Willpower

silentcyclist3 said:But what about those moments when you do something without any will at all, or maybe even against your own will?

Honestly, it’s basically just the same kind of willpower, except you just don't remember the thought process behind it... whereas doing something truly impossible just isn't happening. If you think otherwise, hit me with an example!

slymaker9 said:N/A

Freud viewed it that way, and while it was certainly one of the more developed theories of its era—quite groundbreaking at the time—it’s clear by today's standards that it falls significantly short.
The idea that willpower is merely a tug-of-war between the id and the superego doesn't hold water for me. Based on my own observations of people in the real world, that theory simply doesn't align with reality.

N/A

Look, you could easily read this as: You think you're such a big shot, but maybe you should go take a little stroll over to psychology.🤣
You can't be serious about wanting to kill me. Willpower. What are your thoughts on participating in philosophy debates?🤣
What should I get myself?🙈 And what about Chicago?🙂

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that other members have been contributing alongside you and Cervantes. Besides, forum etiquette dictates that if you aren't replying directly to someone in the middle of a conversation, you address the original post. These discussions are public across all subforums, and anyone is free to jump in whenever they like. I didn't specifically intend to follow your or Cervantes' particular line of reasoning just so I could quote one of you and track your specific flow. To be honest, I didn't even have the patience or the inclination to read through it all. So, please, spare me the patronizing—or should I say, the "guidance." 😕
I personally favor a philosophy centered on the relentless pursuit of truth—a constant effort to uncover facts and calculate the reality of any given situation. To me, that is what true philosophy is all about.
In every direction. I understand it quite well—it’s light, flexible, and completely unburdened. If you want to put it simply, it's straightforward.😉

Look at that. Just look at how much I’ve overindulged, and what it's doing to my ego.🤣🤣🤣

Exactly. That involves a conscious investment of personal resources. Essentially, you are investing energy, because everything ultimately boils down to energy—whether that’s labor, effort, or anything else.
It works like this: you have a drive, you want to satisfy it, and that's where willpower enters the equation.
But look, I have sexual drives, and I can satisfy them through either easy or difficult means, involving varying levels of energy expenditure. Why would I choose the harder path? Why would I invest more energy when the most natural thing to do is act economically and follow the path of least resistance?
I feel like there's a missing link here.
Where does the motivation come from to consciously pursue a more attractive goal at a higher energy cost? Because that is what true willpower actually looks like.🤷

I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

dustyskipper3 said:There isn't really a shared frame of reference that works for both the sender and the receiver. But we are talking about realized information here. For instance, if you have 20 GB on a hard drive, you technically possess that amount of potential information, even if it hasn't been fully utilized—and even if it has, the question remains whether it was ever actually transmitted or if anyone will even be able to make sense of it a few thousand years from now. It's like hieroglyphics; those texts inside the pyramids were messages waiting to be read, but before Champollion cracked the code, we just didn't know. Theoretically, maybe the information regarding the entire universe is already written down and we could read it if we managed to decode a universal cipher (kind of like genetic code), but I suppose we don't even have the theoretical time required to read it all. The lifespan of the universe is shorter than what would be needed to transmit all its data, especially since the universe is constantly expanding and the sheer volume of information keeps growing. So, we might potentially have access to all that data, but in reality, we're mostly just guessing.😉

That’s why we rely so heavily on simplifications and metaphors; we simply don't have the time to convey the full scope of information. And honestly, a human being—or the mind, specifically—can't even grasp the complete information about itself, though maybe some sort of superior intellect could. These kinds of informational paradoxes... I guess they make the whole thing feel a bit mystical.

To truly perceive something, you need both a subjective and an objective distance from reality. The subjective part is easy to grasp since each of us creates our own. The objective part is much more complicated; it's supposed to represent the intersection of all those subjective distances. So, the question is: is science actually capable of transmitting the objectivity of the past when examining a problem, or is every scientific "objective" view colored by the subjectivity of the person using it? In short, can a modern person truly reproduce the past in its entirety, rather than just a sequence of events?

Well, I suppose that comes down to how much a person understands themselves and their own subjectivity. In that case, one could treat themselves like a flawed measuring instrument and try to "calibrate" themselves to be more objective. It's a bit like aiming a rifle at a target; if you see you're hitting low, you adjust your aim upward. Similarly, a person might realize they have a tendency toward being overly optimistic or exaggerating things, so they correct their subjective assessment by a certain factor to reach something closer to the truth. It’s a shame people don't know themselves better; there would probably be a lot less nonsense and conflict in the world.😉😁

Maybe will is just a drive toward objectivity?

It’s difficult, I guess, because it’s usually tied up in ego perception. But maybe—and this is just a thought—if a person manages to rise above the egoic perception that keeps them from a total psychological breakdown and actually achieves that Jungian "self," where they are fully integrated with the universe, then their will could become a need for objectivity. You know, a drive for understanding, for grasping truth, for the essence of things. Since the universe doesn't have an ego, and God probably doesn't either—because God wouldn't need an ego to protect a fragile mind from reality when He *is* that reality—then it follows that the will of the universe and the will of a human in an ego-perceptive state are essentially at odds. A person lives in an illusion of duality, whereas the universe does not. Humans need distance to perceive things (subject vs. object), but the universe or God doesn't. So, this question of will is quite interesting, really. It sets us apart from nature, and maybe that's where the need for religion comes from—as a will to return to nature by transcending basic ego perception and building that "self." But that's more like the second topic you brought up.

I think I was referring to your (and my) understanding of the "archaeology" of the past earlier. You don't necessarily have to look toward the future.
I realize my way of thinking is strictly subjectivist, but, honestly, I just can't seem to step outside of it. It means that, on some deeper level, every individual possesses their own private language that our so-called consensus language can only crudely approximate. There are things I have in my head, but I simply lack the words to express them. However, in a human sense, to satisfy my curiosity (well, what even is curiosity?), I have to possess will. And curiosity is tied back to perception and the senses. What is the end result of all that?😕

Curiosity also seems to stem from this illusion of being separate from nature; it feels like a function of the left hemisphere, the rational side, while imagination belongs to the right.

But what exactly is matter?
As far as we can tell, it stops at the level of atoms. All those other particles are just pure mathematical constructs that undoubtedly exist, yet they can't really be called "matter." For instance, a graviton is just a description of the curvature of spacetime. If it isn't matter, then what is it?
Maybe it's just a consequence of us only seeing one face of the god Janus, while the other remains forever hidden from us?
To go back to Scholasticism: if there exists a Prime Mover or an Unmoved Mover, does the very act of motion represent an act of will?

Whatever leaves a trace in a bubble chamber certainly exists, unless we're talking about ghosts. 😬 But the issue is that it doesn't always exist as a particle. Sometimes it's a wave. Or a superposition. This idea about Janus seems right to me; if we could see the full picture, the whole world might look deterministically "lifeless"—we could describe it entirely—but because of quantum effects, a piece of the information always escapes us at the microscopic level. We're left with nothing but statistics. Does the act of motion represent an act of will... hmm... 🤷 theoretically speaking, without dimensions, there is no motion. Perhaps the emergence of something from nothing is an act of will, though to me, it feels more like an act of self-recognition, a desire for life, and will comes later. So, will cannot exist without a mover. Maybe original self-awareness is the Prime Mover that creates matter and the information upon that matter, but motion would imply converting potential energy into kinetic energy, which requires that potential energy exists first, born from that initial self-awareness.

I find these concepts of dark matter and dark energy to be quite strange... perhaps even a bit mysterious, if I'm being honest. It’s somewhat unsettling to think that they account for about 75% of the entire universe, yet we don't actually have any idea what they truly are. We seem to be grasping at straws. At the same time, there is this intense drive to formulate a "Theory of Everything," like string theory, which feels almost ambitious given our current gaps in knowledge. Maybe dark energy could just be Einstein's cosmological constant, but as for dark matter... I guess we're still largely in the dark on that one too.
I guess I'm having a bit of a hard time... seeing how those two concepts actually tie back to the whole idea of will that we've been discussing. It's a little difficult to bridge the gap there, maybe.

Perhaps there is some sort of latent potential energy—some undefined cosmic self-awareness, I suppose—that wants to act as the driver instead of that original prime mover. Right now, it seems to be working against the prime mover's will, since it’s accelerating the expansion of the universe and just increasing entropy... though I guess the prime mover's will would likely lean toward creating order within the cosmos. Dark energy doesn't strike me as a creative force; it feels more like something destructive, moving us toward this "Big Rip" scenario where the universe just tears itself apart through infinite expansion. But, maybe that won't actually happen. Perhaps the universe will eventually stabilize at some level, and maybe even we, as intelligent beings possessing our own agency, could somehow contribute to bringing order to the universe.

But, I guess... why would rationality be considered a limitation? I still don't quite see what could possibly take its place if we're actually trying to grasp the world objectively. It seems... well, it’s only natural that things feel mystical.

Mystery is a marvel, I suppose... though miracles rarely seem to follow any kind of symmetry.

Ugh, you should really tell that to the people posting all about sacred geometry over on those magic and mysticism forums.😍 I suppose I actually have a bit of a theory regarding the rationality behind the various PDFs being circulated on this forum, though I think I’ll hold off on sharing it for now. I wouldn't want anyone to take offense or feel targeted by my observations, I guess. 😁 If we look at this through the lens of calibration theory, mysticism essentially assumes that humans are inherently irrational beings. Because of that, any subjective conclusion someone tries to turn into an objective fact has to be calibrated against their own level of irrationality. But... I guess there’s a bit of a paradox there. How can an irrational subject actually calibrate their own irrationality? It seems like the distortion of reality could just end up getting even worse, right? Maybe that’s why mystical self-perception puts the individual right at the center, calibrating everything around themselves instead of calibrating themselves against the world. If someone doesn't like that approach, they can just walk away, I suppose. Or, if they enjoy being a follower, they can join the ranks of those following a guru. In the end, it all feels quite asymmetrical. Even the information shared is asymmetrical—the guru holds all the data and the key to decoding it, while the followers are left with nothing. They exist in completely separate reference frames, and I think they can only ever meet through some kind of mystical union.

Can matter actually be considered information? I mean, just a thought... like, maybe an electron isn't even a "real" thing until we actually go out and measure it. I guess it's possible that what we call matter is really just data being processed. It's a bit of a heavy concept, I suppose. Maybe.

It’s only a possibility, I suppose. But then again, even information sitting on a computer isn't really actual until you actually open the program. And who knows, maybe the whole thing just freezes up mid-way through... you can never really tell.

In my own version of reality, I suppose God could only ever be a poet. It would mean being fundamentally out of sync with existence, I guess. Do you think it’s possible that Virginia Woolf's "waves" might actually wash against the shores of Borges's Aleph?

Well, I suppose I mentioned Virginia as an example, mostly because I tend to view God as a being entirely devoid of an ego-driven perspective. It’s more like a pure stream of consciousness, which, at its absolute best, might only be expressed through something like "I am that which I am." So, I guess there are significant hurdles regarding any concept of an "I" or a localized sense of self. On the other hand, perhaps that divinity incarnates within us, allowing itself to be viewed through our own limited ego-lens—almost like a single drop in a vast ocean, just one tiny part of a grander Aleph being washed over by the waves of an immense, divine existence.

There’s this idea, I suppose, that everything follows a cycle—that there is always a beginning and an end—yet at the same time, we are beings without any real limits.😁

Maybe the start and the finish are actually the exact same thing... kind of like a palindrome that reads just the same whether you go forward or backward.😉

Yeah, but what does "potentially" even mean? I’m not "potentially" a man, and the sun isn't "potentially" a sun. We exist. We are facts. We function as information—or better yet, storage for information. Potentiality isn't reality. It’s just a limbo that can lead you straight to hell if you aren't careful. Information—just like stocks—doesn't actually become real until it hits the market. What's the point of the age or size of the universe if a single thought from me can wrap itself around the whole damn thing?

We constantly lean on shortcuts and metaphors because we just don't have the bandwidth to process the full picture. Even the human mind can't actually wrap itself around its own complete data set, even though some theoretical "superior intellect" could. These information paradoxes are exactly what make the whole thing feel so mystical.

👍
If we knew everything, life would be incredibly boring—absolutely mind-numbing. And that’s exactly why God can't be perfect. Maybe "will" is just a desperate reach for perfection?🤷

Look, it all comes down to how much a person actually understands themselves and their own bias. If you can actually recognize your own subjectivity, you can treat yourself like a faulty measuring tool and "calibrate" your perspective to get closer to the truth. It’s just like shooting a rifle at a target—if you realize your aim is pulling low, you adjust your sights upward to compensate. It's the same thing here. If you know you have a tendency to be overly optimistic or prone to exaggerating, you factor that in, adjust your internal math by a certain margin, and suddenly you're seeing things more objectively. Honestly, if people were just better at self-awareness, there would be a hell of a lot less bullshit and conflict in this world. 😉😁

Didn't Nietzsche talk about this? Something along the lines of: In order to love others, I first have to love myself.
How do you calibrate yourself to be more objective?
Through knowledge?

It’s tough, because objectivity is usually tied up in ego perception. But maybe if a person moves past the egoic view—the one that just protects them from a psychological breakdown—and achieves that Jungian "self" where they are fully integrated with the universe, then their will becomes a drive for objectivity. A drive for understanding, for truth, for the core of things. Since the universe doesn't have an ego, and neither does Bog, because Bog doesn't need an ego to shield a fragile mind from reality (since He *is* reality), then the will of the universe and the will of a human in an ego-state are basically opposites. Humans live in an illusion of duality; the universe doesn't. We need distance to perceive things (subject vs. object), but Bog doesn't. So this question of "will" is pretty interesting. It sets us apart from nature, and maybe that's why there's a need for religion—as a way to return to nature by moving past basic ego perception to build the "self." But that's the other topic you brought up.

That implies we are the only ones striving for objectivity. Bog is terrifyingly subjective.
That sounds like some scholastic wordplay. Is divine subjectivity something existing outside of nature? Analogy: Nature (and us included) would be the body, but not the head.

Curiosity also stems from that illusion of being separate from nature. It's a function of the left hemisphere (rational), while imagination is a function of the right.

Is curiosity a precursor to the will, or its protector?

Maybe it's the potential energy of some undefined cosmic self-awareness that wants to be the mover instead of the Prime Mover. Right now, it acts like it's opposing the Prime Mover's will because it accelerates the expansion of the universe and increases entropy (whereas the Mover's will likely aims for order). Dark energy doesn't feel like a creative will to me; it feels destructive, pushing toward a "Big Rip"—where the universe tears itself apart through sudden, infinite expansion. It probably won't actually happen, though. The universe will likely stabilize, and maybe we, as intelligent beings with our own will, can contribute to bringing order to it.

Is man God?
Maybe the universe only truly becomes a "universe" the moment someone observes it.
On the other hand, aside from abstract thought, man is entirely a part of that universe.

I used Virginia as an example because I see Bog as a being without an ego-perspective. It's just a flow of consciousness that, at best, can be described as "I am that I am." There are huge issues with the concept of "I" and the experience of the self. On the other hand, it can incarnate within us, allowing us to look at things from an ego perspective—like being a single part of an Aleph being washed over by waves of massive divine identity.

But we don't function like Virginia's waves. We are a river of individual consciousnesses rolling and tumbling along. An Aleph—the most perfect letter where everything is concentrated—would be the total opposite of those waves. An Aleph would be a metaphor for ultimate community, not individuality.

Maybe the beginning is also the end—like a palindrome you can read both ways.😉

Logic, math, philosophy... it all has to be simple. Complexity is just for idiots.

slymaker9 said:N/A

Freud viewed it that way, and while it was certainly one of the more developed theories of its era—quite groundbreaking at the time—it’s clear by today's standards that it falls significantly short.
The idea that willpower is merely a tug-of-war between the id and the superego doesn't hold water for me. Based on my own observations of people in the real world, that theory simply doesn't align with reality.

N/A

Look, you could easily read this as: You think you're such a big shot, but maybe you should go take a little stroll over to psychology.🤣
You can't be serious about wanting to kill me. Willpower. What are your thoughts on participating in philosophy debates?🤣
What should I get myself?🙈 And what about Chicago?🙂

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that other members have been contributing alongside you and Cervantes. Besides, forum etiquette dictates that if you aren't replying directly to someone in the middle of a conversation, you address the original post. These discussions are public across all subforums, and anyone is free to jump in whenever they like. I didn't specifically intend to follow your or Cervantes' particular line of reasoning just so I could quote one of you and track your specific flow. To be honest, I didn't even have the patience or the inclination to read through it all. So, please, spare me the patronizing—or should I say, the "guidance." 😕
I personally favor a philosophy centered on the relentless pursuit of truth—a constant effort to uncover facts and calculate the reality of any given situation. To me, that is what true philosophy is all about.
In every direction. I understand it quite well—it’s light, flexible, and completely unburdened. If you want to put it simply, it's straightforward.😉

Look at that. Just look at how much I’ve overindulged, and what it's doing to my ego.🤣🤣🤣

Exactly. That involves a conscious investment of personal resources. Essentially, you are investing energy, because everything ultimately boils down to energy—whether that’s labor, effort, or anything else.
It works like this: you have a drive, you want to satisfy it, and that's where willpower enters the equation.
But look, I have sexual drives, and I can satisfy them through either easy or difficult means, involving varying levels of energy expenditure. Why would I choose the harder path? Why would I invest more energy when the most natural thing to do is act economically and follow the path of least resistance?
I feel like there's a missing link here.
Where does the motivation come from to consciously pursue a more attractive goal at a higher energy cost? Because that is what true willpower actually looks like.🤷

Earlier you mentioned that "... it doesn't happen just because will exists."

It looks like Olivia Evans8 might be on the right track. No matter how you look at it, you can't escape the concept of will. Using the term "will-less" probably just describes a tendency toward a task, but if you're being forced, you have to direct your will toward solving the problem itself.🙂

Olivia Evans8 said:Honestly, it’s basically just the same kind of willpower, except you just don't remember the thought process behind it... whereas doing something truly impossible just isn't happening. If you think otherwise, hit me with an example!

I guess you might be right. 🙂

Olivia Evans8 said:Honestly, it’s basically just the same kind of willpower, except you just don't remember the thought process behind it... whereas doing something truly impossible just isn't happening. If you think otherwise, hit me with an example!

Against free will? I don't know... maybe if someone was under some kind of heavy hypnotic conditioning or something.

But then again, you've got self-programming and pure muscle memory to deal with. When you're operating on total autopilot, there's no "will" involved in the moment—unless you count the initial decision to learn the habit in the first place, if we can even call that having a choice.

I can't help but feel like free will is tied directly to consciousness. It's consciousness that allows us to break out of those automatic loops and actually make a deliberate choice instead of just reacting like a programmed machine.

And there's this whole other layer to it too: the struggle between the ego and the true self. You have the ego, which has been conditioned to react in one specific way, constantly clashing with what your inner core is actually trying to push for.

Joshua Hernandez9 said:look.

we gotta nail down a definition first—then we can see where all those rabbit holes actually lead.

hm. personally, i think will is just that ability to force yourself into doing things or making calls you normally wouldn't—or just don't want to.

Joshua Hernandez9 said:Could be about free will—or maybe just what the hell it can actually accomplish.

it’s interesting that you’re framing will as some kind of "need."
(To me, it feels more like a vector. A force pushing in a specific direction.
A need is something that drives you—something you're being pushed by—whereas will is the thing you use to push.
)

(I haven't really organized my thoughts yet, so I'm just throwing out bullet points and letting you guys do the heavy lifting.😁)

If you ask me, that pretty much captures the whole essence and spirit of what will actually is. I mean, what other direction would a person's will even take if it wasn't moving toward the things they truly love... and honestly, maybe that's where the heart of the matter lies, right there in that connection...

Florence Nightingale suggested that will equals the self. And if we look at "the self" as being fully present or whole, then you could see will as the drive to love—to love being fully present, to love having a complete sense of oneself... though, of course, you can't have that without a conscious being, because will itself isn't a being; it's just a concept without a subject behind it.

As humans, we possess self-awareness, which gives us the capacity for free choice—this idea of free will where we can steer our intentions in a particular direction, even if that means turning away from what we immediately desire, much like the example mentioned below:

Joshua Hernandez9 said:Think about someone struggling with obesity and all the health issues that come with it.

They feel hungry.
Basically, they have this craving for food.

That craving is the trigger—they start plotting how to get their hands on food, focusing on a near-term future where they finally satisfy that urge.
But what actually drives them toward the fridge, the grocery store, or a drive-thru isn't willpower.

Willpower would be the exact thing that stops them from walking to that fridge in the first place.

So, you only really recognize willpower when it's clashing with some intense, primal, or habitual impulse—maybe even a biological one.
Using willpower is basically our way of breaking free from being slaves to whatever we've just accepted as "normal."

silentcyclist3 said:Earlier you mentioned that "... it doesn't happen just because will exists."

It looks like Olivia Evans8 might be on the right track. No matter how you look at it, you can't escape the concept of will. Using the term "will-less" probably just describes a tendency toward a task, but if you're being forced, you have to direct your will toward solving the problem itself.🙂

I view it this way: if I have the urge to urinate and I just start peeing right where I am—without moving or even taking off my clothes—there is no will involved. For instance, in people who cannot control urination due to illness, it becomes a purely instinctive occurrence.
An urge is, essentially, an instinctive, automatic behavior.
If I feel the urge to go and everything is fine, under normal circumstances, a psychological readiness will emerge to expend the necessary energy to get to a restroom, etc., all with the goal of not wetting myself.
In that scenario, there was a will to satisfy the urge and to avoid an accident.
Will is tied to the ability to control oneself and one's behavior, directing those actions toward a specific direction and goal.
If we are talking about coercion, I don't believe there is a will to perform the task itself, but rather a will to eliminate the threat. Performing the task is merely the means—a resource you invest. It's a slightly more complex distinction, but in my view, it is a resource.
If you are acting "will-lessly," a will still exists, but it is low.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

: blush 🙂 :

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

A resource would be any kind of value, capital, or energy one possesses.
Hmm, hm, laziness.
In my view, everyone is lazy.
Everyone has to be "pushed" into working; it just comes easier to some than others. It seems to me that will might be exactly that mechanism that shifts a person from a passive state to an active one.
Fine, let me try to broaden the scope a bit.
A human being is composed of particles with mass; therefore, we are inherently sluggish and inert. We naturally tend toward inertia, wanting to maintain our current state and direction.
So, if a human—essentially a system of particles with mass—is lying down, they naturally seek to remain in that state.
The will that arises in pursuit of a goal acts like a spark—a force that creates the psychological readiness to direct energy toward changing one's current state or direction. It is the transition into an active state, which, by the way, consumes more energy than is required to maintain homeostasis or a "cold" idle.
As for how much willpower an individual possesses, that likely depends on hormonal levels in the brain and, by extension, genetics.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose I agree with you, which is exactly why I didn't take that specific route... I was trying to approach the matter from a more general perspective, if that makes sense. Or maybe I just wanted to look at the bigger picture instead.

I suppose one could interpret this as... well, maybe it's saying that since you're already such a big deal around here, you might as well take a little stroll over to the psychology department. I guess.🤣
I mean, I guess it feels like you're actually trying to kill me here. Maybe that's just how it comes across? I don't know. It's a bit much, honestly. I suppose... I guess there is just this sense of will. Or maybe it is more like a drive? It is hard to pin down. I find myself thinking about it quite often lately. Perhaps it is just how things are. I guess I should probably ask... what do you all think about actually getting involved in these philosophy debates? Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if it's worth it.🤣
I guess... I mean, what should I even be sulking about? Maybe there isn't much to say. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.🙈 And what about the cleanup? I guess we should probably address that too... maybe.🙂

No, quite the opposite, really. I actually find your insights and your grasp of human psychology to be incredibly valuable. I suppose what I mean is... maybe you could try to approach things from a slightly more general or abstract perspective? Just for your own sake, I guess. You don't need to do it for my benefit—I’ll always be happy to read your posts, regardless of whether they stay strictly focused on psychological matters or not.

If you take a look at this thread, you'll see that besides Mark Torres14 and yourself, other people have been posting here too. I mean, they’re responding to the original poster... and, well, you know how the forum rules work. If someone isn't replying directly to everyone involved in the discussion, they just respond to the initial post. And since all these discussions on the forum are public—across all the subforums—anyone should be able to jump in whenever they want. I guess... if I had specifically wanted to engage with Mark Torres14 or you regarding the specific direction your conversation was taking, I would have quoted one of you to follow your flow. But I didn't. I didn't even have the patience or the desire to sit there and read through it all. So, I don't really see why there needs to be any... excuse me, any "guidance" being offered. 😕

On the contrary, I actually appreciate various perspectives on this topic and original thinking. However, I find myself struggling quite a bit with your specific definition... you mentioned that will is, perhaps, a "conscious readiness to invest resources." But I suppose one has to wonder—what exactly constitutes a "resource"? Who decides what those resources are, and who determines how much someone has available to commit or where they might direct them? It seems to me that maybe "unwillingness to invest resources" is just a complicated way of describing passivity or laziness. Conversely, "readiness to invest" could simply be seen as activity or dynamism. I suspect this depends heavily on an individual's character or their specific personality type—you know, whether they lean more toward being melancholic, phlegmatic, choleric, or sanguine—which would naturally dictate how they deploy those resources. But then again, temperament isn't quite the same thing as will. Will feels like something far more elementary... something deeper within a person than mere "readiness." I would argue that people suffering from clinical depression certainly possess a conscious readiness to invest their resources, but perhaps their illness—or rather, their unconscious state regarding it—prevents them from doing so. Some ordinary people simply seem to have more willpower than others, and I don't think they owe that solely to their conscious decisions. And you suggested that I could "kill your will to participate in the discussion." Well, I assume you don't actually believe I could kill your consciousness? I suppose I could potentially "kill you with kindness" or exhaust your interest, which might weaken your will, but I wonder about the dynamics of how that actually happens. I’d say it happens mostly on an unconscious level. That is precisely why helping people with low self-esteem is such a challenge; they genuinely want higher self-esteem, but they often have no idea how to actually reach that point.

I suppose I personally lean toward a philosophy more akin to what you might find in someone like Thomas Sowell. To me, it’s defined by this constant searching—this persistent attempt to peel back the layers and uncover the actual truth. It involves a lot of calculating and weighing the facts about everything, I guess. That’s just how I see it.
In every direction, really. I suppose I understand it well enough—you know, in that light, breezy way. Quite flexible, too. Unburdened, if you want to put it in more common, everyday terms.😉

You really are wonderful. I feel like I could sit and talk with you all day long, and honestly, it would probably give me the motivation to actually get things moving. But, I suppose we should wait and see what this "motivation" thing actually turns out to be.

I suppose that's true... it really does come down to making a conscious investment of one's own resources. It’s essentially just pouring energy into something—because, if you think about it, everything eventually boils down to energy, whether that's actual physical labor, mental effort, or just pure grit. I guess it all just transforms into something else in the end.
So, I guess... it works like this. You feel this impulse, right? This drive. And you want to satisfy it, and then, somehow, a sense of will just sort of... manifests itself. Maybe.
So, look... I have this sexual drive, right? And I suppose I could satisfy it through much easier routes or more difficult ones—depending on how much energy I decide to pour into it. But then I find myself wondering... where does this urge to take the harder path actually come from? It's strange, I guess. If I were being truly logical, maybe even efficient, it would make more sense to just follow the path of least resistance. To be economical with my energy, you know? It seems like it would be more natural to just go with the flow and save my strength, yet somehow, I always seem to end up choosing the more taxing way. I don't really know why.
I feel like... I don't know, something is missing here. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there’s a certain void. I guess it feels incomplete.

Well, I suppose instinct originates from the Id, or whatever terminology one prefers to use. In essence, our instincts are largely defined by our genes—symbolically speaking, at least—and we don't really exert any conscious will over them. So, I tend to view instincts as a more elementary phenomenon, perhaps just an emanation of that fundamental "survival instinct" inherent to any living thing. Willpower seeks something else entirely. I would probably call it homeostasis; the ability of a being to maintain an instinct at a steady level and direct it toward a specific purpose. It’s like there is a source of instinct on one side, and then there is this regulatory system on the other—something supra-instinctual, which you might call the ego or super-ego—that prevents the instinct from exceeding certain limits that would jeopardize the stability and functionality of the whole system. For instance, the human body maintains its temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of how freezing it gets outside. Biological systems are homeostatic, so I guess willpower, acting as a neural network system, must also be a homeostatic mechanism. The strength of one's will then depends on how effectively that homeostasis is established. At certain points, the system might break down, leading to a weakening of the will, and so on. Perhaps a system simply lacks the internal capacity—the "resources," as you put it—to maintain that balance, which results in what people call "bad character." Or, it could be that the instinct itself is weaker in some individuals due to biological factors, like how neurons fire or the specific chemical ratios and receptor absorption in the brain. If that's the case, the "effort of will" required to maintain homeostasis is significantly lower. It isn't quite the same situation when someone with a high libido controls their impulses versus someone with a low libido; the former needs a much "stronger" will to achieve the same level of control. And, if they do lose control, the consequences seem much more volatile. Therefore, the desire to take the harder path comes from a drive toward greater efficiency, since, evolutionarily speaking, a few high-quality connections are worth far more than many low-quality ones. This is where the distinction lies between the natural laws governing inanimate matter and those governing living things. Non-living matter moves in tandem with entropy, whereas living things resist entropy to some degree to maintain their will against the world. Following the path of least resistance would correspond to what Freud called Thanatos, while resisting that flow would be Eros. And, goodness knows, Eros plays a pretty vital role in sexual instinct, so I suppose that is why we often choose the difficult path—to test our own willpower in that way.

I suppose... I don't really see how I would consciously choose to pursue a more attractive goal if it meant spending even more energy. That feels... well, it feels like an act of pure will, I guess.🤷

And of course, practical experience offers quite a bit of insight here. If we look at people who favor surrendering to Thanatos as their preferred practice—there is a wide spectrum there, involving active approaches, passive ones, and so on. 😉

I fail to see how willpower relates to homeostasis.
Are you suggesting that willpower is a self-regulating subsystem within the human organism?
You mentioned greater efficiency.
But efficiency is defined as achieving maximum output with minimum work input.
The path of greater resistance requires more work.
Perhaps the crux lies in quality and the pursuit of excellence—a more brilliant objective.
From an evolutionary standpoint, it would actually be more advantageous to pursue a higher quantity of relationships, as more encounters increase the probability of producing new life. Evolution favors volume, allowing natural selection to act upon a larger pool.
On an individual level, however, a person strives for higher quality in relationships, both in terms of selecting a better partner and improving the nature of the connection itself.
If we find ourselves with partners who possess superior traits, strong genetics, and a commitment to monogamy, yet one individual is sterile, evolutionary biology views this as a total disaster. From a strictly biological standpoint, however, both individuals might still perceive this union as a success, aligning perfectly with their own personal desires and sense of fulfillment.

Willpower is just another instinct—just like sex, which exists purely for reproduction. It’s all normal. We manipulate things to reach some higher goal that someone else set for us. Honestly? I think the primary drive is sexual urge, and every other instinct or sub-instinct is just a tool to get us closer to fulfilling it. That's the only way a species survives, right? And that survival must be for some greater purpose. Because of that, the entire planet is basically acting like one giant greenhouse incubator designed for that exact purpose.

briskmoose7 said:Willpower is just another instinct—just like sex, which exists purely for reproduction. It’s all normal. We manipulate things to reach some higher goal that someone else set for us. Honestly? I think the primary drive is sexual urge, and every other instinct or sub-instinct is just a tool to get us closer to fulfilling it. That's the only way a species survives, right? And that survival must be for some greater purpose. Because of that, the entire planet is basically acting like one giant greenhouse incubator designed for that exact purpose.

So what, you get hungry because you're horny?🤔

Maybe they’re right about one thing—love really does go through the stomach, hahaha!