Emotion revisited

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2009.11.10.1036 MDT);

Bruce Abbott and I have been discussing emotion again, off-net,
trying to find agreeable ways of stating the conventional and the PCT
theories of emotion in a way that would be accepted as correct by
proponents on either side. Bruce is tied up right now with his annual
revision of his methods book, so I'm posting a paper and a diagram
that have resulted from our discussions so far, to see what others
have to say about them.

The diagram is incomplete, partly on purpose to avoid cluttering it
up. The ICO representation doesn't show the perceptual and error
signals connecting the functions, but anyone familiar with the
standard PCT diagram can imagine them. 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).
Single systems are shown but they could be multiple. Also, the action
component of the emotion could be supplied by the imagination
connection from the system on the right second from the top, so even
imagining the action can result in perception of an emotion.

The notations about my levels, on the left, are purely speculative.

Note that emotions are perceptions, not objective states of the whole system.

Also not shown are disturbances that enter at various levels with
various emotional consequences. A disturbance of the top or
next-to-top system's perception, for example, might result from
signals from uncontrolled perceptions of lower level (as in the lion
example in the paper), resulting in emotions. Not shown also are
effects from other systems at the higher levels that end up causing
conflict and preventing action. I'll try to work more of those things
into the diagram, but don't want to make it an incomprehensible mess.

I drew the diagram using the free Open Office "draw" program, which
generates vector graphics that scale up and down without pixelation
problems. This program can export the result as a pdf file, still in
vector graphics which the pdf format recognizes, so you can zoom in
and out without seeing any jaggies. Print it out: it's very pretty.

Best,

Bill P.

EmotionModelV2.pdf (23.5 KB)

FeelingAndAction.doc (32.5 KB)

[Bjorn]

[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. Damasio’s 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 don’t 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

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2009.11.14.1315 MDT)]

[From Bjorn Simonsen
(2009.11.12,1245)]
BJ: 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. Damasio’s neurological
way of thinking and also the James-Lange theory (1884).<?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office”
/>
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.

BP: OK, so emotions belong to the class of actions or movements.

BJ: 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.

BP: What is a “component” of “the emotion process?”
Are actions or movements made of components? Or does he mean that actions
and movements associated with emotion are caused by what he called
components such as hormonal measurements and stimulation of the brain? I
get the impression that he think emotional actions and movements are
caused by the physiological states of the body. That, of course, is the
exact opposite of my theory.

BJ: 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.

BP: If you think in words, yes. I don’t see any reason to limit thinking
to words.

BJ:
The PCT view.
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.

BP: I agree with the second sentence but have no idea what the first
sentence means. How can the body solve problems without mental activity?
The only problem-solver in the body that I know about is the brain, where
mental activity takes place. I don’t think the body would get very far in
solving a problem without the brain.

BJ: 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.

BP: Feeling signals arise because of changes in the physiololgical state,
and the physiological state changes because of the action that the higher
control system is about to carry out. The feelings do not cause the
action; they result from getting ready to carry out the action, and that
is caused by a higher-order error signal.

I think of emotions as being composed of perceptions of bodily sensations
together with real or imagined sensations of actions.

PERCEIVED EMOTIONS

^ ^

>

Sensations Perceived

from body or imagined

actions

BJ: 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.

BP: The word feeling is used in ambiguous ways: to say “I feel
fear” means that you feel the sensations of fear; to say “I
feel uncertain” means a more intellectual state of
thinking.

BJ: 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.

BP: But I don’t accept the traditional view; why should I show
obligingness toward it?

BJ: 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 don’t 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

BP: It’s because they don’t really have any coherent model of
emotion.

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.15.1000)]

I think the paper "
Emotions: PCT vs Traditional Explanations" is wonderful. I’ll make only one suggestion and that is to add a brief try at the PCT view of why the emotions are there at all. This would be an answer to your statement about the function of emotions in the traditional view:
“Apparently, the
consensus is that feelings are there to serve as warnings that some kind of
action must be taken. The feelings are viewed as information-carriers, the
products of ancient systems developed during evolution that arouse defenses or
tropisms – an early-warning system that enhances survival.” I agree that this is the traditional view and it’s probably also the popular view of the role of emotions in behavior. Emotions are very important to people – people want to avoid bad emotions and some are driven to therapy if they can’t avoid them; and they want to produce good emotions; and if they can’t do that through creativity and appreciation of the arts they turn to drugs, sex and/or the Republican Party;-) I think the section on the PCT view of emotions should contain a paragraph that answers the one I copied above on the traditional view: what is the PCT view of why the emotions are there? If emotions are the cognitive interpretation of the physiological consequences of preparation for control action, why do we need to perceive them? If this discussion of emotion is supposed to be the basis for a popular presentation of PCT then I think people, who probably consider their emotions very important to their everyday lives, will want to learn why they are there, what they are for, what they are to make of them? Being a pretty emotional person, I want to know that, too;-)

Best

Rick

···

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2009.11.10.1036 MDT);

Bruce Abbott and I have been discussing emotion again, off-net, trying to find agreeable ways of stating the conventional and the PCT theories of emotion in a way that would be accepted as correct by proponents on either side. Bruce is tied up right now with his annual revision of his methods book, so I’m posting a paper and a diagram that have resulted from our discussions so far, to see what others have to say about them.

The diagram is incomplete, partly on purpose to avoid cluttering it up. The ICO representation doesn’t show the perceptual and error signals connecting the functions, but anyone familiar with the standard PCT diagram can imagine them. 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). Single systems are shown but they could be multiple. Also, the action component of the emotion could be supplied by the imagination connection from the system on the right second from the top, so even imagining the action can result in perception of an emotion.

The notations about my levels, on the left, are purely speculative.

Note that emotions are perceptions, not objective states of the whole system.

Also not shown are disturbances that enter at various levels with various emotional consequences. A disturbance of the top or next-to-top system’s perception, for example, might result from signals from uncontrolled perceptions of lower level (as in the lion example in the paper), resulting in emotions. Not shown also are effects from other systems at the higher levels that end up causing conflict and preventing action. I’ll try to work more of those things into the diagram, but don’t want to make it an incomprehensible mess.

I drew the diagram using the free Open Office “draw” program, which generates vector graphics that scale up and down without pixelation problems. This program can export the result as a pdf file, still in vector graphics which the pdf format recognizes, so you can zoom in and out without seeing any jaggies. Print it out: it’s very pretty.

Best,

Bill P.

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2009.11.15.1113 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2009.11.15.1000) --

RM: ... I agree that this is the traditional view and it's probably also the popular view of the role of emotions in behavior. Emotions are very important to people -- people want to avoid bad emotions and some are driven to therapy if they can't avoid them; and they want to produce good emotions

I disagree. They don't want to avoid the bad emotions, they want to avoid the errors that are causing them. The emotions merely show how hard they are trying to correct the errors. If they succeeded in correcting the error, would there be any reason to go on having the emotion? Just remember the old Jewish joke: tell a joke and get the other person to experience the emotion of amusement. Ask if the person liked the joke. If the answer is yes, ask "Would you like to hear it again?"

Obviously, what's funny about the latter joke is not the emotional response to it, but the jolt you get from realizing that you liked something but don't want it to happen again right away. Emotions are basically cognitive; without the cognitive aspect, the feelings mean little.

... and if they can't do that through creativity and appreciation of the arts they turn to drugs, sex and/or the Republican Party;-)

Why, right in the middle of an interesting conversation, do you have to pause and drop a turd into it?

I think the section on the PCT view of emotions should contain a paragraph that answers the one I copied above on the traditional view: what is the PCT view of _why_ the emotions are there? If emotions are the cognitive interpretation of the physiological consequences of preparation for control action, why do we need to perceive them?

My view is that emotions are perceptions derived from two simultaneous lower-order perceptions: feelings that arise from changes in physiology, and real or imagined actions that arise from attempts at error correction. They both arise because we can sense both actions and certain aspects of physiological states, and because the two tend strongly to occur together for obvious reasons. As to why we sense the physiological states, the answer is the same as the answer to the question of why we can see constellations. We have sensors that report the presence of stars, and we like to make up patterns. If you want to know more, ask God, or Mr. Evolution.

If this discussion of emotion is supposed to be the basis for a popular presentation of PCT then I think people, who probably consider their emotions very important to their everyday lives, will want to learn why they are there, what they are for, what they are to make of them? Being a pretty emotional person, I want to know that, too;-)

Thinking that emotions are important in everyday life is synedoche: referring to a whole by naming one of its parts. "Ten sail on the horizon, Captain." The emotions are not what matters; what matters are the problems that create the bad emotions. You can't fix a broken leg with novocain. If you make the bad emotions go away without solving the problem, you'll still have the same problem, but be unable to act to solve it. Of course since bad emotions tend to go with hard problems, it's easy to get cause and effect reversed and think that the problems are being caused by the emotions. If they were, all we would need is anesthetics, not psychotherapists. That's how a lot of people deal with emotions, of course, and why they never get over the problems.

When I lost Mary, a well-meaning doctor offered me a tranquilizer, or maybe it was some other kind of mood-alterer to cheer me up. I couldn't imagine feeling wonderful at that time. It would have been an insult. The way I felt was exactly appropriate to what was happening and to what I wanted, which was something impossible. I had to work that out, and am still working it out. Where would I be now if I had simply turned off the feelings and kept the wishes?

My view is that emotions are only incidentally feelings; what makes them good or bad is what we want and what we try to do while we're having them. The symptoms of a problem are not the problem. You can make the symptoms go away by solving the problem, but you can't solve the problem by making the symptoms go away. I sound like I'm at an AA meeting. Maybe I am.

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2009.11.15.1200)]

Bill Powers (2009.11.15.1113 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2009.11.15.1000) –

RM: … I agree that this is the traditional view and it’s probably also the popular view of the role of emotions in behavior. Emotions are very important to people – people want to avoid bad emotions and some are driven to therapy if they can’t avoid them; and they want to produce good emotions

I disagree. They don’t want to avoid the bad emotions, they want to avoid the errors that are causing them.

I know that that’s what’s probably actually going on. I was just saying that I don’t think most people think of it that way. At least not always. You hear about people who want to stop feeling anxious, depressed or fearful. They focus on the feeling as much if not more than the errors.

The emotions merely show how hard they are trying to correct the errors. If they succeeded in correcting the error, would there be any reason to go on having the emotion?

This is the kind of thing that I think should be explained. Emotions, from a PCT point of view, are really just a kind of side effect of ineffective controlling. To “deal with” the emotion means finding the source of error. If this is the PCT view then it should be made clear in the presentation. Maybe it was but it seemed pretty academic. I’m just thinking that if people are watching this on PBS they’re going to want to know why they feel depressed or fearful (if that’s what they feel) and how they can deal with this.

Just remember the old Jewish joke: tell a joke and get the other person to experience the emotion of amusement. Ask if the person liked the joke. If the answer is yes, ask “Would you like to hear it again?”

That can’t be a Jewish joke; it’s not that funny. Well, maybe if it’s told with a Yiddish accent. If my grandfather told it, it vould be funny. Of course, if my grandfather said anything it was funny. Vays mir, did I love that guy.

Obviously, what’s funny about the latter joke is not the emotional response to it, but the jolt you get from realizing that you liked something but don’t want it to happen again right away. Emotions are basically cognitive; without the cognitive aspect, the feelings mean little.

I agree. I’m just suggesting that this should be communicated to people, taking into consideration that a lot of people will be out there feeling “bad” and wanting to know, in a way that’s as non-academic as possible, why that’s happening and what they can do about it. The traditional view focuses on the emotion itself (as you noted) as “information” about what one’s problem is. The PCT view (as I understand it) is that the emotional feeling itself doesn’t tell you much about why it’s happening. I’m suggesting that this distinction be made clear and that the PCT view presented in as optimistic a way as possible.

… and if they can’t do that through creativity and appreciation of the arts they turn to drugs, sex and/or the Republican Party;-)

Why, right in the middle of an interesting conversation, do you have to pause and drop a turd into it?

I think for the same reason that dogs pause to pee on trees. How else would you know it’s me;-)

My view is that emotions are perceptions derived from two simultaneous lower-order perceptions: feelings that arise from changes in physiology, and real or imagined actions that arise from attempts at error correction. They both arise because we can sense both actions and certain aspects of physiological states, and because the two tend strongly to occur together for obvious reasons. As to why we sense the physiological states, the answer is the same as the answer to the question of why we can see constellations. We have sensors that report the presence of stars, and we like to make up patterns. If you want to know more, ask God, or Mr. Evolution.

I think this is an interesting point and I think it would be worth mentioning it since it in very direct contradiction to the traditional view, which sees emotions as carrying information. Though I would recommend making this point in a much less turdy way; people might mistake you for me;-)

Thinking that emotions are important in everyday life is synedoche: referring to a whole by naming one of its parts. “Ten sail on the horizon, Captain.” The emotions are not what matters; what matters are the problems that create the bad emotions.

Good.So I would just suggest including this point in your discussion.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[Bjorn]

[From Bill Powers (2009.11.14.1315 MDT)]

>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.

BP: OK, so emotions belong to the class of actions or movements.

When we talk about the traditional view, I think it’s wrong to talk about classes or levels. I don’t think they think that way. When anybody make faces, I think the traditional view mean that this activity is triggered off by a nervous function without thinking about classes or levels. This is a difference between the traditional view and ther PCT view.

BJ: 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.

BP: What is a “component” of “the emotion process?” Are actions or movements made of components? Or does >he mean that actions and movements associated with emotion are caused by what he called components such as >hormonal measurements and stimulation of the brain? I get the impression that he think emotional actions and >movements are caused by the physiological states of the body. That, of course, is the exact opposite of my theory.

Look at my comment three sections above. I think that they think the physiological Status and the movements in the faces are an Emotion and that the physiological status is a “component” of the emotion process. They say that the brain start the making of faces, but they don’t know directly how. This is a difference between the traditional view and ther PCT view.

BJ: 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.

BP: If you think in words, yes. I don’t see any reason to limit thinking to words.

Neither I. But I the traditional view is not involved in negative feedback, levvels and classes whitch are central for PCT.

** >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.

BP: I agree with the second sentence but have no idea what the first sentence means. How can the body solve problems without mental activity? The only problem-solver in the body that I know about is the brain, where mental activity takes place. I don’t think the body would get very far in solving a problem without the brain.

As I said before. They say that the brain start the making of faces and start to solve basic problems in the body, but they don’t know directly how. This is a difference between the traditional view and ther PCT view.

BJ: 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.

BP: Feeling signals arise because of changes in the physiololgical state, and the physiological state changes >because of the action that the higher control system is about to carry out. The feelings do not cause the action; they >result from getting ready to carry out the action, and that is caused by a higher-order error signal.

I got that. Feelings are perceptions. It is the difference between higher references and thhe perception of feelings that cause tha ection.

bjorn

[Bjorn]

[From Bjorn Simonsen 2009.11.16,1830 eu st)]

Sorry I sent a mail in Bill’s name. It was mine

From Bill Powers (2009.11.14.1315 MDT)]

>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.

BP: OK, so emotions belong to the class of actions or movements.

When we talk about the traditional view, I think it’s wrong to talk about classes or levels. I don’t think they think that way. When anybody make faces, I think the traditional view mean that this activity is triggered off by a nervous function without thinking about classes or levels. This is a difference between the traditional view and ther PCT view.

BJ: 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.

BP: What is a “component” of “the emotion process?” Are actions or movements made of components? Or does >he mean that actions and movements associated with emotion are caused by what he called components such as >hormonal measurements and stimulation of the brain? I get the impression that he think emotional actions and >movements are caused by the physiological states of the body. That, of course, is the exact opposite of my theory.

Look at my comment three sections above. I think that they think the physiological Status and the movements in the faces are an Emotion and that the physiological status is a “component” of the emotion process. They say that the brain start the making of faces, but they don’t know directly how. This is a difference between the traditional view and ther PCT view.

BJ: 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.

BP: If you think in words, yes. I don’t see any reason to limit thinking to words.

Neither I. But I the traditional view is not involved in negative feedback, levvels and classes whitch are central for PCT.

** >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.

BP: I agree with the second sentence but have no idea what the first sentence means. How can the body solve problems without mental activity? The only problem-solver in the body that I know about is the brain, where mental activity takes place. I don’t think the body would get very far in solving a problem without the brain.

As I said before. They say that the brain start the making of faces and start to solve basic problems in the body, but they don’t know directly how. This is a difference between the traditional view and ther PCT view.

BJ: 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.

BP: Feeling signals arise because of changes in the physiololgical state, and the physiological state changes >because of the action that the higher control system is about to carry out. The feelings do not cause the action; they >result from getting ready to carry out the action, and that is caused by a higher-order error signal.

I got that. Feelings are perceptions. It is the difference between higher references and thhe perception of feelings that cause tha ection.

bjorn