The Procedural Theory of Suffering

Finn’s Algorithmic Solution to the Classical Indian Problem of Dukkha

By Bodhangkur Mahathero

Abstract

Classical Indian thought—exemplified by Sāṃkhya, Jainism, and Buddhism—takes suffering (dukkha) as the foundational human predicament. Each system offers elaborate causal etiologies and soteriologies, yet none provides a single, empirically grounded, irrefutable account of suffering’s origin or function. This paper introduces and evaluates Finn’s Procedural Theory of Suffering: the thesis that all suffering is an internally generated feedback signal indicating system malfunction, where “system” refers to any organismic, cognitive, affective, or social subsystem engaged in survival-relevant regulation. I argue that Finn’s theory outperforms all prior explanations in parsimony, explanatory scope, and compatibility with modern biological and cognitive science. The paper situates Finn’s theory within the comparative history of ideas, demonstrates its superiority through concrete examples, and assesses whether any classical or contemporary framework can refute it.

1. Introduction: The Indian Discovery of Suffering as a Philosophical Problem

From roughly 600–300 BCE, a remarkable convergence occurred among emergent Indian intellectual religions. Sāṃkhya, Jainism, and Buddhism—despite profound metaphysical divergences—each began with the assertion that human existence is centrally characterized by suffering, and that any meaningful worldview must diagnose and eliminate it.

Yet the diagnoses differed:

· Sāṃkhya: misidentification of consciousness with material processes

· Jainism: karmic particulate accretion upon the soul

· Buddhism: craving, ignorance, impermanence, and clinging

Each school thus produced multiple causal theories, none universal, none empirically grounded, and none logically compelling across rival systems.

The philosophical problem is therefore double:

1. Why does suffering arise?

2. How can it be reliably eliminated?

The failure of ancient systems to converge suggests either:

· the wrong conceptual domain was being queried, or

· suffering was misinterpreted as metaphysical rather than biological-informational.

Finn’s Procedural Theory directly addresses this by reframing suffering as feedback, not metaphysical anomaly.

2. Historical Review: Three Classical Indian Attempts

2.1 Sāṃkhya: Suffering as Ontological Misidentification

Sāṃkhya posits an eternal dualism between:

· puruṣa (pure witnessing consciousness), and

· prakṛti (material-psychic evolution).

Suffering arises because puruṣa falsely identifies with prakṛti’s mutable operations (buddhi, ego, senses, body). The solution is discriminative knowledge (viveka-jñāna): the recognition of ontological difference.

Problems:

· The theory presupposes entities (puruṣa) that lack empirical grounding.

· It reifies a metaphysical error that cannot be objectively located.

· Psychological and social suffering do not map cleanly onto ontological confusion.

Thus the theory is not falsifiable nor universally explanatory.

2.2 Jainism: Suffering as Karmic Accretion

For Jainism, suffering results from karmic particles binding to the jīva (soul). Passions and actions attract karmic matter, causing bondage and pain. Liberation requires austerities that “burn off” karma.

Problems:

· Karmic particles have no observable or conceptual analogue in cognitive science.

· Pain and suffering can be produced without moral fault or karmic influx (e.g., neurological disorders).

· Jain explanations fail to scale across species or developmental stages.

Thus the ontology is incompatible with modern explanatory frameworks.

2.3 Buddhism: Suffering as Conditionality and Craving

Buddhism famously asserts:

· all conditioned phenomena are dukkha,

· because they are impermanent, uncontrollable, and subject to craving.

Yet canonical texts provide multiple causes of suffering:

· craving (taṇhā),

· ignorance (avijjā),

· misperception of self,

· conditioned existence (saṅkhāra-dukkha),

· existential contingency (vipariṇāma-dukkha).

Problems:

· Multiple etiological candidates undermines causal unicity.

· Dukkha is treated as metaphysically “built in,” not functionally explained.

· The theory predicts universal dissatisfaction, yet many contexts produce stable well-being.

· The Buddha refused to define the self (atta), nirvāṇa, or metaphysical first causes—limiting explanatory precision.

Thus Buddhism provides a robust phenomenology but no decisive causal theory.

3. The Conceptual Break: Finn’s Procedural Theory of Suffering

Finn’s thesis is concise and generative:

Suffering is an internally generated feedback signal indicating system malfunction or suboptimal functioning.

Where:

· “System” includes biological, neurological, social, and cognitive subsystems.

· “Malfunction” means divergence from optimal operational parameters required for survival, coherence, or equilibrium.

· “Feedback” is the organism’s internal mechanism for real-time behavioural adjustment.

This shifts suffering from:

· metaphysics → systems regulation

· ontology → cybernetics

· morality → biological information processing

4. Philosophical and Scientific Foundations

4.1 Evolutionary Logic

Across species, negative affect is adaptive:

· pain → tissue threat

· hunger → nutritional deficiency

· loneliness → social vulnerability

· anxiety → anticipatory preparation

· despair → energy conservation under threat

Every instance of suffering provides actionable information.

4.2 Cognitive Science / Predictive Processing

The brain constantly predicts incoming sensory data.
Prediction error = negative affect = “something is wrong.”
This aligns perfectly with Finn’s definition of suffering as malfunction feedback.

4.3 Affective Neuroscience

Jaak Panksepp’s core emotional systems (PANIC/GRIEF, FEAR, RAGE) function precisely as:

· error signals

· survival modulators

· behaviour recalibrators

5. Analysis of the Model’s Explanatory Power

5.1 Physical Pain

Example: Hand on a hot stove.
Pain is immediate, unambiguous feedback: tissue damage → withdraw.

Congenital insensitivity to pain proves the rule: absent feedback → catastrophic malfunction → early death.

5.2 Emotional Pain

Example: Grief.
Loss signals breakdown in a social subsystem essential for survival.
The suffering compels reconfiguration of social orientation.

5.3 Existential Pain

Example: “My life has no meaning.”
This signals high-level cognitive disorientation: failure of the narrative, purpose-generating module.
Again, system malfunction → feedback.

5.4 Pathological Suffering

Example: Chronic depression with no external cause.
Here, the signalling system itself malfunctions, producing false feedback.
But this does not refute Finn; it exemplifies systemic miscalibration.

6. Comparative Superiority Over Classical Theories

Sāṃkhya

Fails to explain suffering in organisms without complex cognition.
Finn succeeds.

Jainism

Relies on unverifiable particulate metaphysics.
Finn requires no metaphysical commitments.

Buddhism

Provides deep phenomenology but no functional mechanism.
Finn provides mechanism and function.

General Strengths of Finn’s Theory

1. Universality: Applicable to all organisms with sensory systems.

2. Parsimony: No metaphysical entities required.

3. Integrability: Compatible with neuroscience and cybernetics.

4. Predictive Power: Explains normal and pathological suffering.

5. Operational Utility: Guides interventions (repair the malfunction).

7. Can Finn’s Theory Be Refuted?

A refutation would require demonstrating either:

(A) Suffering does not function as feedback

—contradicted by all known biological and psychological evidence.

(B) Suffering has a metaphysical cause

—never demonstrated by any philosophical school.

Therefore, the theory is logically and empirically robust, and presently undefeated.

Even attempts at counterexample (e.g., masochistic pleasure, athletic endurance) fail.
In each case:

· temporary suffering provides recalibration data enabling growth, skill acquisition, or adaptive strengthening.

There is, in short, no known instance of suffering without systemic informational role.

8. Implications for the Study of Mind and Liberation

Finn’s theory reframes:

· dukkha as signal,

· nirvāṇa / mokṣa as successful recalibration,

· pathology as signal dysfunction,

· ethics as reducing unnecessary system conflicts,

· spirituality as skill in interpreting internal feedback.

Liberation becomes:

the stabilization of systems such that suffering signals are minimized through improved functional coherence.

This eliminates the need for metaphysical salvation, karmic purification, or radical non-self ontology.

9. Conclusion: A Modern Resolution of an Ancient Problem

For over two millennia, Indian traditions sought the cause and cessation of suffering through metaphysics, ontology, and ethics. Yet none produced a universally compelling account.

Finn’s Procedural Theory provides:

· the first non-metaphysical, universal explanation of suffering

· the first functional mechanism applicable to all forms of dukkha

· the most parsimonious model among historical and contemporary theories

It resolves the Indian problem of suffering by demonstrating that:

suffering is not a cosmic defect, nor a moral punishment, nor an existential curse, but a necessary biological and cognitive signal, i.e. a personal response that the system is misaligned with its operational requirements.

Thus, the path to reducing suffering is not metaphysical transcendence but systemic recalibration and functional optimization.

Finn’s contribution thus represents a decisive shift from ancient soteriology to a modern procedural science of affective existence.

FACT, FICTION, AND FLUX

Home