The power of Will

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The power of Will

username,

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.

I would call that a bloody miracle!
(Actually, the heart would probably continue to beat spontaneously for a little while[i/] after such an injury)

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.

You could imagine all sorts of contributary causes here. Recent illness, poor physical condition, poor swimming ability, poor endurance capability, proneness to panic etc etc.
But you still haven't considered Mercutio's argument against the point of view you espouse (to put it less ambiguously than before)

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.

Well, I guess if "the will to live" can account for you staying alive, then the absence of "the will to live" can account for your death. And a "will to die" could account for you dying sooner. (and then someone else could use that original name of yours )

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The power of Will

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

Good examples. All arrived at through circular reasoning. My favorite was a student of mine, for whom everything that happened to her was the work of the BVM.

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.

As you describe it, this is not "will to live", but rather "hope". Yes, both are fuzzy terms, but they are used quite differently in our language (well, now that I think about it, there are 2 very different uses of "hope", one of which is inferred after the fact, as in "after struggling in the water for nearly 36 hours, he finally gave up hope and slipped beneath the surface." Note the difference between that usage and yours, in which "hope" versus "hopelessness" is specified well in advance.)

If I might, I would like to explore this treading water example a bit more, in light of one of Cleo's earlier comments. There is a huge difference between this drowning scenario and the gunshot to the head scenario (although The GM is right, James Brady had some serious will to live...by all accounts but mine . I have also seen some horrendous pictures of WWI gunshot wounds to the head which were survived. I do not doubt that people said these poor men had tremendous will to survive...); that difference is in how obvious the cause of death is. In the drowning scenario, one person may live and another die, treading water side by side. Why? It could, of course, be any number of factors--water currents, body fat, when they last ate, clothing, the decision to thrash or remain calm, cardiovascular fitness, vulnerability of organs to reduced core temperature (some people are more affected by cold than others)...there may be dozens more factors--my point is actually that I do not know all the things that matter in this case. As I said above, when we do not have a nice simple cause to point to (say, a bullet), the factors that influence survival are difficult to analyze. When they are difficult to analyze, we create a nice simple cause to point to (say, losing the will to live). I say "create" because there is no evidence other than the eventual survival--we do not need to infer the existence of the bullet in the other case.

When someone lives or dies, under circumstances when it could just as easily (or more!) have gone the other way, and we cannot see one reason (perhaps because there are too many reasons), we simplify the situation in order to make sense of it.

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.

Oooh..."mental stamina"...is that like "will to survive"? (sorry, I am a behaviorist...)

BillyJoe...that was an awful, wonderful pun. I am sorry I did not get it. It turns out I did have more will to sleep than will to get jokes. Silly me.

 

[The GM]

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 think it is relevant if he had consciousness on some level that allowed him to hear what was going on.
I asked my bro after the fact if remembered all of the stuff that we told him when he was comatose. He said he knew when we were there, and when we were not, although perhaps not specific words. He knew the feeling, love, support, etc... The docs were careful, when delivering bad news to pull us out and away from his bay so that he wouldn't accidentally overhear what they had to say. If they thought it made no difference, why remove us from his earshot?
I guess I should have asked. But obviously the docs thought that it would be detrimental to discuss 'bad' stuff in front of my brother.

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.

I'm sure there is a way to find out. I think they had him hooked up because his parents were newly arrived and they were showing that, yeah, this kid has no hope and here's the proof. His brain injury is that severe.
I never saw these sorts of monitors on my brother, but he had heart trauma, not brain trauma.
(As a side not, I could tell you what the pink lines, the teal lines, the orange lines and all of the numbers meant. ) I was not familiar with the brain monitoring because that wasn't something I had to deal with directly.

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".

Yeah, I agree. Problem is that I only have annecdotes to offer. Granted, I have a lot of them, but what I experienced was hardly a controlled testing environment.
As far as your last sentence, I don't know. To take the ole religious tack, I don't know that it was caused by will to live, but you don't know that it wasn't. If it was, I think it's worth investigation to find out more, how to manipulate it to positive effect and so forth.

 

[The GM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The power of Will

(although The GM is right, James Brady had some serious will to live...by all accounts but mine .

I *knew* you wouldn't leave that one alone! This is like a Pavlovian experiment. Let's see if I can get another one...Hey Merc, not only is will to live the real deal, but these are all examples of miracles, sent by God to convert you to the righteous path.

Just kidding. Seriously though, I am learning quite a bit thanks to you and the other posters in this thread. It may take me a bit to digest it all. Some of the concepts I am unfamiliar with and have had to do a bit of googling to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

 

[The GM]

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?

An all consuming obsession, from what I've been able to gather.

 

[Mercutio]

An all consuming obsession, from what I've been able to gather.

From what I know of obsession (and I have been known to obsess on occasion), this is quite a different bag of cats than a "feeling". Also...on thinking for a bit...when my grandmother held on for months due only to her "will to live", she was pretty much just laying there. There did not appear to be any struggle, any active fighting, just...not dying. (I was tempted to say "a refusal to die", but that would be projecting something for which there was no evidence.) I know that in some cases, there appears to be an active struggle...but in others, the person may be near-comatose (or actually comatose) and still be said to be "fighting to live". Any obsession on their part, I fear, is more in the eye of the beholder.

 

[davidsmith73]

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!

I just want to clarify - are you objectibg to the very principle of attributing causal efficacy to "will" just because it is being defined by the behaviours we see?

If you infer causation using scientific epistemology then this is always after the observation (the event) because it needs to use these observations. As you say, one can infer causation after the event (=observations we see) if we manipulate variables in order to increase your confidence of this.

While I agree that the causal inference of "will" in the "will to win" example is unjustified, I see no reason to exclude "will" or any other cognitive aspect from haveing causal efficacy if sufficient evidence can be observed.

 

[Mercutio]

I just want to clarify - are you objectibg to the very principle of attributing causal efficacy to "will" just because it is being defined by the behaviours we see?

If you infer causation using scientific epistemology then this is always after the observation (the event) because it needs to use these observations. As you say, one can infer causation after the event (=observations we see) if we manipulate variables in order to increase your confidence of this.

While I agree that the causal inference of "will" in the "will to win" example is unjustified, I see no reason to exclude "will" or any other cognitive aspect from haveing causal efficacy if sufficient evidence can be observed.

There is a big difference between inferring causation from controlled observation, and inferring causation circularly. In an experimental situation, we may (through random assignment to conditions and experimenter manipulation of the independent variable) infer causation because we have assured that only one variable is systematically different across conditions--yes, we still have to observe it, but we may reasonably infer causation. (Still, we phrase our conclusion in terms of probability, because the outcome could have occurred by chance, no matter how unlikely.) In other situations, we may employ a reversal design, implementing and removing and re-implementing an intervention in an ABABA design, to see whether the behavior is (again, reasonably inferred to be) under the control of the manipulated variable.

There is a world of difference between either of those, and the circular assignment of causality to "will to survive". This has even less weight behind it than many anecdotal accounts of what causes our behavior; at least with some anecdotes, there is a measurable (in principle, though not in practice in an anecdotal account) causal variable which drives our behavior, whereas for "will to survive", the only evidence we have is the eventual survival. There is nothing available, even in principle, which we could manipulate in order to have a chance at inferring causality in a scientific manner.

So...bottom line is, I agree with your last paragraph, but as it is commonly used, there is no way to observe "will to survive" at all apart from waiting to see who does survive...and that, of course, is too late.

 

[Mercutio]

I just want to clarify - are you objectibg to the very principle of attributing causal efficacy to "will" just because it is being defined by the behaviours we see?

Ok, right after I hit 'submit', I came up with a better answer.

The problem is, in common usage, we do not define "will to survive" by the behaviors we see. If we did, it would be, at least in principle, possible to manipulate this before the fact. In practice, though, "will to survive" is not defined by a behavior, or even a set of behaviors; it is defined by an outcome. It makes no difference (of course it does--what I mean is, it makes no difference in the conferring of "they showed tremendous will to survive" on them after the fact) what the individual did, what matters is that he or she lived or died. And that is not something we can manipulate before the fact.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm so sad--I have scoured the papers, listened to all the shows I could stomach, and so far there has been no mention of the Patriots having more will to win than the Eagles. Not even so much as an "it all came down to who wanted it more." I guess the game was not close enough to come down to that.

*sigh*

Anybody else see such things mentioned?

 

[username]

I would say the person who commits suicide has lost the will to live.

 

[Mercutio]

I would say the person who commits suicide has lost the will to live.

I would say the person who commits suicide has killed him or her self.

It could be that they still had the will to live, but it was overpowered by a will to die. Or by an angry god. Or by Sylvia. Or by a tumour in the amygdyla. Or an overwhelming situation (say, facing torture and slow but certain death, killing oneself as an escape, despite sincerely not wanting to die). Each of these, logically, explains the suicide as well as "losing the will to live."

If you, quite properly, invoke Occam and say "ah, but a will to die overpowering a will to live has 2 elements, whereas losing one's will to live has but one"...I would argue that committing suicide in response to one's situation has one fewer element than committing suicide because one's situation has caused one to lose one's will to live.

 

[username]

I would say the person who commits suicide has killed him or her self.

It could be that they still had the will to live, but it was overpowered by a will to die. Or by an angry god. Or by Sylvia. Or by a tumour in the amygdyla. Or an overwhelming situation (say, facing torture and slow but certain death, killing oneself as an escape, despite sincerely not wanting to die). Each of these, logically, explains the suicide as well as "losing the will to live."

I am speaking of the person who is depressed by life events and has decided that living this life is not something they wish to do any longer so they end their life. They have no will to live. Will, as I am using the term here, simply means "desire as expressed by their actions".

It applies to the suicidal person who ends their life because they are depressed, but it can also apply to the person treading water who decides that drowning is more desirable than continuing to endure the pain and exhaustion of treading water.

Assuming person a and b are identical in all respects other than the differences I will list, consider a scenario.

Persons a and b are in a large body of water with no floatation device and neither is capable of swimming to shore. To survive the experience they will need to be rescued. Neither knows what the probability of their being rescued is, but both figure it is very low.

Person a recently lost their spouse and children to a tragic auto accident. Stricken by grief they developed a chemical dependancy and this in turn led to their losing employment and being alienated by friends. This person, prior to finding himself in the water was feeling very hopeless.

Person b recently had a child, got a job in a career field of his dreams and feels a tremendous sense of responsibilty to provide financially for his elderly parent who requires expensive medications she can't afford. This person, prior to finding himself in the water was feeling very upbeat, very motivated and under a sense of obligation to a loved family member.

2 days later a ship passes by and rescues person b, but person a drowned the day before.

It makes sense to me that the person who sensed little joy in life would quit struggling to preserve that life sooner than the person who derived great joy from life and had obligations to meet.

The desire (to live), as expressed through actions was the only difference between person a and b.

In most conversations I would call this 'will' to live/survive.

 

[Mercutio]

2 days later a ship passes by and rescues person b, but person a drowned the day before.

It makes sense to me that the person who sensed little joy in life would quit struggling to preserve that life sooner than the person who derived great joy from life and had obligations to meet.

The desire (to live), as expressed through actions was the only difference between person a and b.

Consider what would be said if person A was the one who was rescued, and B had drowned the day before.

"With all the hardship in his life, all the cards stacked against him, he had developed quite a will to live merely to survive daily life...and when the boat sank, this will is what saved his life. As for the other guy, there was so much good in his life that he did not have to work as hard, never had to struggle, never had to develop that will to survive that the first guy did...." We would ignore the things that disconfirm our belief, and emphasize the things that confirm it...and we would have done that in the first (your) scenario as well. Whenever a conclusion has me saying "it makes sense to me", I find it useful to see whether I would have said the same thing for the opposite conclusion.

Secondly...once again, the difference between person A and person B is most parsimoniously described in terms of their environments. Note that all the things you mention are things which happen in their environments, which may have an effect on their behavior...with the exception of a "feeling of hopelessness" and a "feeling of obligation", both of which I would argue are inferences which have no support. You can specify them in an example, as you do here, but in real life and our common usage of "will to live", this is simply not done. Such feelings are always inferred after the fact.

In most conversations I would call this 'will' to live/survive.

I think most people would. I think it still (for the reasons above) assigns "will to live/survive" based on the eventual (live or die) outcome, not on the behaviors involved. (again, let me emphasize--yes, I know you specify attitudes before the fact; I am simply saying that in practice we have no way of doing that, and yet it does not stop us from inferring them.)

 

[username]

Note that all the things you mention are things which happen in their environments, which may have an effect on their behavior...with the exception of a "feeling of hopelessness" and a "feeling of obligation", both of which I would argue are inferences which have no support.

but I am not inferring anything. I think this is being overanalysed. If someone has reasons why they strongly wish to survive and another person doesn't have this strong desire then they differ in the degree to which they desire to live. When confronted with a situation which has the potential to kill them it stands to reason one will endure more hardship to survive than the other. It seems like a very simple and intuitive thing.

You can specify them in an example, as you do here, but in real life and our common usage of "will to live", this is simply not done. Such feelings are always inferred after the fact.
I think most people would. I think it still (for the reasons above) assigns "will to live/survive" based on the eventual (live or die) outcome, not on the behaviors involved. (again, let me emphasize--yes, I know you specify attitudes before the fact; I am simply saying that in practice we have no way of doing that, and yet it does not stop us from inferring them.)

What I am saying is that the attitude of the person going into the experience can account for differing responses during the experience. This isn't inferring anything after the fact.

 

[Mason]

but I am not inferring anything. I think this is being overanalysed. If someone has reasons why they strongly wish to survive and another person doesn't have this strong desire then they differ in the degree to which they desire to live. When confronted with a situation which has the potential to kill them it stands to reason one will endure more hardship to survive than the other. It seems like a very simple and intuitive thing.

This isn't the same will to live that was being discussed, though.

The "will to live" which drives person A to keep treading is not the same as the recovery/life-extension of cancer victim A. Cancer victim A can not simply stop beating his heart because he was tired of beating it in such a hopeless situation. In fact, he had no control at all of beating his heart, while person A had full control of his treading arms.

Person B realized he had no ultimate need to continue treading his arms. He figured "So what? I get rescued, the misery continues. I don't get rescued, I drown. At least this way, I don't drown tired." and he makes the decision to stop treading his arms.

Cancer victim B can't simply stop beating his heart... He has no direct control over it.

Consider how few news articles we see where people die with no warning, with no health problems known, and with no cause of death that the coroner can find. We don't hear how they lost the will to live, and then simply died because they stopped breathing. If this were as strong a possiblility as the reverse cases would seem to imply, suicide rates would be much lower, as the persons who lost their will to live would just die, and not have a further need to leap from the tops of tall things.

I see little real evidence for the power of the "will to live" beyond the common belief that it is indded there. The movies romanticize the concept of hanging on just long enough to say your last peace and then finally expire. In reality, these rare cases make the news, while the millions of other dead people die without such impressive timing or impressive headlines to draw attention to the normal events of life and death.

Given that pretty much everybody eventually dies, the few who get close but don't quite make it on the first shot are to be expected. Odds are pretty good that when millions of people in a particular situation die, a handful will die sooner than the majority, while a handful will die later than the majority. Some might even get themselves completely out of the situation, just being the lucky ones who were on the favourable end of the curve.

Just chance, combined with the proper (or improper) levels of attention from the proper sources, while caught in the proper circumstances. Not some amazing will to live.

 

[Mercutio]

Hey, GM, and others who have participated in this thread...The GM's brother was the topic of discussion (well, the introduction, anyway) in the last couple of days in my behaviorism classes. This thread has been a tremendous help to me--thus far, every comment made by my students has already appeared here, and I have had responses ready that I did not have to make up on the spot. In addition, a powerful story like his really captures their interest. Anyway...Thanks.

 

[The GM]

Nifty! I called my family and let them know. Now we're all watching this thread to see if you'll share some of your lecture notes w/ us.

 

[Mercutio]

Nifty! I called my family and let them know. Now we're all watching this thread to see if you'll share some of your lecture notes w/ us.

Are you kidding? This thread is my lecture notes!




ok, not really...it was my introduction. We looked at lots of different circularly defined topics. Some were easy to dissect; others are such a part of our language that it is nearly impossible for people to see the circularity. Who, after all, could argue against "I eat because I am hungry, drink because I am thirsty, and sleep because I am sleepy"? And then there is "human nature" and all the things we do just because it's human nature...and the things we do because we want to, or don't do because we lack the will.

I guarantee there will be people here who look at those phrases and pass me off as a lunatic (of course I eat because I am hungry!)...but just like in the rest of this thread........I'm right.

 

[The GM]

but just like in the rest of this thread........I'm right.

Evidence?


My brother thought this was particularly cool that something positive could come out of what happened to him. He liked the idea that someone learned something. So did I, for that matter.