What is Suffering?

Philosophers, psychologists, and ethicists frequently debate what exactly constitutes suffering. Though most people have an intuitive grasp of suffering, precision is essential—especially when developing ethical frameworks, artificial intelligence safety protocols, or therapeutic practices. Let's explore and rigorously define suffering to clarify our understanding.

Initial Definition

We begin with a preliminary formulation:

Suffering is the subjective experience of negatively valenced qualia resulting from any divergence between an agent’s internal state and its preferred state.

Edge Cases Testing

To test the robustness of our definition, consider several edge cases:

• Minimal Discomfort: A mild itch lasting seconds—minor divergence, minimal negative valence—qualifies as minimal suffering.

• Perfect State: Complete alignment with preferred state—no divergence—thus no suffering.

• Positive Divergence: Experiencing a state better than preferred—positive valence—no suffering.

• Unconsciousness: No subjective experience—thus no suffering.

• Persistent Mild Discomfort: Chronic mild headaches—persistent minor divergence—results in cumulative suffering.

These cases confirm the definition's resilience and clarity.

Can Suffering Occur Without Divergence?

An intriguing question emerges: Can one suffer while objectively in their preferred state?

Consider a scenario where your internal perception mistakenly diverges from reality. For instance, you prefer being at home and are indeed at home, yet erroneously believe you're stuck elsewhere. Here, suffering arises from your subjective perception rather than objective reality.

This scenario highlights an essential refinement:

Suffering is the subjective experience of negatively valenced qualia resulting from divergence between an agent’s perceived internal state and its preferred internal state.

This emphasizes perception as central, underscoring the subjective nature of suffering.

Alignment with Philosophical Traditions

Remarkably, this refined definition aligns closely with historical insights from Buddhism and Stoicism:

• Buddhism: Emphasizes that suffering (dukkha) arises from ignorance (avidya) and attachment (tanha), leading to distorted perception of reality. Thus, correcting perception through mindfulness alleviates suffering.

• Stoicism: Argues that suffering results not from external events but from incorrect judgments or perceptions about those events. Rationally adjusting perceptions to align with reality reduces suffering.

Both traditions underscore precisely what our refined definition captures: suffering arises fundamentally from perceived divergence from preferred states.

Practical Implications

Our precise definition has crucial practical implications:

• Therapeutically, it suggests alleviating suffering by correcting perceptual errors or adjusting unrealistic preferences.

• Ethically, it clarifies when entities (including artificial agents) genuinely suffer.

• Philosophically, it provides rigorous consistency for discussions about well-being, harm, and ethics.

Final Technical Definition

Synthesizing these insights, our robust and refined definition of suffering becomes:

Suffering is the subjective experience of negatively valenced qualia resulting from divergence between an agent’s perceived internal state and its preferred internal state. The magnitude of suffering is proportional to both the degree and persistence of this perceived divergence.

This final definition provides a clear, actionable framework consistent with psychological experience, philosophical insight, and ethical reasoning.