"Do you need me to provide academic journals to prove that boredom exists?"

I think my questions were: Do you have a reference other than your opinion as to what boredom is and how it originates? And: Do you have something other than your opinion to establish it is in fact an emotion?

I don't see anything in there about the need to prove boredom exist.

I don't see anything in there about the need to prove boredom exist. — Jeremiah

From http://www.livescience.com/23493-why-we-get-bored.html
The researchers, led by psychological scientist John Eastwood of York University in Ontario, Canada, define boredom as "an aversive state of wanting, but being unable, to engage in satisfying activity," which springs from failures in one of the brain's attention networks.

That seems to be a definition with an origin in there as well.. inability to engage in satisfying activity. Again, this has to do with attention, inability to focus, and lack of stimulating activity.. all basically what was mentioned or implicit in the OP. I don't see what you are trying to get at. It's a pretty common experience and we can write many paragraphs describing the psychological state and what causes it.. Being trapped in an airport but with not much that keeps our interest, repetitive acts, not having anything to do for long periods of time. It is the last one especially that I am interested in as this implies that at the end of the day, boredom is a baseline emotion- one that remains when everything else seems to be okay, but there is no clear goal and one is not immersed in anything in particular.

Just speaking from personal experience, I have to agree with . Not everything I do is from boredom. I often do things because I like to do them. I find them interesting and fun, or because I have to do things out of necessity.

I think boredom is a byproduct of consciousness. If we view sentients such as humans as some kind of "machine" (not necessarily literally), then it is our "programming" to accomplish things. That's what Heidegger called the nature of action: accomplishment.

So instead of saying boredom is the "natural" experience of humans and other sentient organisms, we should see boredom as what happens when we aren't able to fulfill our telos, so to speak.

Instead of boredom being the most significant emotion, I would say fatigue is the more proper "emotion" and even suitable on a larger cosmic scale. Things fatigue. They break down. Bits and pieces go missing. The structure falls apart.

We see this everywhere, including biological organisms, whose ultimate destination is death. To exist means to be dying. So humans get boredom when they fatigue and run out of energy to focus on things that might interest them. Boredom isn't the most fundamental emotion as much as it is the final destination of every sentient project.

If by "significant" you meant "inevitable", "effortless", or "guaranteed", then yes, I would say boredom is one of the most significant features of conscious experience. If you get rid of everything else, you have boredom. Which makes sense considering conscious reasoning evolved as a counterfactual method of problem-solving and deception. It has a purpose and when it cannot be applied to this purpose, consciousness "breaks" in the Heidegerrean sense and we get boredom.

But as long as we have a sufficient amount of things to do that interest us, boredom and the instrumentality phenomenon you speak of is rather unimportant, side-lined as a mere possibility (threat).

And if not boredom, then anxiety is the baseline human emotion.

I won't exactly call that an academic quality resource but it is much better than the OP, which of course was nothing but your opinions on boredom.

"That seems to be a definition with an origin in there as well.. inability to engage in satisfying activity. Again, this has to do with attention, inability to focus, and lack of stimulating activity.. all basically what was mentioned or implicit in the OP."

Actually this is what you said in the OP, "Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do."

And this is how John Eastwood of York University defines it in that article, "an aversive state of wanting, but being unable, to engage in satisfying activity"

No mention of "not focused on any particular task" or "a lack of stimulating things to do."

He instead is describing boredom as two conflicting states; a state of wanting and a state of not being satisfied. Further down in your article, the German psychologist Theodor Lipps, also seems to view it as a conflicting state of wanting and not being satisfied, but seems to be suggesting a state of both wanting an not wanting. A more in depth article could be very interesting.

"boredom is a baseline emotion"

In your article they say, " which springs from failures in one of the brain's attention networks." That says nothing about it being an emotion. You keep calling it an emotion, but you have not provided any supporting data for doing so.

In your article they say, " which springs from failures in one of the brain's attention networks." That says nothing about it being an emotion. You keep calling it an emotion, but you have not provided any supporting data for doing so. — Jeremiah

Ok, I'll accept that it's not an emotion. I was trying to communicate the phenomena, and if you want me to just call it something like an experience or mental state, I'm fine with that.. I can change the title "baseline mental state" and it would not change the main argument. However, calling it "opinions" about boredom is a bit odd, being that I can experience the mental state myself. Denying that a lack of stimulating things causes boredom, seems to me to deny what is a very basic origin of boredom simply to make a counter-argument that this is not written in some academic journal.

But, looking at the article which you requested I show forth as making the claim "legitimate", it does not conflict with my view. There is wanting to be immersed in something but not finding something that keeps your attention and is also interesting. The opposite of boredom would seem to be flow, where you are highly immersed and interested and time passes by quickly.

My more controversial claim, that it is a baseline mental state- and that this makes it more significant because it is the default mental state. Further, it can reveal the vanity of existence.

Schopenhauer said:
That human life must be a kind of mistake is sufficiently clear from the fact that man is a compound of needs, which are difficult to satisfy; moreover, if they are satisfied, all he is granted is a state of painlessness, in which he can only give himself up to boredom. This is a precise proof that existence in itself has no value, since boredom is merely the feeling of the emptiness of life. If, for instance, life, the longing for which constitutes our very being, had in itself any positive and real value, boredom could not exist; mere existence in itself would supply us with everything, and therefore satisfy us. But our existence would not be a joyous thing unless we were striving after something; distance and obstacles to be overcome then represent our aim as something that would satisfy us — an illusion which vanishes when our aim has been attained; or when we are engaged in something that is of a purely intellectual nature, when, in reality, we have retired from the world, so that we may observe it from the outside, like spectators at a theatre. Even sensual pleasure itself is nothing but a continual striving, which ceases directly its aim is attained. As soon as we are not engaged in one of these two ways, but thrown back on existence itself, we are convinced of the emptiness and worthlessness of it; and this it is we call boredom. That innate and ineradicable craving for what is out of the common proves how glad we are to have the natural and tedious course of things interrupted. Even the pomp and splendour of the rich in their stately castles is at bottom nothing but a futile attempt to escape the very essence of existence, misery.
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Emptiness of Existence

"baseline mental state"

And can you prove this? Or can you even prove that humans have a "baseline mental state"?

I don't know what could rightfully be considered the "baseline metal state" of the human mind, but I have doubt it is a question that can be answered simply by pondering over it. I have a feeling that is a question that is not easily answered, as it is not likely the baseline mental state (if there even is such a thing) is as simple as boredom. Likely it would be a combination of factors; again even IF there is such a thing.

If I am being honest, I am having a hard time remembering the last time I was genuinely bored, which would suggest to me that it is not my "default" position. But I can't judge the nature of all humans based on my single experience; for all I know I may be abnormal.

" However, calling it "opinions" about boredom is a bit odd, being that I can experience the mental state myself"

Well, I have driven a car and that hardly makes me a mechanic. Likewise being bored does not make you a neuroscientist or a psychologist. I am sorry, but simply because you have a human brain, that does not mean you necessarily understand how it works. Your OP was very much opinion, and there is nothing wrong with opinions, but they should be supported by more substantial information.

"it does not conflict with my view."

Just because it does not conflict that doesn't make it correct or accurate. If we accept what John Eastwood and Theodor Lipps describe there is a conflicting state of wants that was not addressed in your OP. This part "Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task" would need further validation; I simply don't accept it. And this part here "can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do" is at the very least incomplete; if we are accepting that boredom is a conflict of wants, or a conflict of a want and a lack of.

And can you prove this? Or can you even prove that humans have a "baseline mental state"? — Jeremiah

Proof with academic journals? Probably not. But this is to already have a position where anything but scientific evidence does not count for "proof". Certain physiological phenomena are obviously substantiated with empirical proof through scientific institutions and methodologies (physical, chemical, biological phenomena, etc.). Things like ethics, qualia, metaphysics, the human condition, meaning, aesthetics etc.. are not necessarily proved through science, though science can inform these areas of study. In other words, it may be necessary but not sufficient for a theory in these areas (but may not be necessary either per se).

If I am being honest, I am having a hard time remembering the last time I was genuinely bored, which would suggest to me that it is not my "default" position. But I can't judge the nature of all humans based on my single experience; for all I know I may be abnormal. — Jeremiah

Well, it may be a default position, but you simply haven't been idle for long. You may be sufficiently occupied with pursuing goals, being immersed in activities or simply your own thoughts.

Well, I have driven a car and that hardly makes me a mechanic. Likewise being bored does not make you a neuroscientist or a psychologist. I am sorry, but simply because you have a human brain, that does not mean you necessarily understand how it works. Your OP was very much opinion, and there is nothing wrong with opinions, but they should be supported by more substantial information. — Jeremiah

I don't need to know how a car works to know that without gas, it does not go. I don't need to know the physiological substrate to know what it feels to be at the default position. Knowing that a c-fiber firing in X cortical layer is correlated with the mental state of boredom, does not change the fact that I experience the mental state of boredom.

Just because it does not conflict that doesn't make it correct or accurate. If we accept what John Eastwood and Theodor Lipps describe there is a conflicting state of wants that was not addressed in your OP. This part "Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task" would need further validation; I simply don't accept it. And this part here "can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do" is at the very least incomplete; if we are accepting that boredom is a conflict of wants, or a conflict of a want and a lack of. — Jeremiah

Granted they did not discuss this, it is perplexing that this is not apparent as a given. If you have no goals/tasks/interesting things to do, indeed you will get bored. Should I devise a simple experiment? Ok, deprive yourself of activities that you find interesting for an extended period of time and see what happens. Now, people's tolerance with ruminating on their own thoughts may vary amongst people, but eventually boredom ensues.

Boredom means, in a way, that you are not interesting, because something external must stimulate you to make living worthwhile for you. True interest comes from within, nowhere else. — The Great Whatever

Yeah, I agree with that. That was part of what I was getting at. And I think most folks, as they age, learn how to find very small, subtle things interesting. Of course, babies and toddlers are typically like that, too, so a lot of people kind of grow out of it when they're kids but grow back into it when they're adults.

Yeah, I agree with that. That was part of what I was getting at. And I think most folks, as they age, learn how to find very small, subtle things interesting. Of course, babies and toddlers are typically like that, too, so a lot of people kind of grow out of it when they're kids but grow back into it when they're adults. — Terrapin Station

Thresholds for boredom may get higher, but this does not mean boredom does not go away. As time progresses, given nothing to do for extended periods of time (no books, no other people..just one's own self-talk), boredom ensues. Again, it's the default state for when there is nothing interesting to do for extended periods of time. What is interesting can be subjective and vary, that is not in dispute. I am also not disputing that some people can get bored more easily than others. After a certain time, eventually all people will get bored though, no matter what the thresholds are.

Replying to your ninja edit.

Up is a direction orientated to my physical location (or whatever point you choose). Natural and unnatural is just an subjective view, which varies from person to person. But up will always be up, as long as you are orientated the same way I am, and that does not change if you call it down, left, right or chicken. However, the meaning of natural and unnatural varies from person to person, and there is no objective measurement for it. — Jeremiah

The objective measure is that the concepts are context dependent. If I say, "She's hot!" I could be talking about anything from a good looking woman to an overheating car engine. The more explicit the context the more explicit the meaning of the words become, while calling everything natural is about as meaningless as calling every direction up.

After a certain time, eventually all people will get bored though, no matter what the thresholds are. — schopenhauer1

I'd probably agree if you were just saying that in the "right" (artificial) circumstances, most people will get bored. But I don't think those circumstances are common--hence my parenthetical "artificial."

As far as I see, there is the life lived without much stepping back and then the life that is reflected upon as a whole. If we step back an examine it, there are several main aspects of the human condition:

1) Striving-for-goals. The brain is large it needs to be occupied. Attention needs to be focused on a task or activity for various short and long term aims. These aims are generally aimed at several types of desirable outcomes. Much of these outcomes end up looking like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs a) Flow would be the word for the most attentive of states. Flow from vigorous activity or passive activity is one kind of desirable state like games, a good book, solving a problem, working on a project. b) Simple sensual pleasures of food, sex, etc. is another desirable outcome. c) Aesthetics- at its broadest, it can be the enjoyment and production of good literature, of understanding something in a new way, feelings of beauty in art, music, and nature, catharsis in art, the sublime. d) Feeling emotions such as joy, humor, excitement, and even limited amounts of fear, pain, and sadness (varying degrees for masochists) as long as for overall enhancement. e) Esteem and recognition, ladder climbing, trying to fit a social role, competing, winning, upholding what one deems to be ethical or valuable f) security and safety in environment g) survival needs h) social interactions and friendships, romantic relationships, playful banter, schadenfreude (unfortunately), giving to and being concerned with others i) cultural upkeep and allaying discomfort- cleaning, maintaining property and environment, hygiene, consumption for superfluous needs beyond survival j) Mastering a skill k) maintaining one's sense of personality and ego (not losing one's sense of identity) l) Anything I missed that fits more or less in these categories

2) Boredom as baseline mental state. If one is given to a state of goal-less reprieve, one may stay "content" for varying periods of time before one becomes bored again and must concentrate attention on pursuing something of interest or to maintain comfort. Essentially, boredom motivates us for the pursuit of a combination of various needs listed above. Loneliness and the need for companionship is a sort of boredom with oneself. The need for stimuli from other humans, not just solo activities. Angst is certainly an emotion associated with boredom. It is significant in the Schopenhauerean sense that it shows the vanity of existence- that mere being is not satisfying enough.

3) Contingent harms- the innumerable amounts of negative circumstances that befall a human by simply being an individual with a certain genetic and developmental propensity interacting with various environmental factors that may cause harm. With this understanding is the idea of luck or fortune. Some are more fortunate than others in the distribution of positive circumstances. People's constitutions and the environments can cause various amounts of harms in different distributions for different people. Regretful or bad decisions can also come into play which tangentially also have to do with fortune, but not quite the same.

4) Instrumentality- always becoming and never being. The absurd feeling one gets..the exhaustion of existence as there is no completion.. just more goals to pursue (see the 1 above) and time to fill because we are alive and there is no other choice. The world-weariness of seeing the same basic thing in different arrangements day in and day out.

5) Hope- the idea that any of the negatives of knowing one's instrumental nature, contingent harms, world-weariness, etc. will not be present in the future. It is the carrot and the stick. It keeps the goals in 1 always in sight. It is to try to override any feelings of world-weariness, instrumentality, or suffering to keep living. The delusion that permanence is possible, the delusion that we can be fully satisfied.

4) Instrumentality- always becoming and never being. The absurd feeling one gets..the exhaustion of existence as there is no completion.. just more goals to pursue (see the 1 above) and time to fill because we are alive and there is no other choice. The world-weariness of seeing the same basic thing in different arrangements day in and day out. — schopenhauer1

You could try to attain spiritual enlightenment, from what I can gather it's like being freed from boredom :D

The very sentiment you express here sort of shows the functionality of boredom, you mention this functionality in 1) and I would add that I see human consciousness as a functionality. If you're not using this functionality to "develop" in some way you'll get bored and, if you look at this "lack of functionality" on a grander scale and there does not seem to be any worthwhile personal development overall you'll be susceptible to an existential crisis ...which usually forces one to take some action (be it searchng for meaning or breaking down in despair).

What is your idea of "being" ? Would it be akin to feeling free from forces which are beyond your control and, would such freedom then be actual freedom or just the opposite of feeling forced to play along?

I might be overshooting on this idea but if I take it a bit further, taking offense in life not having permanence or, 'hope', as you name it at 5), that's again a dubious sort of freedom. On face value life can seem futile because it inherently leads to death yet without this prospect, we wouldn't have as much inclination to take life seriously every now and then and make the most of our time and even try to prolong it.

If you'd imagine you would be trying to learn something which would require a large degree of your attention and you were doing this out of your own volition, just for the sake of adding to your functionality, would this feel like being "freed" from any forces beyond your control?