The power of Will

[Mercutio]

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.

I will agree that when we see someone become sluggish, refuse to eat or exercise, etc., we may infer from this behavior that he or she has "lost the will to live" (although, if they live despite behaving this way, the same things are seen as caused by the illness, and are obstacles that their "will to live" was able to overcome), but as explained above, if we then say that losing one's will to live caused these behaviors, we are defining that will circularly.

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

I may be reading you wrong, but it seems that here you are indeed seeing this inferred will to live as the causal agent. Again, this is like saying things fall because of gravity; it is a commonly accepted, but technically quite incorrect, assignation of causation.

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.

What evidence do you have that it was his desire to live that got him out of bed? Aside from the fact that he did get out, that is? Certainly, if we wanted to we could (although it would not be the culturally normal thing to do, it would be every bit as consistent with the evidence) say he got moving because of a will not to be a problem for the family...or a desire to prove the doctors wrong...or the will of one particular god or another...or Sylvia's kind thoughts...

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.

So here, you are clear in claiming causality. But it is clearly circular. He was able to sustain his activities longer than expected, and from this we infer an increased will to live. Then, we say that this will to live, for which we have only the evidence of the sustained activity, was in fact the cause of the sustained activity. Logically, it is every bit as much evidence of Sylvia's help. That is, it is not evidence at all.

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.

What of the people who engage in these activities and die anyway? Would you say they died despite a huge will to live? Perhaps you would--it seems consistent with your examples here. If that is the case, I suggest that you are using the term very differently than it is commonly used. (I saw an article in The Onion, headlined "local man loses cowardly battle with illness" or something similar. It points out that there are some phrases we only use half of--we say someone fought bravely against cancer, but never say someone was a coward in that situation. We say someone's will to survive pulled them through, but we never say they died in spite of never having given up. Surely, if it was a real and measurable thing, it would have failed once or twice...but no, we read instead "after months of painful struggle, during which he never lost the will to survive, Mr. Z finally, late one February morning, quietly gave up the fight." The only evidence that he "gave up the fight" is that he died, but it is unacceptable to us that you can die despite fighting with all your will...so of course...he gave up the fight, and it was his choice to die.)

 

[The GM]

GM,

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

My thought on that is that perhaps medical technology is not advanced enough to measure all levels of consciousness, and thus the docs truly thought the kid was brain dead. However, when his dad gave him 'the talk' there was an immediate (and measurable!) response. The brain monitor went from flat to activity. Thus dad directly manipulated 'will to live' through his words to the son.
As far as how did the kid survive that long? Intibation, baby.

 

[Mercutio]

My thought on that is that perhaps medical technology is not advanced enough to measure all levels of consciousness, and thus the docs truly thought the kid was brain dead. However, when his dad gave him 'the talk' there was an immediate (and measurable!) response. The brain monitor went from flat to activity. Thus dad directly manipulated 'will to live' through his words to the son.

No. There is absolutely no evidence that "will to live" is what was manipulated. This is once again a circular example, and Occam would blanche to see it.

Speaking to son-->manipulates will to live-->results in brain activity.
Speaking to son-->results in brain activity.

The second, we know happened. The mechanism, we do not. We are merely inferring "manipulates will to live" from the change in brain activity.

Note that there is exactly the same evidence, but without the cultural approval, for

Speaking to son-->makes god sympathetic-->results in brain activity.
or
Speaking to son-->focuses dad's psychic healing energies-->results in brain activity.
or
Speaking to son-->is heard by Sylvia, who responds-->results in brain activity.

These are (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on one's belief system) seen as silly or plausible...but they are all equally evidenced as "will to live" is by this situation.

What is wrong with saying "we really don't know the mechanism" when it is, in fact, the truth? Why make something up?

As far as how did the kid survive that long? Intibation, baby.

Three cheers for medical science! (And I hope, GM, that you do not take my arguments here as detracting from the joy I feel that your brother is still alive.)

 

[The GM]

What is wrong with saying "we really don't know the mechanism" when it is, in fact, the truth? Why make something up?
Three cheers for medical science! (And I hope, GM, that you do not take my arguments here as detracting from the joy I feel that your brother is still alive.) [/B]

I don't think there's anything wrong w/ saying 'I don't know,' in fact, it's a particularly useful and accurate phrase in many cases. What I'm describing (through my experience of living in life or death atmospheres for two straight months) is that there *really* and here's the caveat, *seems* to be a correlation between people who are strong enough to duke it out, and those who aren't. This seemed to be a result of the patient's mental fortitude (will) positive support structures (friends and family present) and medical technology (obviously!) We know with the kid in my example that there was an immediate and measurable response to his father's presence and words. Coincidence? I conceed that's a possibility. Lots of things are possible. However, if will is important, should we not investigate its roots and how we can increase will, perhaps through support mechanisms, or even through technology. If will is a non existant, as you argue, then what causes the difference between success and failure? What promotes a positive attitude? What can be done to increase chances for survival? These are questions I have asked myself many times over the last couple of months. I think they are valid questions, and the answers have real life consequences.

Oh, and yeah, I don't see your questions as a slight of any sort.

 

[Cleopatra]

Mercutio I will return to your posts but I want to absorb them first for a couple of days I just want to notice a couple of things that you might find useful.

You know there are whole nations( I hope that Capel Dodger doesn't read that and jumps in to reprimand me for using a vague term...) have survived because the concept of the power of the will is deep rooted in their culture?

I believe that the whole edifice of my family's existence( and of many other greek families) was built on that belief. My grandparents survived camps, wars, my grandfather was a pioneer in his science, my father had a very bad experience as a political prisoner and all of them talk about the power of will.

I cannot believe that my grandmother returned to Thessaloniki after Bergen Belsen on foot just because she was lucky. Many times she narrates the moment of her imprisonment that she decided to live. Was it a matter of luck surviving in a camp? Sure it was but it had to do with other things as well, it had to do with the devotion to yourself.

Just out of curiosity this morning I found the obituaries that they were published in the papers after my gradnfather's death a couple of years ago. For one more time I realized how deeply Greeks believe that the power of will does the trick. Even the obituaries of the Greek Chess Federation ( my grandpa was the first greek GM) were refering to the power of his will. Well, I admit that it takes more than will to win chess games but I mention that to show you how deep rooted are some beliefs .

Also, based on this observation I have another point to make, it's more a question: How can you bring to the lab such a deep rooted convinction that is embraced by so many people and for generations after generations?

Asking a Greek to stop believing in the power of will is like asking him to believe that it's the sun the star that shines in the morning.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't think there's anything wrong w/ saying 'I don't know,' in fact, it's a particularly useful and accurate phrase in many cases. What I'm describing (through my experience of living in life or death atmospheres for two straight months) is that there *really* and here's the caveat, *seems* to be a correlation between people who are strong enough to duke it out, and those who aren't. This seemed to be a result of the patient's mental fortitude (will) positive support structures (friends and family present) and medical technology (obviously!) We know with the kid in my example that there was an immediate and measurable response to his father's presence and words. Coincidence? I conceed that's a possibility. Lots of things are possible. However, if will is important, should we not investigate its roots and how we can increase will, perhaps through support mechanisms, or even through technology. If will is a non existant, as you argue, then what causes the difference between success and failure? What promotes a positive attitude? What can be done to increase chances for survival? These are questions I have asked myself many times over the last couple of months. I think they are valid questions, and the answers have real life consequences.

Several comments...I'll try to keep them organized...I agree, the immediate response to the father's words seems to be more than coincidence--but that does not point to any one mechanism by which the words had an effect. The evidence that the mechanism was "will to live" is purely circular. Which brings the next point...I agree, why not investigate its roots? The problem is, that has not been done! We are making causal attributions to something for which there is, as yet, no evidence! I agree wholeheartedly that we should examine anything that makes a difference (and as for "what promotes a positive attitude?", I point once again to Bandura's self-efficacy papers, and will try do dig up some citations); your questions are the ones that should be asked before simply asserting that "will to live" is responsible for survival.

As an aside...your question "if will is non existant, as you argue, then what causes the difference between success and failure?" interests me. It implies (but I do not wish to put words in your mouth) an identity between "success" and "possessed of the will to succeed", and between "failure" and "not possessed of the will to succeed". I hope you can see that if this is what you meant, then the term "will to succeed" is defines solely by success or failure, and must be determined after the fact. As such, it is a useless term; it cannot predict in advance, only excuse after the fact.

I do not say (but you may ) that this is how you use the term; It is, however, how the term is generally used. And that is what I am arguing against.

Oh, and yeah, I don't see your questions as a slight of any sort.

Thanks!

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio I will return to your posts but I want to absorb them first for a couple of days I just want to notice a couple of things that you might find useful.

Thank you for your comments; they are thought-provoking, and I am enjoying the mental calisthenics.

You know there are whole nations( I hope that Capel Dodger doesn't read that and jumps in to reprimand me for using a vague term...) have survived because the concept of the power of the will is deep rooted in their culture?

Do they survive because they have will, or do they have will because they survived? Everyone assumes the former...I suspect the latter.

I believe that the whole edifice of my family's existence( and of many other greek families) was built on that belief. My grandparents survived camps, wars, my grandfather was a pioneer in his science, my father had a very bad experience as a political prisoner and all of them talk about the power of will.

I am certain they believe it. But do not forget, people were every bit as adamant that the earth did not move, and the sun orbited us. Our experience demonstrates that every day--it is counter to our own senses that we accept that our planet spins...

I cannot believe that my grandmother returned to Thessaloniki after Bergen Belsen on foot just because she was lucky. Many times she narrates the moment of her imprisonment that she decided to live. Was it a matter of luck surviving in a camp? Sure it was but it had to do with other things as well, it had to do with the devotion to yourself.

It was, as you say, many things. I think that you may have hit the bull's-eye of this problem. There are, for such situations, simply too many causal factors for us to see, and no single one of them stands out as "the" cause. When we cannot see "a" cause, it is easier for us to attribute our actions to some unseen factor, such as will.

Just out of curiosity this morning I found the obituaries that they were published in the papers after my gradnfather's death a couple of years ago. For one more time I realized how deeply Greeks believe that the power of will does the trick. Even the obituaries of the Greek Chess Federation ( my grandpa was the first greek GM) were refering to the power of his will. Well, I admit that it takes more than will to win chess games but I mention that to show you how deep rooted are some beliefs .

So...did he ever win a game despite having given up the will to win? Did he ever lose one after his opponent had already given up the will to win?

Also, based on this observation I have another point to make, it's more a question: How can you bring to the lab such a deep rooted convinction that is embraced by so many people and for generations after generations?

You are asking this of someone who has no problem speaking empirically of love?

Asking a Greek to stop believing in the power of will is like asking him to believe that it's the sun the star that shines in the morning.

I think it is because people hold their beliefs so passionately that I am so passionate on my side...

 

[BillyJoe]

GM,

My thought on that is that perhaps medical technology is not advanced enough to measure all levels of consciousness, and thus the docs truly thought the kid was brain dead.

If there was no brain activity, then there were no sensory inputs otherwise they would have produced some brain activity....

However, when his dad gave him 'the talk' there was an immediate (and measurable!) response. The brain monitor went from flat to activity. Thus dad directly manipulated 'will to live' through his words to the son.

.....so, his fathers "talk" could not have had any effect on the brain till his brain had recovered sufficiently to begin responding to the "talk". So, again, how could the "will to live" have had any effect on this critical phase of his recovery.

BJ

 

[jmercer]

I will agree that when we see someone become sluggish, refuse to eat or exercise, etc., we may infer from this behavior that he or she has "lost the will to live" (although, if they live despite behaving this way, the same things are seen as caused by the illness, and are obstacles that their "will to live" was able to overcome), but as explained above, if we then say that losing one's will to live caused these behaviors, we are defining that will circularly.
[/b]

[Snipped a lot of cogent, intelligent thoughts for brevity]

(sigh)

I started writing a rather forceful reply with a significant amount of emotional content... Then I re-read your post and realized that my reply was utterly uncalled for. Apparently, I'm still too emotional about the entire thing to objectively debate about it, and I didn't realize it.

I truly pride myself on being open-minded, and you made some excellent and cogent points. But since strong emotions started coming up about the whole thing, I'm simply going to bow out of the discussion before I put my foot in my mouth up to the knee.

I apologize - please don't assume in any way that you offended me, because as I said - after reviewing what you wrote, there was nothing offensive there.

 

[Mercutio]

(sigh)

I started writing a rather forceful reply with a significant amount of emotional content... Then I re-read your post and realized that my reply was utterly uncalled for. Apparently, I'm still too emotional about the entire thing to objectively debate about it, and I didn't realize it.

I truly pride myself on being open-minded, and you made some excellent and cogent points. But since strong emotions started coming up about the whole thing, I'm simply going to bow out of the discussion before I put my foot in my mouth up to the knee.

I apologize - please don't assume in any way that you offended me, because as I said - after reviewing what you wrote, there was nothing offensive there.

I take no offense at all, jmercer. This topic is emotional, pure and simple. I find it extraordinary, and quite admirable, that you are able--even still in the throes of such powerful emotional involvement--to engage in such intelligent and powerful discussion. There is nothing for you to apologize for; rather, I thank you for your candor and for your contribution. I am quite fortunate in that my argument is made in the absence of such a personal tragedy; I don't know how I would react. I can only hope I would do as good a job as you.

If you wish to talk about any of this via PM instead of in this thread, please do. And don't be afraid of offending me, please--I really doubt that is possible!

 

[username]

We held a party for the hospital staff and the people who really helped us out while we were in Texas.

Bravo for doing that. It is good to show gratitude for those often unsung heros.

Too often God is credited with a person surviving something horrific and the humans with a decade or more of schooling and many more years of experience are left unthanked.

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 don't think so. I don't think the will to survive matters in most circumstances. If a person is in a body of water and they are treading water to avoid drowning the will to survive can make a difference in how long the person will stay above water, but if a person is shot in the head the will to survive makes no difference.

For something like a disease it is harder to gauge, but ultimately if vital organs fail, the person dies regardless of will. I don't think will is something that can power an organ deprived of what it needs to continue functioning anymore than a machine can continue to function.

 

[BillyJoe]

username,

(I can't believe that you chose username as your...er....username. )

I don't think GM is going to disagree with you on any of your points. But I think Mercutio will ( ). What do you think of his arguments against your point of view?

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[The GM]

GM,

If there was no brain activity, then there were no sensory inputs otherwise they would have produced some brain activity....

.....so, his fathers "talk" could not have had any effect on the brain till his brain had recovered sufficiently to begin responding to the "talk". So, again, how could the "will to live" have had any effect on this critical phase of his recovery.

BJ

My point, BJ, was that I think it was more an instance of medical technology not being precise enough to measure all of the levels of consciousness that we may experience. (Perhaps a debate for another thread, I don't know. ) I saw the kid's monitors. The way the unit was set up, you could eyeball every patient, no privacy at all. I saw the flat lines. One white one, a green one, and a blue one. What the colors stood for exactly, I don't know, but I do know the parents had been approached about organ donation and final arraingements. Thus, dad went in to have what he assumed would be the last talk he'd have w/ his son. When that happened, the three lines (much to the shock of the nurse who was there, not to mention the parents) began to jump. Since the leads were all seperate, I very much doubt that they were set wrong or knocked loose at the same time only to come back on at the same time. Plus, since the kid is the competitive sort, it fits that his 'will' would be strong. Play to win, eh?

 

[username]

I don't think GM is going to disagree with you on any of your points. But I think Mercutio will ( ). What do you think of his arguments against your point of view?

regards,
BillyJoe

Mercutio hasn't yet made any arguments against my point of view

 

[The GM]

I take no offense at all, jmercer. This topic is emotional, pure and simple. I find it extraordinary, and quite admirable, that you are able--even still in the throes of such powerful emotional involvement--to engage in such intelligent and powerful discussion.

I second that 100% and was a bit surprised that you were willing to share such a deep and personal message. I have learned a lot from your words, things that I have considered deeply, and still do. Thank you for your participation.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio hasn't yet made any arguments against my point of view

What, already? I was waiting, because the post was addressed to The GM, not to me. But I could (and may, if no one else does) make essentially the same points with your examples...

Why the rolleyes, BillyJoe? Am I talking too much? But you are right...it would be pretty much the exact same arguments...so I will wait and see what happens here after I go to bed...very shortly. I guess I must have a strong will to sleep...we shall see...

 

[The GM]

Re: Re: The power of Will

Bravo for doing that. It is good to show gratitude for those often unsung heros.

Too often God is credited with a person surviving something horrific and the humans with a decade or more of schooling and many more years of experience are left unthanked.

Yes, yes and more yes! It was not only important, but *critical* for us to thank those people, in person, for what they did. I hunted down everyone I could, from the first witness on the scene down to the freakin' cleaning ladies. There were hundreds of them. I even made a big banner with everyone's name on it and sent personal letters of thanks to each one. No easy feat, and I'm certain that I still missed people. That, I feel bad about. It's just that there were so many, even though I wrote down there names as I came across them, I still don't know for sure who did blood counts or lab cultures, or delivered supplies and meds, or who donated blood and plasma, etc... I wish I did, they'd get a thank you card as well.

I don't think so. I don't think the will to survive matters in most circumstances. If a person is in a body of water and they are treading water to avoid drowning the will to survive can make a difference in how long the person will stay above water, but if a person is shot in the head the will to survive makes no difference.

A lot of gun shot victims survive and attribute that survival to 'willpower'. Just ask James Brady, for instance.
Now see, I'm just inviting Merc to tear that statement apart. *big grin*

Seriously, this is all very interesting stuff. I can tell you what I infered due to my personal experience, but that's clearly biased. Does anyone know of any studies out there that talks about this sort of thing? Can we even measure it objectively?

 

[username]

Re: Re: Re: The power of Will

A lot of gun shot victims survive and attribute that survival to 'willpower'. Just ask James Brady, for instance.
Now see, I'm just inviting Merc to tear that statement apart. *big grin*

Well sure, but many survivors attribute their survival to God, Elvis or aliens, that doesn't make it so.

The body is a physical machine. All bodies wear out and die at some point. This is a known fact, beyond all dispute.

It doesn't matter how strong one's will to live is, all will die.

If something (like a gunshot wound) occurs and causes sufficent damage to critical systems, the body will die.

Will has no bearing on survival in such a case. Either critical damage has occured and death will result or it hasn't and it won't. Medical attention can affect the outcome in some cases, but not will.

In order to believe that will can affect the outcome one would need to show that a person can, via will alone, cause their heart to beat despite having been blown into 4 pieces by a bullet.

The only time will to live can be a factor is when one is alive and is faced with some death producing factor that can be avoided. The treading water scenario I gave is an example. Person 1 feels it is hopeless and the muscles are tired so gives up after 1 hour and drowns. Person 2 believes help will come eventually and persists despite aches and pains for 24 hours. This would be an example of will affecting the survival outcome. Note that in this example there is no threat of death to the person treading water, the only threat of death is to the person who is no longer treading water. Once the person goes under the water the will to live becomes irrelevant, they will both die from drowning due to oxygen deprivation to the brain.

Unless one can will themselves to die I don't see how giving up the will to live can account for a death except for a situation where mental stamina is required.

 

[BillyJoe]

Mercutio,

Why the rolleyes, BillyJoe? Am I talking too much?

I was making a joke around that word "will".....but, it wasn't really that good a joke.....hence the rolleyes (directed at my own poor joke).

...so I will wait and see what happens here after I go to bed...very shortly. I guess I must have a strong will to sleep...we shall see...

But here you are doing the same thing.

BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

My point, BJ, was that I think it was more an instance of medical technology not being precise enough to measure all of the levels of consciousness that we may experience.

Yes, you did say that, but I don't think that it is relevant. Put it this way, his father was not responding to sensory input and then, suddenly, he was. This means that his brain recovered from being unable to respond to sensory input to being able to respond. This would be a critical improvement which, necessarily, could not have been achieved by "the will to live".

I saw the kid's monitors. The way the unit was set up, you could eyeball every patient, no privacy at all. I saw the flat lines. One white one, a green one, and a blue one. What the colors stood for exactly, I don't know, but I do know the parents had been approached about organ donation and final arraingements.

Is there any way of finding out what that monitor with those coloured lines was. I am certainly not doubting you, and you are probably right, but I was not aware that they continually monitor brain activity in comatose patients.

Thus, dad went in to have what he assumed would be the last talk he'd have w/ his son. When that happened, the three lines (much to the shock of the nurse who was there, not to mention the parents) began to jump. Since the leads were all seperate, I very much doubt that they were set wrong or knocked loose at the same time only to come back on at the same time.

Yeah, sorry, I always have a bit if a problem with little anecdotes such as these. Again, I am not doubting you, but you at least seem to be a little unsure of the details. And you will know as well as I do about the unreliability of witness testimony and the natural tendency to embellish a story etc etc. (again without casting any aspersions on you personally)....
In any case, as indicated above, the critical improvement cannot have been caused by "the will to live".

regards,
BillyJoe