Comments on: Separating Emotion From Cognition

By: Hola, aquí estoy...

Hola, aquí estoy... — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:39:00 +0000

Maybe the problem is the notion of cognition itself, I think that a better approach is consider cognitive processes that need language as a vehicle to work (like representations of the world) and cognitive processes that don't need language (like maybe, emotions). Of course it is also a simplified frame, but I think that is a better way...

By: srid

srid — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:51:00 +0000

For an alternative (but strong) view point, take a look at Actual Freedom.

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:12:00 +0000

Thanks for your clarification scaramouche.

By: scaramouche

scaramouche — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:18:00 +0000

"The right hemisphere of the brain seems more emotionally-skilled whereas the left is more cognitively-skilled"
The issue of hemispheric specialization is not so clear as that. There are two main schools of thought:
right brain = emotion (right hemisphere) OR
right brain = negative emotions/withdrawal; left brain= positive emotions/approach (valence); there are further variations on this theme. What's interesting is that studies of healthy people with fMRI/EEG/behavioural paradigms seem to support the valence school. But, studies of brain damage - stroke/tumours seem to support the right hemisphere school. Are lesion studies the 'gold standard'? fMR certainly isn't!! My own work seems to support right hemisphere dominance. I'm studying how damage to specific regions on either left or right sides of the brain influences how people either approach or withdraw from emotional pictures. However, I'm uneasy with right-brain/left brain dualities. The reasons for my uneasiness are too many to list here. I just wanted to get the ball rolling..

By: Kenneth Stein

Kenneth Stein — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:33:00 +0000

Consider the possibility that the methods employed in psychology are too coarse to note such primitives, while the focus of neuroscientific investigations is too specific (too finely grained).
My research has led me to hypothesize a means by which ongoing phenomenal experience might be evaluated and verbalized. The article is entitled, Can You Describe How You Feel? You'll find it at my blog, Plexav.com. Please stop by and give it a read and of course comments are welcome.

Summum Bonum
Ken Stein

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:37:00 +0000

The problem is that it is extremely difficult to discover these 'primitive constituents'. The methods we have available in psychology, neuroscience and other related disciplines are simply not fine-grained enough to see that level.

Really what you're talking about is isolating a thought in some way - we're into seriously philosophical territory here - but I would argue you can't isolate a thought. There's probably actually no such thing as a single thought or emotion, even if the two do have different fundamental qualities. It's just a convenient way we have of talking about a brain state or process.

Anyone got any suggestions or references on this line of argument?

By: Kenneth Stein

Kenneth Stein — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:20:00 +0000

While the constituents comprising emotional and cognitive content and processes are distinct, there is overlapping use of such constituents in both emotional and cognitive processes.
Research into discovering these constituents, or primitives, seems the order of the day.