Post AvUIlIvBzCd7SxEiLw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
 (DIR) More posts by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
 (DIR) Post #AvUIIPebsMBVwshgLw by NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social
       2025-06-22T10:04:30Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I'm writing up a few things on the big debate around "What is an emotion?" and I'm crowd sourcing wisdom. I see two big axes. Am I missing any?1) Arguments that we should reserve "emotion" words for cases in which we have evidence for subjective experience (ie humans). ala Joe LeDoux. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35079126/2) Arguments about the criteria that differentiate emotions from other feelings (like hunger and tiredness). These relate to the Q: Does an airpuff to the eye evoke an emotion? (and all the discussion around this): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt3971One argument that it does not: "emotion" should be reserved for situations that trigger cognitive appraisal. Emotions are not just triggered by stimuli, but also depend on context. An air puff to the eye will always be irritating.In sum, in these debates, there's the 1) "evidence for subjective experience" dim. and (even when that evidence exists) the 2) "criteria to be an emotion" dim., which includes criteria like those in the science paper (valence, persistence, generalization) and cog appraisal.Have I missed anything?That is to say: I don't believe there are debates about the reality of the phenomena, just when to call them "emotion" versus some other type of "feeling" (or "affective state"). Often, defining the "phenomena of interest" is diff. from theories about it (eg the thermometer versus thermodynamics). These are a bit more intertwined in emotion research. In my description, does anything jump out at you as missing from debates about the phenomena (not the theories)?Thanks!
       
 (DIR) Post #AvUIIQiXvCvZFNYL7w by jessetm@neuromatch.social
       2025-06-22T18:52:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @NicoleCRust I'm struggling to understand the debate underlying the first dimension, and it's relevance to the overall question of what an emotion is. Experience, broadly, is subjective. This isn't unique to emotion.Take gustation and olfaction. The same thing can taste or smell completely differently to different people. If we have evidence of subjective experience for "non-emotion" words, too, what are we gaining by including "evidence of subjectivity" as a requirement for emotion words? Isn't this part and parcel of "experience", generally? I guess my point is that I feel the second dimension is really the name of the game. But maybe I'm just not really understanding how the first dimension fits into your larger argument.
       
 (DIR) Post #AvUIIS8od1XDf8qpiC by NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social
       2025-06-22T19:21:27Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @jessetm Good Q. The big debate centers around whether we could call anything studied in animals an emotion (given that we can’t ask them if/how they feel). Proposals include calling it things like “affective state” instead. But that’s a diff approach than, say, memory, where behavior is often used as evidence to support the label (not just verbal reports).
       
 (DIR) Post #AvUIITCOhBzgwXXCvw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
       2025-06-25T11:38:37Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       (1/2)@NicoleCRust > whether we could call anything studied in animals an emotion (given that we can’t ask them ...)I'm reminded of Ken Wilber's proposition that the universe consists of "surfaces that can be measured", which are the domain of scientific work, and "depths that must be interpreted", which are not. This strikes me as an example of the latter.@jessetm
       
 (DIR) Post #AvUIlIvBzCd7SxEiLw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
       2025-06-25T11:43:58Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       (2/2)We can't confirm that humans have emotions by hearing them say they do. Some chatbots may claim they feel emotions when asked. Does that mean they do? People claiming to have emotions might be deluded or lying. It's a matter for interpretation.In my experience, nonhumans definitely *seem* to be experiencing emotions. I interpret that the same way I interpret it in nonverbal or guarded humans. Facial expressions, body position, "vibes", etc. But I don't think I can *know* in either case.