Might not be relevant but afaict this contradicts a lot stuff that seems more solid. Check out amazon.com/Archaeology-Mi
Conversation
That seems to represent the classical theory of emotion that Barrett’s book debunks pretty convincingly in the first 5%.
1
1
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
Too hard to summarize. Read the book if you’re interested.
1
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
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
1
2
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
Well let me continue reading. I haven’t read Panksepp who seems to be your holy grail. Perhaps she tackles his stuff later on.
2
Would love to hear what thinks of Archaeology of Mind if she's read it! I know Panksepp has a lot of critics in the field as well
2
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.

