Conversation

Replying to and
Could you post some specific claims? Panksepp shows how there are core, "primitive" emotional responses and behaviors that are shared. He does not argue against more complex emotions or emotional regulation being more constructivist
2
Ok I read first 5%. This is more pop neuro than Panksepp so maybe unfair to compare. I don't see much contradiction. Simplification, yes. Also perhaps attacking a strawman of classic neuro. Or perhaps Panksepp is not classic neuro. Eg he would not consider Happy or Angry as core
Image
4
Did you read the part about how fear can be mediated in ways that don’t involve the amygdala? The main point is that classic emotions theory is a bit like 5 elements view of alchemy. Superficial coherence in the ontology hiding a bigger, more fluid can of worms phenomenology.
1
2
Replying to and
I did and its not a valid criticism of Panksepp, afaict. See my other reply. But I don't disagree with your latter claim -- the majority of our affective experience is colored by much more complex responses than the few shared fundamental ones
1
Me too. I am sympathetic to any project to replace a primary ontology with emergence, but I also like the idea of a contingent ontology emerging out of historical conditioning. Like there’s nothing fundamental about the fact that we have 4 limbs, but it is interesting that we do.
3