Is the Default Mode of the Brain to Suffer? | Hacker News Reader

Is the Default Mode of the Brain to Suffer?

nymag.com

174 pointslxm63 comments

Yes. Dissatisfaction is the source of productivity, and that's all our bodies care about. If someone were 100% satisfied with everything around them, there would be no reason for them to move or change anything. The ideal state for survival is just above depression. Happiness and pleasure are directional guides, "purposely" ephemeral so that we can get back to work distancing ourselves from death. Max Buddha would mean sitting until death, with no dissatisfaction for lack of nutrients or air or self actualization. Still the pursuit of this peace is extremely worthwhile because left unchecked, our dissatisfaction grows out of control, over-optimizing ruthless survival in place of contentment. Don't feel guilty for not being in a constant state of euphoria (looking at you west-coasters :-D), this is our lot as humans.

That's how I see it.

> Max Buddha would mean sitting until death, with no dissatisfaction for lack of nutrients or air or self actualization.

If "Max Buddha" is meant to be "non-reactivity taken it's logical extreme," then that's not a fair representation of what the Buddha taught :) You probably just meant it as a turn-of-phrase of course, but I thought it would useful to comment since this is actually a pretty common view given the popularity of mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR; as described by Jon Kabat-Zinn referenced in the article) which promotes a non-reactive and non-judging awareness of the present as its core principle.

But how is the goal and its effects described in the earliest Buddhist texts? In the religious frame of an orthodox Buddhist cosmology, the Pali Canon [1] offers the best insight on this question in my opinion. Thanissaro Bhikku describes it [2]:

> Thus the image underlying nibbana is one of freedom. The Pali commentaries support this point by tracing the word nibbana to its verbal root, which means "unbinding." What kind of unbinding? The texts describe two levels. One is the unbinding in this lifetime, symbolized by a fire that has gone out but whose embers are still warm. This stands for the enlightened arahant, who is conscious of sights and sounds, sensitive to pleasure and pain, but freed from passion, aversion, and delusion. The second level of unbinding, symbolized by a fire so totally out that its embers have grown cold, is what the arahant experiences after this life. All input from the senses cools away and he/she is totally freed from even the subtlest stresses and limitations of existence in space and time.

> The Buddha insists that this level is indescribable, even in terms of existence or nonexistence, because words work only for things that have limits. All he really says about it — apart from images and metaphors — is that one can have foretastes of the experience in this lifetime, and that it's the ultimate happiness, something truly worth knowing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon

[2] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibban...

It's not entirely off base. A few Buddhist monks have indeed taken their practice to exactly that extreme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu

The ultimate virtue signal.

Just to add yet another balancing point of view: not everyone accepts mainstream Western translations of the Buddhist canon to be faithful. For instance Stephen Batchelor (see his most recent book After Buddhism) would rather strongly disagree with attributing the "two levels" of The Two Truths to the Buddha, or the orthodox interpretation of The Four Noble Truths as being about truth statements on the nature of reality. Batchelor argues, and I would agree, that such exalted and "indescribable" depictions of nibanna are later editions to the canon for the purposes of normalising Buddhism amongst the milieu of competing spiritual worldviews. What was distinctive about what the Buddha taught, was not how he described nature, but how he advocated a practice - his legacy is verbs, not nouns.

There's a quote in the Dhammapada that I think is more clear than the "four noble truths" (which get too much emphasis):

Avoid all evil, cultivate the good, purify your mind: this sums up the teaching of the Buddhas. (183)

Matching what you said, many religions (and non-religious people) emphasize avoiding evil and cultivating good, but the practice of purifying your mind is quite good.

That's quite a work and protestant oriented point of view.

> Yes. Dissatisfaction is the source of productivity, and that's all our bodies care about. If someone were 100% satisfied with everything around them, there would be no reason for them to move or change anything.

No, because you could be 90% satisfied with everything around you and decide it's enough. Of course it doesn't hold for a definition of 'satisfied' that aligns with 'I consider it done/enough'.

> That's quite a work and protestant oriented point of view.

I think it might be the opposite - protestants find work to be noble, whereas I see it as evolution screwing us over for the sake of survival.

> it doesn't hold for a definition of 'satisfied' that aligns with 'I consider it done/enough'.

Which is literally what satisfied means (Latin satis "enough")

emphasis on `done`

If you're satisfied that 90% is enough, then you stop. Does that not qualify as 'done'?

I'd say it's not because `done` would mean 100% of your objectives are fulfilled.

Or you could be 100% satisfied with what's around you and still see a need for maintenance. Or you could be satisfied with the constant state of change things tend to be in and continue to contribute to that change. Or could see tendencies and desires in yourself as indications to continue to live as a human, to do human things, without attaching yourself to any specific outcome. Sitting still is one reaction to satisfaction, but far from the only one.

Now you're quibbling about the definition of "satisfied".

I think s/he means evolutionary speaking.

"Before enlightenment chop wood, carry water…after enlightenment chop wood, carry water."

I think the very idea of dukkha, the dissatisfaction that every non-enlightened being is bound to experience, has a direct and fundamental counterpart in cybernetics. It's the feedback loop, the discrepancy signal.

A control device tries to bring the target parameter of a system it controls to some optimal value. Unless the system under control is very stable, the target value will most of the time be off, and the discrepancy signal, non-zero, so the controlling device will have something to "worry about" and "toil on".

(So, at least for simple robots, the first noble truth is obviously correct.)

That reminds me of how, back in university, a mate said to me over beers: "Happiness is the derivative of well being"

He's a professor of statistical econometrics now.

A very mathematical but insightful way of stating it.

My usual way of putting it is that happiness is relative. You can only be happy if you came from a state of lesser happiness.

. As a Zenrin poem says: You cannot get it by taking thought; You cannot seek it by not taking thought.e But this absurdly complex and frustrating predicament arises from a simple and elementary mistake in the use of the mind. When this is understood, there is no paradox and no di@culty. Obviously, the mistake arises in the attempt to split the mind against itself, but to understand this clearly we have to enter more deeply into the “cybernetics” of the mind, the basic pattern of its self-correcting action. It is, of course, part of the very genius of the human mind that it can, as it were, stand aside from life and reAect upon it, that it can be aware of its own existence, and that it can criticize its own processes. For the mind has something resembling a “feed-back” system. This is a term used in communications engineering for one of the basic principles of “automation,” of enabling machines to control themselves. Feed-back enables a machine to be informed of the effects of its own action in such a way as to be able to correct its action. Perhaps the most familiar example is the electrical thermostat which regulates the heating of a house. By setting an upper and a lower limit of desired temperature, a thermometer is so connected that it will switch the furnace on when the lower limit is reached, and o? when the upper limit is reached. The temperature of the house is thus kept within the desired limits. The thermostat provides the furnace with a kind of sensitive organ–an extremely rudimentary analogy of hurnan self-consciousness.2 The proper adjustment of a feed-back system is always a complex mechanical problem. For the original machine, say, the furnace, is adjusted by the feed-back system, but this system in turn needs adjustment.Therefore to make a mechanical system more and more automatic will require the use of a series of feed-back systems–a automatic will require the use of a series of feed-back systems–a second to correct the >rst, a third to correct the second, and so on. But there are obvious limits to such a series, for beyond a certain point the mechanism will be “frustrated” by its own complexity. For example, it might take so long for the information to pass through the series of control systems that it would arrive at the original machine too late to be useful. Similarly, when human beings think too carefully and minutely about an action to be taken, they cannot make up their minds in time to act. In other words, one cannot correct one’s means of self-correction inde>nitely. There must soon be a source of information at the end of the line which is the >nal authority. Failure to trust its authority will make it impossible to act, and the system will be paralyzed. The system can be paralyzed in yet another way. Every feedback system needs a margin of “lag” or error. If we try to make a thermostat absolutely accurate–that is, if we bring the upper and lower limits of temperature very close together in an attempt to hold the temperature at a constant 70 degrees–the whole system will break down. For to the extent that the upper and lower limits coincide, the signals for switching o? and switching on will coincide! If 70 degrees is both the lower and upper limit the “go” sign will also be the “stop” sign; “yes” will imply “no” and “no” will imply “yes.” Whereupon the mechanism will start “trembling,” going on and o?, on and o?, until it shakes itself to pieces. The system is too sensitive and shows symptoms which are startlingly like human anxiety. For when a human being is so self-conscious, so self-controlled that he cannot let go of himself, he dithers or wobbles between opposites. This is precisely what is meant in Zen by going round and round on “the wheel of birth-and-death,” for the Buddhist samsara is the prototype of all vicious circles.

http://terebess.hu/english/AlanWatts-The%20Way%20of%20Zen.pd...

Actually, as the story goes, Buddha did plan to sit without consideration of food or other worldly comforts/needs to be enlightened. It was thought that serving the flesh robbed you of the spiritual life and thus enlightenment.

It was when, after much suffering and malnutrition, Buddha realized his enlightenment. He realized if he continued he would die and not realize enlightenment. It's when he let go of this idea that he was attached to and take the middle path that he became liberated.

He let go of all of it. No eyes, no ears, no nose...

Cya in the ephemera :)

No eyes, no ears, no nose...

No state? No side-effects?

I think that's a reference to the Heart Sutra, a text associated with the Mahayana tradition.

Who knew it, Buddha was the original functional programmer!

(and this is how religion evolves)

You found your way to my heart!

> Max Buddha would mean sitting until death

Not totally sure about that, considering that the Buddha got up from sitting underneath the Bodhi Tree.

Programmers, writers, and other artists do their best work when they are a notch above pure depression, wracking their brain for desperate means of survival, not when they're in a joyous flow state.

Right? :)

It seems for creative work there must be a mix of free-flowing generative processes, where you come up with ideas (in a euphoric? manic? state), followed by pragmatic (depressive?) critique of the generated ideas. This back and forth of idea creation and critique is what results in a refined final result. It also might explain why, anecdotally, bipolar individuals tend toward creative careers. Similarly helps explain "write drunk, edit sober."

I also contend that few programmers/programming positions require this sort of creative process. Perhaps "hacker" is the better term for a technical+creative identity.

If your depression includes copious amounts of self-doubt, nope. :)

I totally agree! Without suffering and war, what kind of technology would we have? We would be sitting around with sticks and rocks.

Sorta think Euler would have figured out all sorts of stuff, even if he wasn't a medic.

> If someone were 100% satisfied with everything around them, there would be no reason for them to move or change anything.

It's not that simple. Not moving or doing anything is a decision in itself with consequences.

Can you be satisfied with dissatisfaction ?

I recently worked my way up to make chores my own, I embed my senses into every move. It feels a lot like meditation. I felt less tension, less fatigue, even pleasure. After all, anything can be a pleasure if you find a balance between your self, own desires, own capabilities.

the pursuit of happiness

Not actually happy, but some kind of a deeper happiness (?) in the suffering of progress towards something worthwhile.

The goal being independent wealthly was that for me until I attained it and didn't like it. The pursuit was much more fun! Despite (or because of?) the suffering. But without that nirvana held out, the motivation for its pursuit is gone...

I mostly agree, but if "The ideal state for survival is just above depression" then why is life worth it?

"In short that 99% of the head’s thinking activity consists of trying to scare the everliving shit out of itself."

-DFW, Infinte Jest

I feel like my brain is always looking for a threat, a very valuable skill when whacking around in the brush, less so when sitting safely in an office, at home on the couch, or otherwise. I'm not convinced we've evolved fast enough for our brains to recognize the massive decrease in need for this anxiety.

The skill could be helpful if you're a security researcher, or a programmer trying to prevent segmentation faults from happening.

Discomfort is the motivational impetus for most animal/human behavior:

  Hungry -> Seek food
  Body hurting -> Seek palliative
  Cold -> Seek warmth
  Threatend -> Fight back
  Afraid -> Seek safety
  Aroused -> Seek mate

Suffering is just a more advanced state of discomfort.

Notably, in the case of pain, our receptors are triggered before the threshold where actual damage occurs owing to the uncertainty of when various parts of us will break. Many things cause us pain that are harmless (stubbed toe, etc.) and can safely be ignored provided you dispel the drive the avoid that discomfort. The same can be applied to other sources of discomfort.

We have a set of positive motivation systems as well. Achieve, acquire resources that are not currently critical. Sex-drive. Caring system. Fun-seeking. Etc.

See Jaak Panksepp's affective neuroscience.

I think people overlook how much time they spend with their body in discomfort. Too hot, too cold, legs asleep, chair is too hard, back aches, hungry, full, itchy sweater, dry skin, rash, sickness, disease, injury. I think, if you let yourself focus on it, it's rare to truly be comfortable in your body.

It's why it's so important to be comfortable in your mind.

Reading this comment made me itchy. You've implemented remote scratching over HTTP.

I'm pretty sure you're scratching yourself locally.

Just wait until he makes you breathe manually.

Ok, but now you can feel your tongue in your mouth

I never understood why this trips people up. Breathing goes right back to auto mode if you ignore it.

I started weight training with an intent to modify my thought processes surrounding physical sensations (specifically to help with hypochondria). It seems reasonably effective: it provides a great "anxiety sink" -- I can blame any mild and transient feeling on weightlifting recovery -- and it seems to help with developing a deeper mind-body connection/synergy. I imagine yoga might have similar outcomes.

I totally agree. For me, weight training is about learning to sit with extreme discomfort and push through it. I think it's easier to deal with bad feelings if you look at them vs try to block them out. Training is practice for that.

"if you let yourself focus on it, it's rare to truly be comfortable in your body."

I strongly disagree and think the opposite: if you truly let yourself focus on your body in general - then you might achieve a state to actually feel comfortable with your mind beeing in your body.

But if your disconnected from your body, you probably live unhealthy without realising and then when you pay attention to your body you feel the constant discomfort and therefore trying to avoid paying attention to your body and making it worse.

Because for example "back aches".

There is a reason for that. And taking painkillers or ignoring won't make the reason go away. But paying attention to your body would make you move your body more and in a right way, so you will have enough muscles to not get back problems in the first place.

I like the description of types of daydreaming. I find myself to be more productive when my daydreaming is, as they put it, "positive constructive" daydreaming. e.g. imagining my goals for the future and what fun I could have, thinking about how I'll grow as a person and how I might reflect on myself after having grown each year. The more I think about these things the 'lighter' I feel.

I suffer from PTSD. When I first started allowing myself to think about my dreams in a positive light, I would distract myself or cut myself off mentally with the excuse that 'Those daydreams aren't real enough. There's no point.' And I would quickly divulge back into negativity.

Because of trauma it can be easy to feel that negativity is what I 'deserve', which leaves a sense of futility that I desperately want to overcome. In searching for some balance, I discovered the same is true about (again, using their term) "guilty-dysphoric" daydreaming: it's not necessarily representative of facts or absolute truth in my life, even if it does feel more real. By reminding myself of this and practicing mindfulness (focusing on the present moment) I'm able to pull out of bad daydreams and flashbacks a lot faster.

Anyways, I don't know if there is one answer for the title of this article - I think that it is just clickbait. But to humor it, I know personally my 'default mode' might gravitate towards suffering because of trauma. But I also know I have a lot of room to change if I am patient enough, while new neural pathways/networks are formed.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on PTSD and mindfulness, I share your feelings on negativity, at times I can find it perversely 'attractive' yet I know it's effect will be disruptive to my mental well-being. It helps to practise a regular news blackout, as while being conscious of world events and culture is a certainly a positive, the day to day news feed seems a divisive and dis-empowering font of dubious value.

It is my philosophy all of existence depends on suffering and is directly related to two unique types of causality I call public and private. The old, familiar public causality occurs along a timeline consisting of observation, discrimination and decision, in that order on the timeline. This can correspond to a computer in the cloud receiving data, computing on the data, and then sending it back out. The "cost" of this causality is observed as a technical limit on the growth of network rates as compared to the growth of compute rates in the market, again over a timeline. These two growth rates, or accelerations, are not equivalent as far as we know or have observed.

If private causality is viewed as internal suffering, one could postulate that suffering creates dissonance between the entity doing the rendering of future events and the entities who are involuntarily "caught up" inside that first entity's rendering. For example, I've observed some on the Internet seem very eager to tell others what they think will happen in the future, including how the others "felt" when the "observer" saw them suffering in their own internal rendering of reality. When the observer attempts to make their rendering a reality, such as by telling another entity how it feels, it turns their internal suffering into external suffering, at which point others then experience it directly.

In that case, can things like universal basic income and safe spaces lead the humanity to extinction?

Probably not. There are always the crazy few percent of us that want to work. The rest are just forced to work to survive.

Overall, the humanity may be happier.

As far as I can tell, most people are unhappy if they're not feeling productive. Sure, it's nice to relax and do nothing for a bit, but not for very long. Retirees need to find a hobby or they quickly become sad and lonely.

One of the best ways to be happy is to spend time in a foreign country where you don't speak the language (or not well). You'll feel productive and accomplished for basic tasks like ordering your preference for dinner or figuring out how to work the laundry machine even though the instructions don't have any pictures. Yet there's very little consequence for failure. Once you get the hang of basic things, you can always focus on learning the language, but that takes actual work.

> As far as I can tell, most people are unhappy if they're not feeling productive. That's the hypothesis that these basic income trials are hoping to prove. Do people suddenly start working, even if they don't have to?

Many will, many will not. I feel the question is what the w/nw ratio is.

I think it's also a matter of community. If you suddenly get a basic income and your friends don't, you might get pretty lonely and bored. Whereas if you had lived for a longer time with a larger community of people who don't have to sell their labor, you might find yourself engaged in projects you wouldn't have invented yourself.

I think it would definitely help with overall humanity but yes, personally I am over 90% satisfied and yet I work harder than almost everyone I know. I am most happy when I create things and writing code or soldering hardware is creation for me. But so is starting a business, getting people to do great work etc.

Take the need to survive away from a species who was built to survive and find out what happens.

Suffering exists. Suffering arises from attachment to desires. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path.

Your desires come from other people desires, because of mirror neurons. What we call "Me", our entire personality, our "Self", is 100% made of many other people "Self" (explains "You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with"). Rather than suffer from your attachment to desires, we can indeed control what we desire.

The lack of desires can also lead to suffering.

Yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com