will' or cooperation with doctors and sensitivity to relatives, etc." When we are more precise in our definitions and manipulations, we see more clearly the effects that are there--we may also see more clearly that some of what we thought was there was illusory. Are you certain the situation is as you describe it? Could you be seeing something merely because you expect to? (If you are human, the answer is "of course, yes, I could be...) Have you (or has anyone else) systematically studied this? (This is not merely a rhetorical question--I know that similar things have been systematically studied, like feelings of control, as I mention below.)

I will exclude no variable from consideration--if you can operationalize "power of will" in such a way that it can be emperically examined, I say go for it. (Note, please, that as I describe its normal use and circular definition, it is not empirically defined, so yours would be very different from the concept as it is usually used.)

I agree with you wholeheartedly that helplessness is a factor--a terrible one--in the morbity of diseases like cancer. I say this because the helplessness/control variable has been empirically examined (I can find the specific references if you like). Again, though (I must sound like a broken record), I must point out that control and helplessness can be manipulated, and thus far "will to survive" is not.

Quote:

The power of will can be used as a reinforcer for a positive behavior.

Not when it is circularly defined. It might make us feel better to talk about the power of will, but if it is used the way it usually is, it is a fairy tale.

If you can operationalize it such that it can be measured before the fact and manipulated such that we can infer causation (I doubt that we can use a reversal design, but a time-lag across subjects would do), you would do what none has done before.

Quote:

What about that.

What about it? Your use of the cancer example, along with The GM's brother and jmercer's father, as well as countless other examples here and elsewhere, make it clear: this is not merely an exercise in philosophy, this is a life and death matter. This is more important than mere wordplay. It is imperative, because lives are on the line, to look at what really does work, and to build on that, rather than to build on illusion, no matter how strongly held. There are so many examples of "will to survive" making a difference...we take it for granted, and it never occurs to us to think otherwise. Only when we apply the tools of critical thinking and science do we start to see...ah, these examples are all anecdotes, in which the "will to survive" was determined purely by the survival of the individual...the term, as we use it, is useless. It is there to disguise the fact that we do not know why this person survived.

I think it is much too important an ignorance to disguise it. If we do not know, dammit, let's find out, if at all possible! "Will to live", as it is used, gives us a reason to stop looking, or worse, an incentive to look at a false lead!

"Will to survive" is a cherished notion. It does, I think, make people feel better, feel they have more control than they otherwise might in a largely uncontrollable situation. If it were not for the fact that this is a life and death matter, I might not bother arguing about "will to survive." But it is a matter of life and death, and cherished notions be damned; if it is my loved one who is sick or injured, I want treatment built on a solid foundation, not on cherished fairy tales.

[jmercer]

Perhaps we should discuss what the difference in lifestyle is between someone who has the "will to live" and someone who doesn't.

People have already cited the effect attitude has on eating, drinking, etc. Someone who's lost the will to live becomes sluggish, doesn't eat well or properly, doesn't get enough exercise, fails to take medicine on time, refuses to accept therapy, becomes depressed and anxious, etc., etc. All of these things tend to run a body down, lower resistance to disease, and create stress which also harms the body over time. These things can become critical factors - especially if the injury or treatment already lowers the immune system's ability to protect the body.

So in my opinion, a lack of will to live actually harms a person - or drives them to indirectly harm themselves.

Alternatively, my father's desire to live got him out of bed after the liver operation amazingly fast, and drove him to become physically active quite quickly. He kept an optimistic attitude, ate well, and actually took better care of himself than he did before his diagnosis. These things all served to help maintain his immune system and kept his body healthy other than the cancer.

All of these factors certainly contributed to his survival - especially with periodic chemo and radiation therapy being the norm. His ability to sustain those activities for as long as he did was - in my opinion - directly due to his will to survive, which changed his lifestyle dramatically.

There may or may not be any more to it than this. I don't know. But I think that these items are significant enough that people with the "will to live" increase their chance of survival through sustaining these activities and actions.

[BillyJoe]

GM,

Quote:

Originally posted by The GM
To the amazement of the docs and nurses there, the kid's brainwaves went from flat to a blip, from blips to activity. Within a week, he was awake.

Where was the "will to live" in this crucially important phase of this kid's recovery? And, if he got to this stage without a "will to live", why do you assign such an important role to a supposed "will to live" in the subsequent (surely much less crucial) stages of his recovery?

BJ