A wonderful example of two people seeking to understand each other in a respectful way.

@MrBVM1000

Жыл бұрын

10

I wish more scientists who disagree did this. Wonderful. There was a whole lot of agreement it seemed, but disagreement seemed to be in the nuances that are difficult to catch for the lay person. But overall, this discussion really helped clear up both of your main arguments. This was much appreciated.!

The last 3 minutes summed it all up for me. Looking forward to part 2.

It's a real provilege to have the opportunity to take part in this discussion. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

I’ve been waiting a long time for this kind of conversation! Thanks so much to both of you!!!

As a layperson who has enjoyed both of your books, I really enjoyed the conversation between you both. Thanks for taking the time to share this and I really look forward to more!

This is GREAT! I finished Lisas' book a day ago and thanks to this conversation I got a deeper understanding of it. I've discovered I had misunderstood several points. Besides, I teach philosophy in a Spanish high school and you've provided me with good examples of how epistemological and ontological questions are unavoidable in scientific debate. Now I'll read Mark Solms' book. Thank you so much for this conversation!

@wanderingdude.

9 ай бұрын

Hi, does she go into how this affects psychotherapy?

@LakshmiiSharma

6 ай бұрын

Good point

Thank you both for sharing this conversation. I wish you had more time to talk. Going into this I am much more aligned with Barrett's view on this topic but I found Solms to be a very productive conversationalist who understands the constraints and difficulties of live debates in such an intricate topic. I enjoyed Solms' efforts to reconcile your disagreements by agreeing on the vast empirical evidence that you both agree happens, but looking for the place where it 'starts from'. It is an ontological question and Barrett picks up on that point precisely. I think this is unfortunately a difficult point for Solms to look for agreement on. Solms presents that there is a gradation of simple qualitative experiences (like pain, with the finger pricking example), and clearly a 'starting point' for affective experience would make sense from this view point. Indeed, he seemed to be trying to see if this was simply a definitional disagreement or an empirical disagreement (e.g. if theory of constructed emotion proposed that very basic, 'pain-like' experiences existed as distinct qualia that are shared across mammalian species). I do agree with Barrett however that these simple qualitative experiences are not so simple at all. I think it personally unlikely that pain is simply a case of 'extreme' negative affect, but to me pain makes more sense from the perspective of theory of constructed emotion in the sense that, while there are likely underlying circuits that contribute to the constructed experiences of pain, that pain is further constructed in tandem with these more basic neurological processes into an ensemble that incorporates condensed, abstract representations of concepts constructed through learned experience using hierarchically generative circuits in the brain (i.e condensed representations which act on the brain through predictive processing formulations). I think it's likely that the qualitative experience of pain, even at a simple level, would not make sense without these learned, experiential representations that form through hierarchically generative brain networks - and Barrett's formulation provides an ontological framework to explain that process - which is an equivalent she was looking for in Solms' formulation. It felt like you were both just about to get into the meat and bones of this topic but unfortunately ran out of time at the end there. Excited to see/read more from both of you!

Dr Lisa points out that this rational, mature sharing of ideas and clarification is rare, when it should be the everyday-norm. Sad how things have deteriorated and become polarized.

@rexjantze296

10 ай бұрын

It should be an everyday norm for the rational (and irrational) public to decide to choose and listen to enlightened debates like this. Don't need to blame the scientists for opting out of open discourse among each other.

@keep-ukraine-free528

6 ай бұрын

It's presumptive to say such discussions don't occur among scientists *_due to polarization_*. I see that's mostly not the case in science. My view on why such discussions among scientists aren't often publicized: (1) because discussions on deeply nuanced areas of a field are very difficult to explain & keep interesting for general audiences. They do occur in private or non-public venues, and (2) some scientists have motives (let's say antagonistic, or self-serving, rather than truth-seeking) - they do exist (rarely).

@apextroll

3 ай бұрын

If reality is emotionally driven, then this polarization is due to a difference of emotion. My question is how to reconcile realities to being a collective reality. Does reality become realer the less emotional investment in it?

Bravo bravo bravo to you both! You are role models for healthy human scientists who care for the truth/truths of the nature of us miraculous humans. You're conversation can surely be an inspiration for "open science" in the most "transparent" sense. I eagerly await Part 2.

Loved this conversation. Thank you so much for sharing it. Please do have another!

Thank you both for having this conversation.

Thank you both for doing this. I learned a lot!

One of the most influential people in a scientific domain that has huge implications for everything about society. I appreciate lisa feldman barrett so much

Thanks! There needs to be more such discussions. That being said I find your books provide an actionable approach to understanding neuroscience and I apply it! Thanks again.

Thank you so much for sharing this conversation! I definetely want this to be continued and more of it! It's so much fun watching two very intelligent people discussing such a complex topic that is not quite solved. That seems suprising, considering the fact, that emotions are such an important aspect of everyones live. Sometimes I do believe there's a deeper understanding of quantum physics than there is about basic topics of human nature. The closer you look the more difficult it's to say what an emotion is. That's fascinating!

Hi Lisa , am just in the middle of watching your third conversion with Lex and really glad to see you uploading so recently. Thank you for being who you are it's really inspiring. Will come back to this one soon. Hope to see you address more about recent events, and expand more about your thoughts on education, morality, peace and prosperity, AI, roles of institutions, of corporations and the general current global setup. Again, thanks a lot, much love, and all the best!

Thrilled to see a conversation between two scientists I greatly admire. Both have deeply impacted my thinking. More please! More videos!

I appreciate your approach to the Scientific Method, Dr. Barrett! You are a great role model in this world of Science.

In generalnie it makes sense to me how you Mark understand and explain affect, feeling and emotion. And I like your clarity.

Fantastic dialogue!! Thank you very much.

Thank you Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett for your continued work. I strongly believe in your perception of emotion with the added benefit that emotional granularity is the key to deriving your said conclusion.

So so so interesting! Great researchers and great thinkers trying to figure out each other’s ways of thinking what is logical and substantiated by research and what isn’t. Pleeeeze continue this special dialogue!!!

@LEGIOUSIAM8888

Жыл бұрын

The heavens declare the glory of God Once you have seen you cannot unsee Welcome to revelation 2 2023...

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

@@LEGIOUSIAM8888 Relevance?

@LEGIOUSIAM8888

9 ай бұрын

@@christopherhamilton3621 The name of God is encoded in your DNA YHWH Before Abraham was...I AM

Excellent! Please do anext one with one of Basic Emotion Theorist's on facial expression (Keltner, Cowen, Matsumoto)

Love a dialogue. You don’t have to agree, but it’ great to keep the conversation going!

Are we incredibly lucky or what? This is like when your two favourite pop stars collaborate on an album. An intellectual harmony.

Very cool dialogue, both are fascinating to learn from. Five star event. Looking forward to part two. 👍

Excellent, excellent dialog. Very much enjoyed it. Looking forward to your next conversation. I worry when I hear the term qualia, I think used loosely. There is a slippery slope that you are not addressing regarding qualia. Would appreciate a spelling out of how you each use and rely on this concept.

So refreshing to see two professionals having a respectful conversation without leaving aside their point of view. I’d learnt so much as a professional and listener: how popular science book are written differently like using metaphors (I learn a lot with metaphors). Love the scientific terms, for example what is for us mood for scientist is affect. I don’t “know much about Dr Mark Solms but I bet he is a good in his field. And I think without the intention to represent the common people feelings and thoughts perhaps, Dr. Mark S has a point: sometimes when we read or listen to someone and other facts are not mentioned we think that that’s all: the one or two or three factors mentioned are all that it is, period. We don’t think “oh! of course, it’s just not those factors, features there must be more… “ Now thanks to Dr. MS I will be more… mindful? So, it will be good if writers could just mention in their Popular books: “note: it’s not that these are the only important aspect of…” I admire how these lab scientists also are good at speeches and get along with people whom they disagree with (not like some politicians).

I'm not a psychologist, cognitive scientist or neuroscientist. My field is organisation and information systems (and my garden is music and poetry :D). "How Emotions are Made", Lisa's work, struck a chord with me as a systems thinker and worker, helping me to reconcile some questions I had about the link between the gut and the brain. I found it insightful, revolutionary and refreshing. So firstly, thank you. One thought I had for building on the theory of constructed emptions is that "predictions are hypotheses", such that while the brain is continuously regulating the body, it is also continuously experimenting and challenging our best guesses (our instincts) within varying contexts. I've not read Mark's work but intrigued after this conversation. I liked his framing of "affect" wrt valence, intensity and quality, as this allows us to categorise "emotions" without words but as scalar variables. (1. Cor. 13: 12: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.) When we just consult our own ideas we gain a glib reflection. Beauty is revealed through deeper conversation.

Thanks for this!

As an absolute layman i really enjoyed this conversation. Although i understood, i think 80 % of the details of it all, I do hope there will be more to digest

Appreciate this dialogue and the way it is happening. I think more active listening, resummarizing the other person's stance would be helpful practice for the two and for viewers to digest

another time, I will watch this

Deep respect and appreciation for both of these scientists! Did evolution select for a generalized and simple representation of sensations (multi-sensory summaries), did evolution select for specific sensations and affects (i.e. hunger, thirst, sleepiness, etc) , did evolution select for both general and specific sensations and affects, what is the origin and function of affect and feeling (i.e. ontology)? I really appreciated hearing from this discussion that genes/genetics are a representation of prior experiences. Perhaps basic and known by others this insight fascinates me - all of it past and present is experience.

A great conversation, discussion, and elaboration of views. I found Mark's explanations very lucid and supported - even though I don't agree with some of his ideas (the fundamental nature & concept of consciousness). He did a great job here, in his efforts to find agreement and clarify any _a priori_ perceived differences. Lisa also explained & clarified her ideas well. Great seeing this with two respected scientists.

Really looking forward to the next dialogue. Shame there wasn't at least 2 hours set aside for them to get clarity on the other's position and language. The pressure of time can add an unnecessary sense of tension in discussions

This is outstanding. Less than 4k views. Criminal.

This is awesome!

Great discussion! I loved the mention of "incommensurability" and "concepts ARE predictions". I would like to hear more if/how emotion as a "prediction" could be similar way to how brains predict "color". If we focus on the predictions (prior to perception) and how brains create "models", then I think lay persons (engineers, makers, etc.) could better leverage the implications.

Please have a follow up meeting

What’s the proper label for learning while being entertained? This was super informative and I enjoyed the back and forth

Affect is an essential component of cognition. You don't cogitate affect. You don't cogitate at all without affect. It's like a tumbler just fell into place with a solid thump.

Emotions are socially constructed. They are learned and new experience can give us new emotional responses .

Without affect, there's nothing to connect. Affect isn't the connector between perception and cognition. It's more fundamental. It's a component of cognition. It's as if affect were a sensory "organ" in itself, summarizing not just visual data, and not just olfactory data, but (mostly) interoceptive type stuff. That's what the evidence shows. I think this is an important update to the definition of the term "affect." We, all of us, have to be disciplined against exactly what LFB talked about, as regards precisely defining terms.

This is amazing. 2 intelligent people having a conversation and disagreeing respectfully. Oh nuance I long for thee more lol The world needs more nuance

This conversation was desperately needed (as will be the follow up 👀). Solms I know well, now I’m interested to read more from LFB. Outside of her popular books, 270+ papers is daunting. Anyone here have immediate literature suggestions?

@landonmorrison9334

Жыл бұрын

Yes Dr Jaak Panksepp's work is the best work on affective neuroscience

@lisafeldmanbarrett7059

Жыл бұрын

A short selection of my papers is at lisafeldmanbarrett.com/academic-papers/

@ReigninAmazin17

Жыл бұрын

@@lisafeldmanbarrett7059 Thanks Lisa, this helps.

18:02 How is comparing excell spreadsheets to tables a similar comparison to feelings and affects?

@lisafeldmanbarrett7059

Жыл бұрын

At that point in the video, I was explaining how scientists can use the same word to mean two completely different things, which makes communication difficult or impossible. The word "table" is just a simple example from everyday life. If you and I have a debate about tables, and you mean furniture and I mean spreadsheets, we are not communicating. Similarly, if Mark uses the word "affect" to mean an inborn brain circuit for emotion (Jaak Panksepp's definition) and I mean a property of consciousness with features like valence and arousal (Wilhelm Wundt's definition), we aren't communicating. (Wundt was a founder of psychology who conducted the first formal psychology experiment in history. heam.info/wundt-1) This communication problem is called "incommensurability." plato.stanford.edu/entries/incommensurability/

Interesting talk between two emotion specialists, who try to control their emotions before reason, discussing the genetic or epigenetic factors of emotions when this cognitive bias is balanced in favor of both perspectives, it would be better to talk about how much of each genetic factor and epigenetic influences the cultural, for the rest excellent discussion greetings from Guatemala

I am wondering what Dr Feldman Barrett considers innate, given that our experiences, including emotions, are constructed. Biologically, we know that some needs are innate, such as hunger, and the brain will regulate the body such that innate needs (or desired ranges) are met. What of psychological needs? According to Self-Determination Theory, autonomy, competence, and belongingness are basic psycholocial needs. So is the brain also regulating to support these needs, hence the distress and unwellness that is observed to occur when they are thwarted, or do we learn that they are important because we get good outcomes when they are supported?

As an applied psychologist I found this to be an enriching encounter. Looking forward to the second one. Cudos to you both for having this conversation in such a courteous, exemplary fashion.

58:06 About the lack of evidence for distinct categories of affect: I don't think enough research has been done on the brainstem to rule those out. For example, there could be one individual projection from the raphe nuclei (core existence of the human organism) to the locus coeruleus that controls the on/off state of fear-based survival instinct (this being permanently off would be psychopathy). What might seem very minor at the fundamental level of the brainstem could produce large effects at the more complex levels. Disclaimer: I am extremely desperate for scientists to realise that the brainstem is a far more vital entity than the higher brain or genes (I can guarantee you will find in the brainstem the mechanisms of schizophrenia, manic-depressive insanity, hysteria (as described by Josef Breuer), and probably all personality disorders (psychopathy as described above. All subscales of PPI-R can be derived from the fear-based survival instinct being switched off). I don't know how to go about this the healthy way. So I'm bullying the scientists I find on youtube. Bullied Sapolsky just the other day. I did bully you once before in a youtube comment on a talk (probably TED) you gave. Hopefully, you didn't see that lol. Oh? Why do I bully people, you ask? That's right. You guessed it. It's because I am a full-blown psychopath.

The vast majority of humans who feel unpleasant because they are thirsty will not respond by going to sleep. They will seek water. They can differentiate between different types of unpleasant feelings ie sleeplessness and thirst, and how to remedy that unpleasantness.

Great explanations by Lisa Feldman. But I hope the second part of the debate will be more balanced in terms of timeframes, as Mark Solms was interrupted every time in this video. Also, although Dr Feldman ideas are stronger in terms of their theoretical and empirical structure and background, she doesn’t seem to represent correctly the core ideas of Solms, which is necessary for the clarity of the debate. Of course, many problems arise from a lack of terminological consensus. Great learnings from both. It’s very generous to share this conversation

Here after listening to Dr. Barrett on The Huberman Podcast.

Wooww two legends

Hey folks, just curious: who has read either LFB's "How Emotions are Made" or MS's "The Hidden Spring", or both? I have read both. 😊

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

I’ve read her book but not Mark’s. What’s your view of the ‘affect’ conflict?

@silviopina_111

9 ай бұрын

@@christopherhamilton3621 I'll try to give you a well thought out response, so it might take me sometime. Meanwhile, if you plan on reading Mark's book, let me know 🙂

Great conversation, but pricking your finger is all interoceptive. It’s damage into the tissue activating interoceptive neurons. Also, hunger is also just interoception, not affect. Affect results from hunger and circumstance.

@Tamarahope77

Жыл бұрын

That's what Dr Barrett pointed out to Prof Solms. Solms seemed to argue that pain is a distinct category of affect because babies feel pain without having to be taught. Barrett's response referred to the current science of pain, that is, pain is not a result of nociceptive signals.

is Solms coneying that Panksepps work on animal models directly correlates to the human experience in this five affect categories? Although animals maybe have consciousness in a pan psychist view their consciousness may vary and doesn't seem to directly map to the human experience (interested if this is correct?) I like Feldmans idea's because that emergent property from signals between neurotypical consciousness and the physical world seem to make more sense and have more opportunity for nuance . Panksepps work seems groundbreaking but also reductionist and anthropomorphic.

Do we have emorional body

By this point in time, I would have hoped that Lisa would have established her mataphors in standard fashions such that she was no longer making them up the fly, which she does not do well. Also, when on the fly she seems unable to complete one conceptulization without bleeding in other ideation to confuse it all.

From what I listen, I have to go with Mark's view on the fundamental nature of an affect. From what I understand our consciousness is the product of a continuous feed of qualia, caused by affects that have risen above a specific threshold, forcing our brain to attend them consciously each time . I think your disagreement with Mark is mainly caused by the word "consciousness". Your definition seems to be a bit wide forcing "affect" to fall inside as a subpart. i.e. You stated: 44:01 "-there, I would disagree with you. Because I think that in the Kantian sense that an affect is a property of consciousness,meaning, your brain is always regulating your body, your body is always sending sense data back to your brain. So you are always in a state where an affect is relevant to consciousness. Sometimes it's in the foreground. And sometimes it's in the background, but it's always there, in cognition and in perception." Yes, we are always in a state where an affect is relevant to our consciousness, but an affect rises outside our experience, competes with many other affects and the "louder" one manages to "convince"our brain to consciously attend it.

Mark's link doesn't work. It says error 404

I loved the discussion. It's so curious that Lisa is more psychoanalytical, on Lacanienne terms, than the psychoanalyst. Regarding the reaction of babies to snakes and spiders, it could be explained with the epigenetic study of Dias and Ressler, 2014, in Nature, regarding the reaction of newborn rats to the smell of cherry flowers.

I suggest the work of Robert Brandom, the philosopher, it will help with the disagreement.

unfortunately I was not able to make it through her book because of her dismissal of the incredible evidence of the correlation between facial expressions and emotional states, which transcend cultures. Her potential hypothesis of "constructed emotion" reads to me like a rehashed version of James Lange's "read-out" theory of emotion, which is nothing new and has actually been the dominant paradigm. Panksepp's "affective neuroscience" is the revolutionary perspective. Her ideas also do not match with my own experiences of my emotionality. For example, any person who has ever ingested any opioid can speak to the emotional effects they bring about, which are the same across all cultures. these emotions are undoubtedly generated in the subcortical and limbic structures that have a high density of opioid receptors - you can literally feel this in your body when you ingest them, and animals react in a similar way since opioids can reduce separation distress calls in birds that have been separated from their mothers (Panksepp, 2012) Of course, these subcortically generated emotions send and receive signals to extremely diverse neural networks and populations. This is why Panksepp spoke of tertiary level emotions like jealousy, which he explained are constructed in a social-cultural context. Lisa's work takes us backwards. Dr. Panksepp "affect balance therapies" are the mental health therapies of the future

@lisafeldmanbarrett7059

Жыл бұрын

Hi Landon - thanks for your comments. If you are interested in the relationship between facial movements and emotion, I invite you to read this detailed analysis of over 1000 published studies by five senior scientists with diverse views (two from the basic emotions view, two from appraisals, and myself). We had never worked together before. We all began with open minds, carefully examined the published evidence for over two years as a team, and surprisingly (to us) came to consensus. The results may violate your common sense, but I hope you'll be curious enough to read it. Best wishes. journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/10.1177%2F1529100619832930-FREE/pdf

WOW! 🍿👍👍👍

It is nice to see people in all walks of life speak to their opinions, we all have some more correct than others and to hear them is great, also I would love for Lisa to answer proper questions she happily agreed to, with her knowledge not to keep quoting others as a fence for not knowing how to answer or to answer and disprove her own writings or give her opinions and not truly know if she is correct maybe there is emotions at play and it is stumping how to respond , or I think but do I know? Great watching. Mark is great at communaciting his needs. Thank you.

In India Hinduism and Buddhism teachers used to have these types of debates.. that's why these two religions produced worlds best teachers.. conversation is necessary for growth.. ❤

Act one, Scene one, The Merchant of Venice. Antonio: In sooth, I know not why I am so sad: It wearies me; you say it wearies you; But how I caught it, found it, or came by it, What stuff ‘tis made of, whereof it is born, I am to learn; And such a want-wit sadness makes of me, That l have much ado to know myself.

16:00 after reading the book I was also left with the impression that affect is just valence and arousal, that’s something I explicitly remember. I first discovered dr Solms’ work, which i liked so much that I have revisited a few times, including his latest book “The hidden spring”, and more recently, like two years ago, I have discovered dr Feldman’s work - which I have revisited a fee times as well and also very fond of. I think this discussion should have taken place anyways, and I applaude both Lisa and Mark for making this discussion possible for us readers of both to understand how to relate with each. I felt those differences between their works and I really like that now we are debating them. ❤ 53:14 “Why we have a conscious feeling at all - it is to tell us whether what we are doing is working or not” - I think this is not sufficient motivation for qualia to exist. Organisms could react in principle to information even in absence of qualia. I get the impression in this segment that dr Solms uses “quality” of a category and qualia interchangeably, which I think is wrong.

Looking forward to part 2 already! Great conversation in which two admirable scientists and experts can interact respectfully. I totally support Dr Feldman Barrett's views. I've read her books and I understand that she comes from an evidential point of view. Everything she outlines has been tested and proven.

@landonmorrison9334

Жыл бұрын

Dr. Jaak Panksepp's work is actually tested and proven. He comes from hard neuroscience - hard 'affective neuroscience,' which is a term he coined. What Lisa presents is an interesting hypothesis but she does not have scores and scores of hard data to support it as opposed to the primary-process emotional perspective taken by Dr. Panksepp, which is whom Dr. Solms bases much of his work on.

@unmoored7414

Жыл бұрын

@@landonmorrison9334 So far , my understanding of her focus is to remain open when reaching conclusions and she is cautious about descriptors and labels used in science. An example would be Dr Panksepp's "Seeking circuit" description which could be accurate but not inclusive of functional specificity when other empirical data emerges to include other brain circuits and functions.

@landonmorrison9334

Жыл бұрын

@@unmoored7414 I understand, but I just don't understand how anybody could possibly conclude that emotions are not innate - especially with the damning evidence that decorticated mammals display all 7 primary process emotions outlined by Panksepp. Encephalitic children do as well. How could emotions be constructed in these brains? They couldn't, therefore they must be innate. This is as good a proof as any if you ask me. I do understand the need for conservativism and I see the value on some aspects of her theory. I think there's room for overlap but that emotions are fundamentally innate

@unmoored7414

Жыл бұрын

@@landonmorrison9334 I want to reply to your thoughtful response but if you watch Part 2 of this discussion, she speaks directly about this and you may find that it helps to clarify her thoughts regarding 'innate'. She emphasizes the building of circuits via experience after birth.

@Tamarahope77

Жыл бұрын

@@landonmorrison9334 Dr Barrett outlines her evidence and her criticism of Panksepp's approach, based on her reading of the available evidence, in her book.

Did Lisa Barret criticise Solms for using words that she herself wrote in her book?

@pettergagerman4760

3 ай бұрын

No, not really. She wanted to make clear that it was a popular science book and not a science paper. This means a few of Marks summaries was built on simplifications used in the book and she wanted to clarify those in more detail.

The inference in classical theory will always be subjective as it is based on those agreed assumptions of those proposing it. I don’t think the majority of classical thinking, in this case categorical, is inherently wrong, but it is intentionally biased to create a fixed view of the world, for the people. There have long been established scientific communities that have agreed on many things that are simply inferred through agreed perspectives. The history of classical theory is riddled with this type of corruption. Tesla being a good example of how easily this agreed and fixed viewpoint can destroy an entire sector of research. All of the major breakthroughs in science have relied on negating and reducing this inference of agreed perspectives. If anything the scientific community relies far too much on agreed principles or foundations without questioning the rationale or logic that got them there. Very often there are political or social motivations for these theories to become widespread and often they are tied to investment and industry, or government agendas and political motives. Categorization of emotions only requires two languages or even a set of identical twins, to prove it has no consistency between people. We form these concepts to agree on things, not because they are absolutes. If only the scientific academies had this foresight before they began their long tradition of agreeing on ‘inferred absolutes’. Which has always been done for the betterment of their community above others, I might add.

Brainstem (self concept), there’s important thing

1:23:41

Thank you for all you doing; if he wants to write any other critique, maybe, before that he would find more information about how the brain works - I have two russian professor's names having videos on KZread as well.

i am utterly disappointrd by Lisa Feldman.

@babooshka7601

4 ай бұрын

That's a pity. I am not.

Only Professor Marc Solms would be a good sport to dialogue publically with Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett. I 30:12 wonder if she acknowledges that she has an unconscious mind.

The reason that Dr Barrett's position is not easy to understand is that it's not intuitive. The brain loves essentialism and certainty, and for her to say that there aren't essential or innate categories of emotions and that we don't have certain markers for emotional experiences makes us feel uncomfortable. But if we are to explore the brain as it is and follow the science, then we should be willing to be uncomfortable. I will keep learning.

We do not think inductively!

I was thoroughly enjoying this for the first 45 minutes or so but then I started to be distracted by Lisa Feldman becoming, what Daniel Kahneman refers to as “noise.” She got noisy, for me so to speak and appeared to want to dominate the conversation and be “right.” She seemed to have lost her ability to be fair with time, was interrupting, disruptive not only to Mark Solm’s but to me as well.

It seems to me that the crux of the matter is whether Lisa would agree that e,g, a baby can get feelings of say sleepiness and pain so mixed up, that it would feel sleepy instead of hurt when beaten with a stick? It just seems very absurd to allow this. Instead Solm's argument is very compelling. Not just because it's common sense, but also because it explains the data best: we don't see something like this ever happening, not at least without severe disabilities. I'd like to see a ”Barrettian” baby, which has somehow been conditioned to mix up all of its emotional signals in the way she suggests is possible. If it's a result of conditioning, you can condition them the other way too. There can be wide variation even inside a category, e.g. the color 'blue' can have many hues, some of which overlap and fade into other colors, but it's still different from the category of 'red' and 'green', which all have their own basic qualities based on trichromatism.

@Tamarahope77

Жыл бұрын

"we don't see something like this ever happening, not at least without severe disabilities" - we see a baby cry when they are beaten with a stick. We see a baby cry when hungry. We don't see a baby tell us that they can reliably distinguish between sleepiness and pain. Part 2 of the discussion touches somewhat on these questions.

@ir1885

Жыл бұрын

@@Tamarahope77 Not "tell" us reliably? You mean the baby should not show behavioral signs such as crying or yawning etc., which are reliably connected with certain brain states, but instead fill up a verbal questionnaire? That's just silly. Crying and yawning etc. behaviors in connection with brain states are more reliable signs of different emotional states across species, than verbal questionnaires. It also makes much more sense in terms of evolution and causal knowledge about in which parts of the brain such emotions must be triggered to experience them, even with adult humans. It is not at all about cortex, where language is processed.

@Tamarahope77

Жыл бұрын

@@ir1885 From what I understand, Dr Barrett's argument is that behavioral signs are simply that - behavioral signs. To say they feel something is making an inference. She also argues that those behaviors are not reliable connected with certain brain states. The second point with regards to evolution is answered in Part 2.

@ir1885

Жыл бұрын

@@Tamarahope77 Take it easy, Descartes. Even verbal reports are "making an inference". Physically words are just pressure changes in the air or ink on a paper. Verbal reporting is still a behavior. The meaning, feeling etc. is read into physical signs in all cases. There's no fundamental ontological difference between behavioral signs and verbal signs. However the brain-states are different. Even so, behavioral signs in the traditional sense are reliably connected with brain states in adult humans, who give also verbal reports confirming the connection from that side too. The only at least internally coherent option would be to think like LeDoux that language is fundamental for conscious feeling, which would need(lessly) to separate verbal behaviors from any other natural behaviors ad hoc. Go set a baby on fire, it can't feel anything before learning language... right? If you need to go so heavily against common sense to save your theory, the burden of proof is on you. All science uses common sense as a basis and there's no way around it.

@Tamarahope77

Жыл бұрын

@@ir1885 To avoid strawman arguments, best read her papers or listen to her responses to Solm. I'm not sure you're understanding her position.

I agree with Solms about 95% on this one, or I should say with Panksepp. It saddens me that the Pankseppian paradigm is not as widespread since his death. The paradigm that Lisa is using is not necessarily wrong, just as it is not wrong to say that the sun orbits the earth. But, it is more difficult to calculate trajectories using Earth-centric frame of reference. What I meant is there is litlle practical reason to see it her way. It is not wrong, but it is less straightforward, which introduces potential for mistakes and misunderstandings.

@unmoored7414

Жыл бұрын

If you watch Part 2 of this video, you will hear about a collaboration Dr Lisa was a part of in which they reviewed over 1,000 publications and found no evidence to support an important conclusion that some refused to acknowledge might be wrong. The ongoing accumulation of empirical evidence as research efforts evolve and improve with time is directly a counter to your concern regarding mistakes and understanding. The result is that those who hold on to beliefs which are increasingly contradicted by newer evidence, become more ideological and less scientific over time. (All of this is based on how intellectually honest researchers are with themselves.) Thomas Kuhn makes a strong historical case that outdated research paradigms fade away due to diminishing utility.

@VK-sz4it

Жыл бұрын

@@unmoored7414 Look, there is huge debate and it will sort itself out one way or another. Of course it will come down to utility and I think Lisa's approach is counterproductive. It may keep afloat thanks to it's ideological implications for some decades, but it doesn't help with real scientific tasks. I just saw part two and it highly dissapointed me. In part one - it looked to me that she is trying to be honest to her methodology, but now, I think, Lisa is an ideologist. First of all, all science is inference. There is no science that is not an inferrence. It is bad argument that if something is in inferrence - then it is somehow bad. Because everything is inferrence. Figuring out latent latent (unobservable) variables - is all that science is about. But it seems that she lives in world of 18 century with positivist dogma.

@unmoored7414

Жыл бұрын

@@VK-sz4it I can see that some of her responses are essentially telling Solms, "You don't get it" which can come across as dogmatic, while he is patient, polite and generous. More patience could have helped but I must be honest in saying that I also get irritated when I feel misunderstood after being clear in my mind about something I have stated. You have given me an idea regarding the real gap underlying their conversation. Thanks.

@unmoored7414

Жыл бұрын

@@VK-sz4it Left a comment in Part 2 for her inspired by your comment.

@unmoored7414

11 ай бұрын

@@VK-sz4it Now that I am aware that "The pivotal aim of Solms' work is to provide an empirical method by which psychoanalysis can rejoin neuroscience in a way that is compatible with Freud's basic assumptions", I have completely reversed my thinking about these video discussions and your original comment. He is a career psychoanalyst [EDIT: a self-coined practitioner of neuropsychoanalysis] and the bulk of his awards come from psychoanalytic groups. He is not a neuroscientist doing lab work. By definition, he approaches this entire topic with preconceptions which are NOT empirical but Freudian. Psychoanalysis is not empirical science. He is actively reading selected neuroscience publications to fit his goal. That is also not science. Your assertion that she is being counterproductive is at best a misnomer because her entire approach has been to update her understanding by following the evolution of empirical results where possible. This is the subtext of their discussion and her impatience with his questions and assumptions about her work. The irony of all of this is that she started began her work as a graduate student wanting to become a therapist with a similar mindset to Solm's about empirical measurements of emotional brain states. She was unable to reproduce published results, repeatedly failing to find the 'fingerprints' of clearly classified (according to the literature) basic emotions. She learned the hard way that the published work she was using as a reference standard was actually completely biased conclusions based on predetermined labels, not definitions, just like Solms' assumptions. Essentially she is objecting to his entire questioning. Just because Dr Panksepp measured with probes, signals which matched the "seeking circuit" he expected to find, does not necessarily mean that found a neural circuit uniquely dedicated by design to be a seeking circuit. It could also function as something related (or not) under different circumstances. I now think that you got this all wrong.

I do not want to read ‘popular science’ regarding vital information. I prefer the work of Solms- I think Lisa and her books need to be shelved. 😃. Great learning video though!

My final score: Solms 3, Feldman 0.

44:90 both are wrong

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

Yes, but they’re talking at cross-purposes.

Unfortunately this is a question of politics, not science and we all exist within that mileu. The scientists are just the pawns here and with the current state of science and funding I'd suggest the older the study the more reliable. Science is done within a monetary system which yields predictable results. If we could put the whole system into a test tube this would be born out. Philosophy of science cannot even be done now becaue philosophy is dead in our culture for the sake of making politics paramount. What a mess it all is at this time. Both sides were at least very courteous in this debate. It's just not the playing field that it used to be. Enjoyed. Thanks for posting. To add more, the point about the popular literature metaphor being unfair to pick on by Solms seems to be the major problem. Ideas matter. The popular books should not have been published from this data set to convey the ideas they do. Accountability for that seems reasonable. If a particular scientist looks through the world through a small but accurate hole, they need to be very careful of how they extrapolate that perspective into the larger popular culture, since it may not apply at all. They cannot prove negatives but only positives. They should say "I observe this but not observing something else doesn't mean it doesn't also occur." Limited scientific methods do not provide the only knowledge we have of the world, and different theories of science and ways of doing science are justly applicable to different fields of knowledge within it. We know this. Some fields of science barely deserve the label and we know that many studies within even the hard fields are skewed in data. Is brain science even really a hard field? We may want it to be but it's such a complicated field that a spectrum of approaches seems not only reasonable but necessary. Outside of so called "scientific domains," in general life and relationships we have virtually no access to science at all. We interpret everything subjectively and have to because that's how experience is received. But we can recognize patterns there too. This spectrum is so important to recognize so that we don't pretend no impact or knowledge on the other side of the spectrum to where we feel comfortable living. We cannot live in our test tubes or labs. There are social and political implications for the popular spreading of ideas which are obtained from limited data. There's a sort of logical positivism here I smell. A lot of things the both science and life demands answers to cannot be examined in a test tube in a lab. The test tube is excellent for chemistry but the questions here require the risks and knowledge that as subjective beings capable of making mistakes, there is a lot of data outside of the test tube we must still be aware of. How do our theories fit with other established theoreis, such as evolution, for instance? And how do we as observers fit in socially, financially and politically in the world? Being objective means accepting our subjectivity and location while still trying for objectivity anyway. And if we do this we should then limit ourselves from extrapolating our limited test tube perspectives outside their domain as being fit to spread around socially beyond their proper sphere. This is the problem of the popular metaphors that Solms is picking on. Another metaphor for this is the guessing of underlying emotions in reference to facial expressions seen in still photographs.... In this instance the test tube is doing an experiment on the wrong question. This may be admitted but the metaphor is still being used for popular communication, creating an illusion. It seems rather obvious that humans don't judge facial expressions as isolated still images, but as a contextualized chain of movement patterns. They have meaning but they do so in the same way letters do, in words which sit in sentences and paragraphs. By themselves they have no meaning. If we ask the wrong question we don't come up with the answer to the right question, do we? I would suggest that a return to philosophy of science is in order for modern scientists trying to stay objective in our current political and financial climate in which science is a religion as well as a method of obtaining knowledge. The deeper recognition of both the environment and the methods of how the noble quest for objectivity is undertaken need more analysis because at the end of the day none of us are really scientists or brains first but rather, human beings. Embodied and vulnerable creatures set into chaotic and non-safe environments. Exploring that first can bring healing to the larger context so that we can move forward in knowledge. Otherwise I'm afraid we're moving backwards, really.

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

Buddy, this is not the forum for your personal opinions.

@savoirfaire6181

9 ай бұрын

@@christopherhamilton3621 It seems a discussion of philosophy of science and the obvious implications for politics is pretty central to this debate. Of course if you would actually engage with my content it would be a lot more fun, but you don't seem to think that having opinions about academic things should occur on youtube, just opinions about other people's opinions, so I won't keep my fingers crossed on that. However, thanks for highlighting my comments with your own. All publicity is good publicity and I appreciate it.

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

@@savoirfaire6181If it’s publicity you’re after, up to you. My point is simply you’re quite off the topic at hand and missing the point of the Lisa/Mark discussion by inserting your philosophical arguments. You can’t minimize the science here, period.

@savoirfaire6181

9 ай бұрын

@@christopherhamilton3621 I am not minimizing the science, merely pointing out that it takes place within the real world context of both finances and philosphy of science. Science doesn't exist in a lab any more than either of the two humans in the debate do.

Ahhhh interesting, so Solms subscribes to a basic emotion view because he wants an affective feeling to already signal a causal inference about how to take care of the body.

Unfortunately Mark Solms is stuck in his systems-cognition based perspective, whilst Lisa Feldman Barrett's theory is based on a cross-paradigmatic foundation. Whilst he claims to accept with almost everything Lisa says, he clearly does not understand that his entire critique is based on his own unexamined inferences. Feldman Barrett's theory is built upon being aware of one's inferences. Perhaps he should examine his own inferences first, before criticising a theory he clearly does not yet grasp. Also, he babbles too much...

His main goal is to market for himself (not real criticism).

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

That’s certainly an opinion…

When Mark's gotta go, he's really gotta go...

Why does he so desperately want to categorize tummy rumbles? Serious question.

@jameswilliams-ey9dq

Жыл бұрын

Solm’s point is that affect is final prioritized direction of our attention based on the balancing of all of those needs. That’s why pissing your pants when confronted by an impending tiger attack supercedes our sense of dignity.

@ir1885

Жыл бұрын

Getting all basic emotions mixed up like Barrett suggests would e.g. make a baby feel sleepy, when it's beaten with a stick. That's just absurd. We never see something like that happening. Not without severe disabilities at least. I'd like to see the ”Barrettian” baby, which has somehow been conditioned to mix up all of its emotional signals in the way she suggests is possible. There can be wide variation even inside a category, e.g. the color 'blue' can have many hues, some of which overlap and fade into other colors, but it's still different from the category of 'red' and 'green', which all have their own basic qualities based on trichromatism. According to Solms the same goes for basic emotions.

She's really such an insult to the genuises of Panksepp, Damasio, and Solms. Please stop hyping here, it's becoming more and more an insult comparare to the as the science landscape in Don't' look up.....

Lisa you interrupt too much. You interrupt the flow.

As a scientist, this is SO basic and highly bias analysis of emotions. All based based on the brain which does not explain how the young experience complex emotions beyond the limits of their experience. Saw her Tedtalk was just as basic. Its a gimmick to try to "help people" by using technical terms to try to sell brain regulation and then shove the problem to psychotherapy, learn new things, watch movies (seriously) -- in other words, empty wisdom -- its insane this actually is our there. Try to tach your brain to predict differently when in life and death situations (as an example). Insane.

@GC-hy4mt

10 ай бұрын

Your message is hardly intelligible. What is your point and why are you upset with what Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett is advancing ?

@brynoreilly2731

10 ай бұрын

There's no way you're a scientist.

@paullrdubois

10 ай бұрын

@@brynoreilly2731 Believe what you wish.

@brynoreilly2731

10 ай бұрын

@@paullrdubois Thanks, I will. As I said, based on your comment, my prior belief that you aren't still seems more plausible than your belief that you are (including taking into account your recent response).

@paullrdubois

10 ай бұрын

@@brynoreilly2731 Sure ;)

Thank you both so much for this open exchange. Very stimulating and helpful to expand my limitations about learning the language of evidence sets and disagreement between top level Scientific thinkers. www.affective-science.org/pubs/2017/barrett-tce-scan-2017.pdf