This might be more of a psychological question. But is being depressed or even anxious the human default? I saw an article to that affect once but can't find it anymore. I assume we do more for the survival of the species when we aren't satiated? What evolutionary benefits might that have? Is depression a deeper more complex state that expands the mind more? Is there a reason childhood is generally happier for most? — TiredThinker

Well, of course there are going to be the psycho/neurological reasons for depression. Many are going to be some sort of chemical imbalance, or circumstancial stressors, or what have you. But, as someone who spent about a decade with depression, with regularly recurrent suicidal considerations, who is no longer depressed, I'm going to have to incorporate into those scientific analysis of the phenomenon the philosophical one. And by that, I mean the ethical one, in particular.

You see, I've come to the understanding that at the core of the depression and anxiety problem - and this is gonna sound harsh, but I actually mean this is in a more technical way - lies the problem of consistent ethical violations. Either on the part of someone who is depressed, or being children of people who do things to cause them to be depressed. Depression is about as natural to a child as a desire to comprehend differential calculus. Children are happy, exploratory, game-organizing for play, and very deeply loving by nature. I've never known of any exceptions to this. Except when parents abuse them. Then that changes, and starts emerging in misery pretty quick. I myself knew a young child who claimed to want to kill himself, his circumstances were unforgivable on the part of his parents. Furthermore, I've never known an adult depressive to be really ethical in many ways at all, other than the basic nice/kind default mode network setting that everyone has been trained to think is sufficient for navigating life. So, what am I really highlighting here? The negation of self as a value, either as a regular behavioral pattern out of the patient, or a history of being negated in the behavior of those he/she was raised by.

You see, like all systems in the universe - and everything in the universe is either a system, or resources to be used in or by a system - one of the primary functions of biological systems is homeostasis. Equilibrium, to put it another way. Regression toward the mean, to put it in physics terms. Equilibrium can be viewed as the balancing of opposing forces, any opposing forces. Homeostasis can be viewed as a biological life-forms extended equilibrium. Now, for humans, that equilibrium applies, once again, to all systems contained within the human body itself. The heart must maintain its synchronized rhythm, the blood it's right content concentrations, the total body its temperature, and the brain must regulate all of those systems, which also includes mood.

That homeostasis is disrupted when we do things that are not conducive to that equilibrium, and these actions are reinforced by moods and mental states. These mental states signal to us that we are engaging in behaviors not conducive to our homeostasis, and if we don't correct them, they do not go away. Problem here is, the human brain is conscious, and consciousness produces conceptual systems that can also affect, and perpetuate our disrupted homeostasis. This is because our conceptual systems, like language, musical theory, or our moral convictions, inform our behaviors, and those conceptual systems themselves are reinforced by emotions. And this process is continually recursive, as the brain is always integrating new data and informing behaviors. They call these "recurrent neural feedback loops," and they're important as shit, dude.

You see, what if I develop a code of behavior that, because I don't understand what the negative emotion I experience from such is trying to relay to me, is actually caused by the homeostasis disrupting behavior of that such a code compels to action, or has reinforced emotionally in a way that induces action? Then, I'm caught in a negative feedback loop of patternized behavior, that I'm convinced is my ethical obligation, that is actually harming my homeostasis. This includes behavior informed by having no standards for ethics at all, which is an ethical standard oddly enough, because it actually does inform behavior. I'm guessing you're getting the picture.

To cap it off, people are depressed because they treat themselves poorly. They drink too much, they don't work hard enough, they don't educate themselves, they surround themselves with non-compatible people, they don't search for meaning, they hate society, they are motivated by greed, they are too wealthy, they lie too much, they sleep with too many people, they value the opinions of others more than themselves, or they engage in all other forms of thought and behavior that negates their own homeostasis- or their parents (or other kids at school) do such to them. You'll be hard pressed to find me someone that sits outside this paradigm, but I welcome your thoughts.

Is depression a deeper more complex state that expands the mind more? — TiredThinker

Definitely yes. To be honest with you I honestly think that depression is one of the most lethal illnesses in our modern Era. It is sad how many people end their lives so easily because they suffer from depression. When we see someone being suffering from of depression we should help them.
But what can we do? Are the medical drugs necessary on this issue?
The last summer I read an interesting article related to this topic. I going to share it with you if you are interested: Plato not Prozac! Applying Philosophy to Everyday Problems

What do you mean exactly by "default human state" ?

Ro cap it off, people are depressed because they treat themselves poorly. They drink too much, they don't work hard enough, they don't educate themselves, they surround themselves with non-compatible people, they don't search for meaning, they hate society, they are motivated by greed, they are too wealthy, they lie too much, they sleep with too many people, they value the opinions of others more than themselves, or they engage in all other forms of thought and behavior that negates their own homeostasis- or their parents (or other kids at school) do such to them. You'll be hard pressed to find me someone that sits outside this paradigm, but I welcome your thoughts. — Garrett Travers

I have to dispute most of your long-winded and cant-see-the-wood-for trees view: as someone else who has suffered with depression on and off for nearly 20 years, worked in mental health care, and tried or at least been educated on all popular treatments, my definiton of depression is psychological. You seem to define it as what people do - that's listing the symptoms, not the disease..

Depression results when a person's view of themself falls so far short of who they think they should be that they can no longer live with themself normally. The psychological treatments aim at redressing this imbalance - which is of course constituted of two self-evolved and self-perpetuated judgements, not by events. Counselling seeks by various means to encourage you to replace your overly critical view of yourself with one more realistic; and to replace your overly optimistic view of where you should be in life with a more realistic one.

Some people have a vulnerability to depressive ways of thinking - being pessimistic and sensitive to failure or criticism are 2 warning signs. In these cases anti-depressants can help alleviate the symptoms.

So no, depression is not a natural state of man. Perhaps in today's ever-faster-moving and more chaotic society it is becoming more and more common, but it causes under-performance and grief for all who encounter it. I see no evolutionary advantage in that..

I like to categorize the absence of depression as being of two kinds:

1. Too damned busy to be sad. For instance, does a soldier have time to mourn the loss of a comrade in the thick of battle?

2. Genuinely happy.

1. Too damned busy to be sad. For instance, does a soldier have time to mourn the loss of a comrade in the thick of battle?

Sadness and depression are not necessarily correlated. I am disagree with you in the aspect that work or being busy isolate you from depression. This is the big issue. When you are caught up by depression you don't feel with the animus to keep doing something, thus, being occupied.
Depression is a complex state of kind that goes further than just sadness

I have to dispute most of your long-winded and cant-see-the-wood-for trees view: as someone else who has suffered with depression on and off for nearly 20 years, worked in mental health care, and tried or at least been educated on all popular treatments, my definiton of depression is psychological. You seem to define it as what people do - that's listing the symptoms, not the disease.. — Tim3003

I just explained to you how that psychological process unfolds as a development. I too was speaking strictly from what I know of how the brain stores data, and in which direction it is naturally inclined behaviorally.

Depression results when a person's view of themself falls so far short of who they think they should be that they can no longer live with themself normally. — Tim3003

That is precisely what I was saying, however in more elaborate terms. Again, one does not simply feel this way about themselves, it is the result of some self-negating processes either done by one's own actions, or the actions of those around them, which then develops into a long-term feedback loop of negative emotion.

The psychological treatments aim at redressing this imbalance - which is of course constituted of two self-evolved and self-perpetuated judgements, not by events. Counselling seeks by various means to encourage you to replace your overly critical view of yourself with one more realistic; and to replace your overly optimistic view of where you should be in life with a more realistic one. — Tim3003

Yes, this is all correct.

Some people have a vulnerability to depressive ways of thinking - being pessimistic and sensitive to failure or criticism are 2 warning signs. In these cases anti-depressants can help alleviate the symptoms. — Tim3003

Notice the critical element here is self-negation. That's a developed program, so to speak, within the mind. It doesn't just spontaneously appear.

So no, depression is not a natural state of man. — Tim3003

This assertion is specifically my point. It is NOT a natural state.

Perhaps in today's ever-faster-moving and more chaotic society it is becoming more and more common, but it causes under-performance and grief for all who encounter it. I see no evolutionary advantage in that.. — Tim3003

Neither do I. What the advantage is, is neural feedback loops that are designed to help one grow self-sufficient, rather than self negating. However, the self-negation protocol can be installed in the feedback loop, which can very easily result in long-term negative emotion that is recursive, and grows more sophisticated, just like one grows more sophisticated at an artform over time through the same feedback loops. You see what I'm saying?

Depression results when a person's view of themself falls so far short of who they think they should be that they can no longer live with themself normally. The psychological treatments aim at redressing this imbalance - which is of course constituted of two self-evolved and self-perpetuated judgements, not by events. Counselling seeks by various means to encourage you to replace your overly critical view of yourself with one more realistic; and to replace your overly optimistic view of where you should be in life with a more realistic one. — Tim3003

So counselling sometimes teaches people to come to terms with being homeless, dying in the gutter?

How do they do that?

So no, depression is not a natural state of man. Perhaps in today's ever-faster-moving and more chaotic society it is becoming more and more common, but it causes under-performance and grief for all who encounter it. I see no evolutionary advantage in that..

Natural selection.

Children are happy, exploratory, game-organizing for play, and very deeply loving by nature. I've never known of any exceptions to this. — Garrett Travers

Ohh dear...

Ohh dear... — Tobias

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6200658/

Be careful to read about the consistent trends in childhood temperment, put on a nice little graph for you. Children are overwhelmingly prone to Positive Energy, as opposed to Negative Energy, which are the emotions that characterize the activities I stated. And also that changes in such are linked to behavioral inhibition:

"The results of the current study suggest that temperamental NE and PE are associated with change in frontal asymmetry during early childhood. This is consistent with Lusby et al. (2016), who found that the relationship between NE and frontal asymmetry changed, and indeed reversed, direction over the first year of life. Similarly, previous studies have suggested that the strength of associations between frontal asymmetry and related temperament constructs such as behavioral inhibition may change over the course of development (Calkins et al., 1996). "

You got any comments?

No: It isn't a 'default state'. "Depression" describes a reduction in physical, cognitive and emotional functioning. It is a disease state, ranging from mild to severe, short-term to chronic.

Happiness isn't the default state, either. Life just isn't arranged to allow us (or any creature) continual blissful relaxation.

If there is a default state, it is the struggle of life to survive, grow, mature, and reproduce. When members of our species are successful, our lives work out reasonably well. Past success does not guarantee future results.

My point is not that they are prone to depression or not, but that they are nice. I never saw a friendly child in my life or at least, very few.

In depth commentary would require me to read it in depth and waddle through the statistics, but let's take for granted that the research is conducted properly. Here is the definition: "NE is a temperament trait that refers to a tendency to experience sadness, fear, anger, and reactivity to stress, whereas PE refers to the tendency to experience joy, engagement with the environment, and sensitivity to reward."

So let's say children display PE on birth. It just proves that they are joyful 'engaged with their environment' and sensitive to reward. So yes, they relish in the sight of burning spider under a magnifying glass. It is just proves they are joyful not that they are friendly or deeply loving. That someone kills you laughing does not mean he does not kill you.

Counselling seeks by various means to encourage you to replace your overly critical view of yourself with one more realistic; and to replace your overly optimistic view of where you should be in life with a more realistic one. — Tim3003

The earlier forms of cogntive therapy ( Albert Ellis’ Rational Emotive Therapy and Aaron Beck’s cognitive therapy) were reality-based, assuming a real world independent of our representations of it. Our beliefs could become irrational or distorted with respect to that external world and therapy consisted of correcting those distorted beliefs. Newer approaches don’t assume such an independence
between subject and world, and jettison talk of a correct picture of the world with an adaptive one. We become depressed not when our beliefs become incorrect but when our situation as we construe it changes in ways that we can no longer cope with or understand. So the arbiter here is reality as interpreted from the vantage of the individual rather than an external reality that is supposedly the same for everyone.

My point is not that they are prone to depression or not, but that they are nice. I never saw a friendly child in my life or at least, very few. — Tobias

For future reference, may simply elaborate your point to me, and I'll address it. My positions are not lightly concluded, and rely heavily on research. As far as these children of yours are concerned, I would, in accordance with what I know from the consistencies in behaviorl data, be looking at the parents of those children before I ever concluded anything about them...

So yes, they relish in the sight of burning spider under a magnifying glass. — Tobias

This is a one-off example of activity which has to be taught to a child under the pretenses of no moral valence. You understand? This is not an analysis of data. Children are, when not abused or led astray, very enjoying of their environment, and very loving of those that provide them with resources. You are missing an enormous body of variables here. But, developmental psych is complicated, so I don't fault you.

That someone kills you laughing does not mean he does not kill you. — Tobias

Is this really a conclusion you've drawn...? C'mon man, when have you ever heard of a child killing anyone in joyous laughter? And if you to happen to find me an abberation of such nature, describe to me the details of where the child comes from, and I'll show you who the real killer is.

Children are, when not abused or led astray, very enjoying of their environment, and very loving of those that provide them with resources. — Garrett Travers

Many psychologists and philosophers have described young children as psychopaths, having no moral
compass, and having to be conditioned into what we consider civilized behavior. That was also the message in the novel ‘Lord of the Flies’.

Piaget described the moral development of a child as
proceeding from an egocentric point of view to a progressively more decentered vantage. Just as young children believe the moon follows them when they walk , they believe the world revolves around their needs and everyone thinks the same way they do. Point of view is a concept that has to be learned, as does sharing.

Many psychologists and philosophers have described young children as psychopaths, having no moral
compass, and having to be conditioned into what we consider civilized behavior. — Joshs

The proper term is tabula rasa, and only psychopaths themselves, or people totally ignorant, would say something so utterly fucking stupid. Humans are altricial, we have a rearing period of 20 years, or so. Conceptualizing systems of morality are the duty of the parents to help their children build, as humans have been evolved to develop specifically conceptualization as our means of survival, as opposed to claws and talons and the like. That development takes that amount of time. The Positive Energy associated with MY claims, which fly in the face of such utter nonsense as you described, demonstrate that such is not the case. Psychopathy is a Negative Emotion phenomenon predominantly. The brain has neural pathways that get mixed, so it the two can cross in some people.

Piaget described the moral development of a child as
proceeding from an egocentric point of view to a progressively more decentered vantage. — Joshs

Egocentrism is the first and primary stage of all ethical deliberations, as all conceptualizations of informed behavior are directed from the individual consciousness, and toward the conscious enity established goals of pursuit. This is an indicator of morality, not of psychopathy. Psychopathy comes in when conceptualizations include the achievement of self-directed desires, through behaviors that violate other conscious beings, and only comes in then, not before.

they believe the world revolves around their needs and everyone thinks the same way they do. — Joshs

It does. Just as your world revolves around you now. You are always relative to your own purview of influence, and it to you. Children simply do not understand, and cannot conceptualize the purview of others, nor any implications associated with their own, just as you cannot understand mine now. The difference between us and children, is that we have been shown how to conceptualize when the need arises. When a person can conceive of concepts of behavior, predicated on sensory data they have received, then and only then do they enter the moral domain.

Point of view is a concept that has to be learned, as does sharing. — Joshs

Yes. Although, sharing is irrelavent.

Is this really a conclusion you've drawn...? C'mon man, when have you ever heard of a child killing anyone in joyous laughter? And if you to happen to find me an abberation of such nature, describe to me the details of where the child comes from, and I'll show you who the real killer is. — Garrett Travers

No, the point is that the definitions of PE does not lead to any normative conclusions such at those you draw. Yes they care for the ones that feed them, so do cats.

You understand? — Garrett Travers

I understand a great many things, but thanks for your concern. You must also have noticed that all those associations are extremely small. Graph or no graph. I doubt it would meet the criteria for good epidemiological research.

From the movie Cidade de Deus

You see, like all systems in the universe - and everything in the universe is either a system, or resources to be used in or by a system - one of the primary functions of biological systems is homeostasis. Equilibrium, to put it another way. Regression toward the mean, to put it in physics terms — Garrett Travers

The above physics-based notion of rationality uses the metaphor of a clock or engine-like machine. It does what it does and all we have to do is grasp the nature of such a closed system. Logic is ideally suited for such a task. Logic, of course depends on a starting premise. If we can assume that the starting precedent or axiom is fixed, dependable and unchanging, then human rationality becomes a purely a logical enterprise once we have induced the starting premises. In physics, the concept of time has long been assumed to be irrelevant to the understanding of homeostatic systems. Physicists argues that it didn’t matter whether we ran the equations backwards or forwards , since there is no arrow of time in a homeostatic system. They also assumed that once we arrived at a final physical theory of everything, we could essentially run the thing on a computer
and predict everything we needed to know about the world and ourselves.

Applied to ethics, this physics-based approach to rationality connects happiness, understanding and doing the right thing with properly and rationally grasping the working of the closed homeostatic system that physics describes.

Piaget, among others, provides an alternative model
that is based not on physics and a static clock or engine-like machine but on a self-organizing systems approach to living organisms. Rather than trying to reduce psychology and biology to physics , he argues
that physics at present is incomplete.

Piaget introduces the concept of progressive equilibration, which asserts that living systems are not a closed system. The nature of a homeostatic system is to evolve. So picture a dynamic homeostasis as a spiral
constantly moving upward rather than the simple circle created by static homeostasis. The direction of progressive equilibration is from a weaker to a stronger structure.

The implication of this model for ethics and psychotherapy is that the aim of a cognitive
system is not to correctly represent a static machine-like world but to adapt itself to a world that is constantly rearranging itself in more and more complex ways. Conceptual change is not through inductive logic but experimentation. Depression and other emotional ailments are the inability to keep with and adapt one’s
thinking to an evolving world.

No, the point is that the definitions of PE does not lead to any normative conclusions such at those you draw. Yes they care for the ones that feeds them, so do cats. — Tobias

I didn't say they did, I never even implied. Look man, I'm not these mystic chumps on this website, dude. If you're going to engage with me on here, I'm going to need you to read what I say and the research I post.

Let me clarify this: Positive Energy, which is associated in healthy children exhibiting the activities that I enumerated, among many others, is FAR more predominant than Negative Emotion, like what is linked to the behavior in the picture you just linked. And I stated such in a very elaborate manner that is consistent with modern research, okay. Do you understand me?

The behavior shown above is the kind of which that is taught through behavioral inhibitions and redirections from the people within his purview. If you are under the impression that that is a picture of a child using a loaded hand-gun, I would suggest you think outside the box a bit. That is taught, and controlled, and manipulated behavior. Period.

Now, that all being said. Will you please tell me how to add pictures to these chat boxes like the one you listed above, because I haven't been able to in the past?

I didn't say they did, I never even implied. Look man, I'm not these mystic chumps on this website, dude. If you're going to engage with me on here, I'm going to need you to read what I say and the research I post. — Garrett Travers

Edit: Pointless.

I advice a course on critical thinking Garrett. It will do you a world of good.

In physics, the concept of time has long been assumed to be irrelevant to the understanding of homeostatic systems. Physicists argues that it didn’t matter whether we ran the equations backwards or forwards , since there is no arrow of time in a homeostatic system. They also assumed that once we arrived at a final physical theory of everything, we could essentially run the thing on a computer
and predict everything we needed to know about the world and ourselves. — Joshs

Beautifully stated, and such is exactly why I highlighted regression toward the mean. It isn't really proper to say "homeostasis" in regards to systems devoid of internal computational systems that initiate those kinds of protocols, life biological systems. However, regression toward the mean and homeostasis are very very similar in nature, and from my perspective, reflect the same natural processes of systems irrespective of mindful action.

Applied to ethics, this physics-based approach to rationality connects happiness, understanding and doing the right thing with properly and rationally grasping the working of the closed homeostatic system that physics describes. — Joshs

Yes, except with humans specifically, we not only have this integrated function as a part of our genetic predisposition, but our conceptual faculty is specifically used for such, and has been elevated by the evolutionary process to be of FAR greater effectiveness than any mere claw, or talon.

Piaget introduces the concept of progressive equilibration, which asserts that living systems are not a closed system. The nature of a homeostatic system is to evolve. So picture a dynamic homeostasis as a spiral
constantly moving upward rather than the simple circle created by static homeostasis. The direction of progressive equilibration is from a weaker to a stronger structure. — Joshs

Yes, the equilibrated state. Beautiful work, Joshs.

The implication of this model for ethics and psychotherapy is that the aim of a cognitive
system is not to correctly represent a static machine-like world but to adapt itself to a world that is constantly rearranging itself in more and more complex ways. Conceptual change is not through inductive logic but experimentation. Depression and other emotional ailments are the inability to keep with and adapt one’s
thinking to an evolving world. — Joshs

Yes. Now apply that conceptual faculty to behavioral framework that is specifically self-opposing, homeostatically disruptive via self-directed behavior devised by conception. That's what we're dealing with.

Edit: Pointless.

I advice a course on critical thinking Garrett. It will do you a world of good. — Tobias

I advice you two...

I teach them them, but thanks anyway.

edit: It is a bit fickly to add pics. I google the image than copy the link than I click on the icon with the mountain and the sun. I add the link which I achieved through right clicking 'copy image link'.

But is being depressed or even anxious the human default? — TiredThinker

Anxiety is a response to stress. Stress is psychological conflict. Thus if one is in a car trying to go somewhere, but one is stuck in traffic, one wants to move but cannot move. Modern life is very stressful and the best relief for stress and anxiety is exercise.

Depression is a response to trauma. Trauma is any event that produces an overwhelming negative emotion, pain, fear, humiliation, abandonment, stress anxiety, that sort of thing. The mind, unable to cope with and process the feelings encountered cuts itself off from the feeling. Unfortunately, it does not merely cut off one negative feeling but all feelings. Life becomes empty, but with a sort of residual dread of the unprocessed traumatic feeling.

I teach them them, but thanks anyway. — Tobias

Then you would see how such advice doesn't apply to my research-based analysis above.

edit: It is a bit fickly to add pics. I google the image than copy the link than I click on the icon with the mountain and the sun. I add the link which I achieved through right clicking 'copy image link'. — Tobias

Will keep that in mind, I thought I'd tried that before.

Depression is a response to trauma. Trauma is any event that produces an overwhelming negative emotion, pain, fear, humiliation, abandonment, stress anxiety, that sort of thing. The mind, unable to cope with and process the feelings encountered cuts itself off from the feeling. Unfortunately, it does not merely cut off one negative feeling but all feelings. Life — unenlightened

Or perhaps depression is the emptiness of the situation itself rather than a secondary response to it. It would be the feeling of the failure to cope rather than a further act of cutting oneself off. Of course, a severely depressed person cuts themselves off from friends and family, but this is in response to the sense that one is unworthy of them and cannot find any joy with them.

Or perhaps depression is the emptiness of the situation itself rather than a secondary response to it. — Joshs

It could be, Joshs. But, the problem there is, "emptiness" is itself an emotionally valenced concept. Which would imply a pre-dedicated group of descriptors that one applies to such an "emptiness" that has already been integrated through recurrent neural network data-processing. Which is clear isn't the same for all people. For example, I don't feel this way about situations, I used to when I was a depressive. I don't think it is that on its own, don't see how it could be. Now, I could be wrong about what I'm attributing it to, but there is data to support my position.

I have a way of possibly explaining it, check it and tell me what you think:

"emptiness of the situation" is an emotion informed by the recurrent "sense that one is unworthy" that is likely a response to the interactions between them and "friends and family" that one "cuts themselves off from" leaving them unable to "find any joy" which causes long term negative energy, or "depression" which itself informs the "emptiness of the situation" in a recursive cycle, leaving them with a perceived "failure to cope."

In which case, you and Enlightened, and myself would all be correct in our assertions here.

Or perhaps depression is the emptiness of the situation itself rather than a secondary response to it. It would be the feeling of the failure to cope rather than a further act of cutting oneself off. — Joshs

I'm not sure what you mean. One cuts oneself off from ones's own feelings - an internal psychological splitting.

I don't think a situation one cannot cope with would be empty. ??

I don't think a situation one cannot cope with would be empty. ?? — unenlightened

Fundamentally, depression is a feeling of loss of something that matters greatly to our lives and reaches into every aspect of our relations with others. It is connected with loss of competence and self-esteem. It is loss of a kind of sense-making. Before the depression we felt confident to venture into new situations and cope with them effectively. When the depression hits , typically after a series of failures that damage that confidence, situations no longer present us with opportunities to achieve meaning and satisfaction. Our world still exists but has become empty because we can no longer engage it and extract joy. Chronic depressives describe their world this way , like Sylvia Plath’s bell jar.

“ It is the glass wall the separates us from life, from ourselves, that is so truly frightening in depression. It is a terrible sense of our own overwhelming reality, a reality that we know has nothing to do with the reality that we once knew. And from which we think we will never escape. It is like living in a parallel universe but a universe so devoid of familiar signs of life that we are adrift, lost. (Brampton, 2008, p.171

A poor choice of words on my part.