[From Bjorn Simonsen (2009.11.12,1245)]
From Bill Powers (2009.11.10.1036 MDT
I will start saying (your words, Bill) it would help if people state exactly what they mean by the word.
I find it difficult to express the traditional view because no definitive taxonomy of emotions exists. Many taxonomies are proposed and my thoughts about the traditional view points out Antonio R. Damasios neurological way of thinking and also the James-Lange theory (1884).
The traditional view.
Damasio expresses that emotions are actions or movements, many of them visible to others as they occur in the face, in the voice and in specific behaviors. Some components of the emotion process are not visible to the naked eye but can be made visible with current scientific probes such as hormonal measurements and electrophysiological stimulation of the brain. Feelings on the other hand, are always hidden, like all mental images necessarily are, unseen to anyone other than the one who experiences the Feeling. Damasio thinks feelings are perceptions of a physiological status and a certain way of thinking about certain subjects. This way of thinking takes place in brain areas where words are parts of this thinking.
The PCT view.
Bill expresses in his Emotion revisited that emotions begins with perceptions that are compared with reference-perceptions to generate signals indicating how much difference there is; error signals. Perceptions can either be conscious or exist outside the scope of conscious awareness; in either case, many of them are controlled by behavior to make them match reference-perceptions and keep them matching despite disturbances and other changes. Unconscious control is called “automatic” but it can become conscious.
Bill emphasizes that emotions are perceptions, not objective states of the whole system. And his Version 2 model of emotions expresses that Emotions are perceptions where Physiological States plays a vigorous part.
In his FeelingAndAction appendix he writes
Traditional views of emotion give primary importance to the feelings and
symptoms (intermixed with implied goals, as in “an urge to flee”), and leave
the goals as further speculative features if they are considered separately or as
anything but epiphenomena.
The way I read this section is that Bill says that the traditional view places feelings in the body where the symptoms are placed. This is reinforced by what he writes in his [From Bill Powers (2009.11.10.1036 MDT); Emotion revisited.
The purpose of the diagram is to show how a high-level goal results both in
actions and in a perception of emotion that **arises from the combination of
perceived action and perceived feelings (from changes in physiological state). (**My boldfacing).
My comments to The traditional view and The PCT view.
Damasio expresses that Emotions are what happens in the body when the body try to solve basic problems in the body without mental activity. Feelings are perceptions of the State of the body together with the perception of thoughts about subjects that are in harmony with Emotions.
It appears to me that the traditional view uses the word Emotions where Bill uses both words Emotions and Feelings (physiological State). But I am not quite sure because his Proposed PCT model of emotion (version 2) places feelings as perceptions of Sensations, and in his last section he writes
PCT: Feeling-signals are a result of the goal-seeking behavior we term
emotional – as well as all other kinds of behavior.
It appears to also me that the traditional view uses the word Emotions about the physiological Status and perceptions of the physiological Status where PCT places the low levels as sensations, configurations and events. And the traditional view uses the word Feelings as perceptions where PCT places the higher levels.
My opinion is that PCT should stop using the word Emotions because we use the concept Physiological Status and the perception of the Physiological Status. I also think we shall use the word Feeling about perceptions of the Physiological Status at levels where PCT uses words. This would be a way to show obligingness to the traditional view.
Bill writes in his Proposed PCT model of emotion (Version 2)
This implies that wherever or whatever the emotion-systems are, they can
receive signals from centers higher in the brain which can recognize things
such as cliffs and lions, and they can send signals to other higher centers to
arouse actions that those centers already know how to carry out.
I think that the traditional view have problems explaining this because they dont use the hierarchical levels for their perceptions. They must say that the signals go along one route for one feeling and another route for another feeling and not using the matrix of nerves that PCT uses. I dont think there are so many routes as the traditional view tells us.
In other respects I agree what you write in the section for the traditional view.
And I agree what you write in the section for the PCT view. I liked the way you use automatic where psychologists use the word unconscious.
bjorn