Correlations between the research of Jaak Panksepp and Natural Dog Training
The debates I’ve had on various forums with modern learning theorists ultimately revolve around my claim that emotion shapes learning through a process that is far more fundamental than any system of reinforcements. I argue that reinforcements aren’t instrumental, a template comes first and is also the final standard by which any given action is assayed by an animal as having been effective or not.
Invariably in these discussions the work of Jaak Panksepp, perhaps the world’s foremost expert on the neurobiology of emotion is invoked in rebuttal to my emotion-centric argument. I have to admit I’m a little punchy so that my first reflex is to think in terms of debunking Panksepp as I’ve mistakenly assumed that, because there is one fundamental and overwhelming point of distinction that needs to be made between what his research has determined versus what an immediate-moment manner of analysis has revealed, that therefore in the final analysis Panksepp’s findings stand in abject negation of my theory. However in reality my debating opponents are just trying to refute something, anything, and everything, I have to say and they’ve turned to Panksepp to take on my claim that there is but one emotion that functions through neurology, physiology and even anatomy as a virtual force of attraction.
Panksepp, an impeccable and fair minded scientist says there are seven primal emotions, SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, PLAY, each to be found in a specific region of the brain and he has conducted the research that verifies this. I don’t see how any reasonable person could doubt his findings. So to an outside observer who doesn’t take the time to give my ideas a fair hearing, it must appear that I’m railing against the entire scientific world since my understanding of a universal, monolithic emotion common to all animals and the basis of animal consciousness, means distinctions need to be drawn with every other interpretation of emotion and animal behavior which have not yet arrived at that conclusion. Yet the truth is that science is the biggest ally of my theory and I want to take the time to make this point inescapably vivid. I also believe that this particular discussion will help frame the theory more clearly when I return to fleshing out how the animal mind composes a sense of its “self” in the body language section. So in this vein I will review a video interview conducted with Panksepp which quite nicely summates and clearly articulates his research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ICY6-7hJo
This review will probably take two or three articles to cover in full. I’m heartened to say that the more I learn from Panksepp, the more I realize how much in common we share and that he has just as big a beef with Skinner and modern learning theorists as do I. In the video he tells of writing a long letter to Skinner only to receive a weak response.
However, at the same time I remain convinced that there is but one emotion. As far as the brain is concerned, Panksepp is right, there are seven affective systems in the brain that implement emotional states. But I’m arguing there is a mechanism deeper than these neurologically rooted systems, and it is observable when one interprets complex behavior in terms of the immediate-moment (sans projection of thoughts). The seven affective systems he’s identified are not primal emotion because no matter how deeply embedded they may be in the neurology of vertebrates, they still had to have come from somewhere, just as Panksepp argues some of the more advanced mammalian affective systems likewise arise from more basic ones found in lower vertebrates, such as fish.
My theory is that there is one emotion, an undifferentiated, monolithic “force” of attraction, and in order for two individuals to connect and emotionally bond, an individual must “devolve” below the level of instinct, as well as below a lifetime of acquired values and habits of mind, so as to access this level of pure primal emotion composed from the hunger and balance circuitry. It is on this level that an emotional connection is made so that two individuals might possibly go on to become emotionally entangled by way of feelings. This process of emotion elaborating into feelings is predicated on the predator and prey duality (projection of emotion and absorption of emotion) and the flipping of these roles so that an emotional charge is passed back and forth in a process of elaboration wherein they will ultimately come to differentiate from each other in a complementary, mirror-like way. This process of elaboration is the most basic architecture of the animal mind upon which sexuality and even personality sits. It includes not only an organism’s neurology, but also its physiology and anatomy. I can envision that Panksepp’s seven affective systems are emotion’s means of implementation given that the brain is the executive organ, so that while these seven systems are not fundamental, they may very well prove to be where emotion interfaces with the brain’s most basic executive processes. I still believe that the seven affective systems do not articulate the role that the body, and especially anatomy, play as the substrate of emotion and in the creation of a emotional bond and the capacity for a purely adaptive response to a change that falls outside the scope of a preexisting pattern. So while it is true that a particular region of the most primal regions of the brain can be electrically stimulated and evoke such states as FEAR, LUST, RAGE, PLAY, PANIC, NURTURE and SEEKING, in my view these are emotional states, hardwired effective systems so that things can run automatically and instantly in order to deal with a predictable pattern, but that these are not enough to integrate the individual coherently into the larger flow systems that transcend its individuated consciousness and which are the current with, and against which, it must swim.
My argument is that emotion arises from the integration of neurology, physiology and anatomy as co-equal partners as these basic systems reconcile the hunger/balance problem. If you stay put, you starve. Then again, if you move, you may be knocked down and eaten. Satisfying hunger, relative to maintaining equilibrium, generates a substrate as a frame of reference for the mind, a platform by which aspects of the brain, even deeper than the seven affective systems, focus internal energies so as to physically move the body from point A to point B in reconciliation of the fundamental conundrum of life on earth, move or die, move too much and die.
In order to seek, in order to express lust, rage or nurture, in order to play or to escape, the body must move. The body is moved by focusing on an external object of attraction while simultaneously subliminally focusing on the specific location of the physical center of gravity within the body, with the anatomy in motion symmetrically aligned around this specific point that is always in flux. This is the platform from which feelings elaborate into complex, intelligent and creatively adaptive responses to external events. This is a precise auto-tuning/feedback dynamic that causes an animal to perceive and interpret change according to a principle of emotional conductivity so that the various subsystems in the brain aren’t firing randomly, and so that the organism will be precisely nested into the larger flow systems of nature. In this auto-tuning/feedback dynamic an organism’s anatomy is every bit as important to the generation of a frame of mind as is its neurology. (We should note that the centralization of the nervous system and a bilateral symmetrical anatomy evolved either simultaneously, or the former after the latter. At any rate the two are inextricably linked.) I believe that the affective systems are not the true source of emotion, because emotion is an internal metric that leads the organism to find an emotional “ground” by integrating its “self” with what it is attracted to. Two nervous systems in two separate heads and bodies become integrated into one mind. The body is integral to this process. It doesn’t exist just to carry the head around.
So based on my understanding of Panksepp to date, and I welcome critique from those more informed, this series of articles is about correlates that can be drawn between Panksepp’s research and the core principles of emotion that underly the philosophy, theory and method of Natural Dog Training. I close with a quote of Pankepp’s which occurs at the end of the video and which I find especially inspiring given what those of the Natural Dog Training persuasion frequently find themselves dealing with when debating other experts, i.e termination. I was surprised to hear of his own personal travails in the marketplace of ideas. His open mindedness and perseverance is the true stuff of science.
(57:20) “Can you imagine that scientists would close the book on talking about things; talking about the possible nature of the world. But this is what happened historically. We have brilliant men of extreme arrogance telling us what we could talk about and what we couldn’t talk about. Even to this day most psychologists have left the organism outside the door and they study the concepts that they have.”
Jaak Panksepp
The videos of laughing rats often show rats going belly up, presumably linking to flipping and flopping, to the fear of falling, and vulnerability. There seems to be a link to breath control too. Often, after a tummy rub, my dog stumbles onto his feet in a fit of sneezing. I know he needs to relax more, but he still holds tension in his muzzle.
Behaviour problems are where affective states get crossed over or mixed up. Often, I suppose, where RAGE or FEAR get connected to the wrong situation. RAGE is where the last 0.1% of the battery comes out? And PANIC needs to be positively associated with the fear of falling, otherwise can come out in the wrong place wrong time. This normalising effect then settles the system. Not unlike tackling fear of death in existential therapy to assuage anxiety.
That’s the main thing, and to jump the gun a little, it’s not enough to say that rats or any animal for that matter plays, the question is how do they play, (i.e. the exchange of predator and prey roles, the exchange of projection of energy and absorption of energy roles is the template for children as well) and this then leads us to understanding why there is play (to achieve a state of resonance by recapitulating the physical memory of weightlessness/suspension). This will also address the Rage syndrome as well and how it can be part of the healthful movement of emotion.
The sneezing is an interesting phenomenon. When they’re upside down there is a biomechanical reason as apparently fluids in the sinuses aren’t flowing properly and they need to expel it. Yet when they’re struggling to get a bark out, dogs often sneeze as well. My theory is that when they are attracted to something, there is an involuntary projection of the p-cog into its form in order to feel where its center mass is, and so that they can feel what it is feeling on the most basic level, as it moves about. Then as they connect, the sense of the p-cog in the body (tracked by the subliminal beam of attention) travels up the body to merge with the vicarious e-cog projected into the other object of attraction, at the point of the jaw. So this sense of tension if there is an issue about being safe enough to grip what they are attracted to, “reminds them” of what they feel when they are upside down and not able to move mucous in smooth flow outside of nasal cavity. Thus the sneeze triggered by tension in the muzzle, the feeling of not being in the flow composed from actual physical sensations when some physical process in an affected area is not in the flow. These physical processes are co-opted, or borrowed, in order to render emotional values.
This matter of primary process emotional circuits remains in the very early stages of research, so speculating on the implications Panksepp’s work at this point normally carries one into the realm of metaphysics. But clearly, the weight of evidence seems to indicate that all mammals share homologous subcortical neuroarchitecture that houses at least seven distinct emotional systems. If one takes the evolutionary perspective, it is reasonable to assert that these emotional systems can all be traced back to one primitive neurobiological force that compelled early vertebrates to SEEK food and reproduction. Just as our other senses – such as vision – have been refined and improved upon over millions of years, the emotional systems have also evolved in both complexity and efficiency. But unlike our other senses, the purpose and nature of emotions is not as well understood. What is the evolutionary purpose of these emotional systems?
Well, if one looks at emotions as just another sense, not unlike vision or hearing, then one might safely speculate that emotions serve the same purpose for animals as language does for humans. In fact, language is (probably) simply the newest stage in our emotional evolution. The human brain maps every “object” it perceives onto the neocortex (tertiary level) and attaches to each “object” a symbol (a word). These “objects” include everything the mind perceives, whether it be a tangible object, such as a tree, a pencil, or a butterfly, or an abstract concept, such as democracy, or transcendentalism. The human mind then attaches to each of these symbols an emotional variable – a tree is beautiful - beautiful is a positive emotional affect so the symbol for a tree is then stored in memory (secondary level) with this positive emotional variable attached to it, so when you think about a tree, the mind accesses the symbol “tree” and the individual will have varying degrees of a positive emotional reaction (depending on how strongly one feels for trees).
Animals do not have such a system – they attach these emotional variables directly to the actual object. A dog would attach the positive emotional affect to the actual tree, not the symbol for tree (which in the English language is the word “tree”, obviously). So language actually serves the important role of coming between our emotional attachments and the actual world. This has the benefit of allowing the human mind to control these emotional affects to a greater extent than our more primitive ancestors, granting us greater control over our instinctual urges and promoting secondary consciousness (thinking about thinking). This has obvious evolutionary benefits, so it is clear why this trait was selected.
So while it may be true that these emotional systems DID in fact evolve from one primitive motivational system, in most mammals these primary process emotional affects have been refined into a complex system, which while highly integrated, our distinct from one another. The SEEKING system provides the motivation for action for all the other systems, but it is not one emotion from which all others emerge. At least the evidence does not suggest this to be the case.
Thanks for clearly stating the logic of Panksepp’s system. The question for me then becomes how does Panksepp reconcile these seven systems, considered to be primal, with the fact that these whole body emotional experiences, the affects, are all invested with overt thermodynamic like characteristics. If things aren’t flowing smoothly enough, there is the experience of an intensifying “pressure” and “heat,” whereas when the search is moving smoothly, the emotional experience is of the opposite, of a weightless nature, the absence of resistance. The animal is not only seeking, but the search is generating feedback that according to an internal metric is affecting the experience via these thermodynamic-like qualities. Likewise rage and panic could generate either relief or intensified compression, and this would moderate the emotional value of the object in question, and without any involvement of higher nerve processes since this auto-tuning/feedback is true of the lowest vertebrates as well. This metric runs across the entire spectrum of emotional experience and so there’s something deeper going on within all these subsystems. Play is an especially vivid window into this internal “thermodynamics” because two animals normally typed as prey and predator relative to each other, can on rare occasions but due to very predictable circumstances, find the opportunity to play together. This suggests to me that this is because they have gotten below their instinctive endowment and hardwired architecture and are thus able to access this primal level. The notion of emotion as language is very helpful and therefore would not this thermodynamic aspect of emotional experience be the informational content being communicated, especially since we find the same thermodynamic qualities embedded in our manner of speaking?
I think it would be more accurate to think of language as emotions, rather than emotions as language. When we consider that EVERY object our brain perceives has an emotional variable attached to it, it is easy to imagine how language evolved from this system. We feel very little for the tube of tooth paste on our bathroom counter, but never the less, the brain has an emotional value attached to that tooth paste, even if it is below the threshold of what we are consciously aware. If we did not have a symbol (a word) for that tooth paste, ALL we would have is the emotional label attached to it, so we would be aware of the emotional variable whenever we happened to perceive or think about that object. We would have no choice but to experience the emotions attached to that tube of tooth paste. Language enables us to have a buffer between our emotions and the actual world – instead of the emotional variable attached to the actual tooth paste, the emotion is attached to the symbol for tooth paste. Then we have objects that have very high value affects attached to them, such as our children – there are people who cannot even say their child’s name without experiencing a powerful emotional reaction. This is the power of names, labels, symbols, language.
“The question for me then becomes how does Panksepp reconcile these seven systems, considered to be primal, with the fact that these whole body emotional experiences, the affects, are all invested with overt thermodynamic like characteristics.”
You are referring to the inter-linkage between the primary process emotional systems and the autonomic nervous system. This is a complex neurobiological topic, and very little is factually known about how these systems interact. Panksepp has produced some evidence for how emotional affects produce bodily manifestations in mammals — before the massive increases in our neocortex occurred, emotional reactions were the primary code book by which mammals navigated the environment behaviorally. FEAR — run or fight — RAGE — attack — GRIEF — produce species specific separation distress vocalizations, etc. This is why when we feel fear, our stomach will sometimes “drop”, or when we feel grief, we will feel that awful heaviness in our chests. These are neurobiological/evolutionary relics that remain from a time when our emotions immediately caused a behavioral response.
What you must understand is that these pure emotions that are produced at the subcortical levels of the brain are part of a nested hierarchy system. This means that by the time these emotional affects produce behavior, they have been cortically mediated. This simply means that the emotions have been processed by the higher levels of the brain and integrated with learning and memory to produce the appropriate behavior for the specific mammal in question (it should be noted here that we have very little idea HOW, neurochemically, the neocortex mediates these primary process emotions). Human beings seldom feel pure emotions. Our massively encephalized neocortex processes these emotional affects in ways that are not understood by modern neuroscience. The important thing to remember when applying this new paradigm offered by affective neuroscience is the distinction between the models of consciousness that have been constructed by applying the weight of evidence, and the exciting SPECULATIONS that can be made using these new models. It is the important difference between what the evidence implicitly shows and what the evidence implies. But these are exciting concepts, and it is sometimes difficult for us to curtail our enthusiasm – at least I find it difficult at times.
Are you the Stuart Sims who is the conductor and musician at California State?
No. I am a student at the University of Houston.
Putting aside the language/emotion distinction for the moment, between dogs for example something is indeed being communicated, and as Panksepp notes, this is preverbal and we cannot therefore use any psychological precept in order to try to articulate it, which is where I have a complaint against modern learning theorists with their use of the term reinforcement, and high value reinforcement, guarding of resource, all the intention driven stuff. And no matter which of the seven systems might be engaged, the thermodynamic qualities are always invoked and in my way of interpreting behavior, are what modulate the interaction and are the criteria by which the parties end up being satisfied or not with how the interaction unfolded. Yes these are autonomic and many things to date unknown, however they can be mediated by something other than higher brain function (and I would argue there is a language that isn’t psychological that can articulate the workings of this dynamic). For example we see a dog overwhelmed with fear, but then something allays this and he is able to flip modality altogether and end up in play. Two systems were invoked, but one was selected over the other, and this wasn’t a high mental function and neither was it an instinctive reflex. My argument is that there is a discernible mechanic at work here, one that we can manipulate, and that the neurology is only a part player in this dynamic. Since the seven systems all appeal to a thermodynamic-like metric, it would be more logical to assume (if a coherent model could be presented) that there is a deeper mechanic manipulating the seven systems.
Thank you Stuart for your reply. I thought your interest in Panksepp might be related to a musical background, a different S. Sims. Panksepp’s writings on emotion and music literally end up in “goose bumps”. I am a clinical psychologist and know of Panksepp primarily through those works.
http://nbhap.com/577/musical-thrills-and-chills-can-music-make-your-hair-stand-on-end/
http://www.exploratorium.edu/music/questions/goosebumps.html
In regard to Natural Dog Training theory and Panksepp, I agree with Kevin that upon close study there are fundamental similarities. I think that the underlying commonalities are much more important than definitional and categorization differences.
First, Panksepp recognizes that emotions in humans and other animals do not have to be cognitively mediated. He says, “Cognitive attributions in humans may not be absolutely essential for arousing emotional processes within the brain/mind…affective consciousness (i.e. the generation of valenced feelings, generated largely by the neurodynamics of subcortical emotional/instinctual system we share with other animals) needs to be distinguished from more cognitive forms of consciousness which generate propositional thoughts about the world (Panksepp, 2002).” Panksepp aligns with Damasio and many of the mirror neuron researchers regarding emotion not requiring language, a preverbal phenomenon but not a reflex. He writes, “we postulate that a great deal of the emotional power may be generated by lower subcortical regions where basic affective states are organized (Damasio, 1999; Panksepp,1998a,b).
Second, Panksepp suggests that emotions related to nature sounds and music support human social interactions. They help coordinate group activities like hunting as well as general social attraction and reproduction. Panksepp writes, “our brains’ ability to resonate emotionally with music may have a deep multidimensional evolutionary history, including issues related to the emergence of intersubjective communication, mate selection strategies, and the emergence of regulatory processes for other social dynamics such as those entailed in group cohesion and activity coordination. All these social abilities can impact our moods and hence it is easy to imagine how affective experiences evoked by emotional sounds and hence eventually music could have an adaptive evolutionary basis. Thereby, we can appreciate why many brain/mind processes (e.g. our deep inner feelings) that are hard to communicate in mere words can be more easily expressed in music.”
Third, Pankseep points out how the body, the physical self, holds emotion with or without reason. Through being touched, literally and figuratively, or ingesting food, stimulation of the physical body, emotion is generated. Pankseep says, “Rhythmic movements of the body characterize the instinctual life of animals, and the dynamics of these movements may contain ancestral emotional expressions that are captured in music (Clynes, 1978). The ancestral relationship between movement and sound is probably fundamental to our nature (Todd, 1985), and it may highlight a deep adaptation that is still instantiated in the urgent power and immediacy of dance.” The basal ganglia activate and “[t]The ability of certain types of music to evoke a deep desire for bodily movements, and the induction of various autonomic changes by music is congruent with powerful subcortical influences of music (Hodges, 1995; Blood and Zatorre, 2001).”
Finally, Panksepp posits that “there may be formal functional as well as mathematical relationship between acoustic dynamics and emotional dynamic.” And, “our current understanding is that emotional circuits, and hence the resulting neural resonances, are widely distributed in the brain, resembling a tree-like structure, with roots and trunk-lines in subcortical areas, and branches interacting with wide canopies in cortical regions (Panksepp, 1998a). Accordingly, music is bound to access these emotional systems at many levels.” [Go Design in Nature!]
I am a novice at NDT; so, I await Kevin’s commentary. But, points 1-4 above sound very compatible with NDT to me.
Dimasio’s contributions, especially, those relating body sensations and ‘feeling’ emotions being both related to the insula, may be interesting for NDT. You need a glossary for Dimasio because he has personalized definitions for words, e.g., feelings.
N.B. Per Panksepp, strong auditory stimuli, e.g., a frightening or chilling scream, may knock subcortical structures off balance leading to goose bumps. The fear of loss of social connectedness, “a collapse of attraction”, may underlie the physical bumps. Reminiscent of the hair of a fearful dog’s neck standing up, piloerection.
Quotes are from: http://www.musikament.at/b3/Panksepp%26Bernatzky.pdf
“Cognitive attributions in humans may not be absolutely essential for arousing emotional processes within the brain/mind…affective consciousness . . .”
Panksepp’s model of consciousness is premised on the postulation that ALL phenomenal consciousness is foundationally affective in nature. So in essence, he postulates that the brains emotionality is the medium upon which consciousness occurs. So, if human consciousness was a movie, emotions would be the screen upon which the movie was projected. If it was a painting, emotional affect would be the canvas upon which consciousness was drawn. Panksepp’s work with decorticate mice shows plainly that the primary process emotional systems function independently from the neocortex (and that without cortical mediation, the mice become even MORE emotional). So, one of the important functions of the neocortex is to mediate emotional affect in order to increase the survival benefits to the organism.
The distinction Panksepp is making is not one of two distinct processes (“affective consciousness . . . needs to be distinguished from more cognitive forms of consciousness which generate propositional thoughts about the world”), but rather an understanding that while our propositional thoughts require the subcortical emotional systems to function, affective consciousness does not require the neocortex or any sort of tertiary level (neocortical) interaction to function.
My interest in Panksepp’s work comes from my study of neuropsychology, but I also have read Pankepp’s papers on music theory — I found it fascinating to get the neuroscience perspective on the subject. Dr. Panksepp is a man of many parts.
I highly recommend to anyone with an interest in Panksepp’s work to read his most recent book, “The Archeology of Mind”. It is one of the most important publications in psychology yet this century, I believe, and in the decades to come this new paradigm of affective neuroscience is going to replace many (if not all) of the consciousness models produced by behavioral neuroscience (most of which apply a top-down, or computational model to guide theory construction, rather than Panksepp’s bottom-up nested hierarchy).
Yes, I intend to read all his non-highly technical books. At the moment I’m learning a lot of his theories from various interviews. I also couldn’t agree more that emotion is the platform for consciousness if that’s exactly what you are saying here. Therefore wouldn’t that be the strongest argument for there being but one emotion? For example as Panksepp says, emotion gives organisms tools for living, and all organisms’ no matter their genome and specific niche, at rock bottom they all share the same basic problem about how to turn change into information, and that would be the original frame of reference, the canvas or screen as you say. The seven affective systems would then be more specialized responses to that information. The organism still has to answer so to speak the question, seek what, play how, and respond to objects of resistance in a coherent and novel way, without propositional thought, and in a behaviorally plastic way that a hardwired instinct isn’t capable of. Let me add further that in my study of animals, there is one universal attractor, I call it an emotional “ground” and the play-seek-care-rage-panic are all in service to its attainment, and again just to be clear, this isn’t cognitive in any way.
“1) Tertiary Affects and Neocortical ‘Awareness’ Functions
i) Cognitive Executive Functions: Thoughts & Planning (frontal cortex)
ii) Emotional Ruminations & Regulations (medial frontal regions)
iii) ‘Free Will’ (higher working memory functions — Intention-to-Act)
2) Secondary-Process Affective Memories (Learning via Basal Ganglia)
i) Classical Conditioning (e.g. FEAR via basolateral & central amygdala)
ii) Instrumental & Operant Conditioning (SEEKING via nucleus accumbens)
iii) Behavioural & Emotional Habits (largely unconscious — dorsal striatum)
3) Primary-Process, Basic-Primordial Affective States (Sub-Neocortical)
i) Sensory Affects (exteroceptive-sensory triggered pleasurable and unpleasurable/disgusting feelings)
ii) Homeostatic Affects (brain-body interoceptors: hunger, thirst, etc.)
iii) Emotional Affects (emotion action systems — Intentions-in-Actions)
Table 1.Brain 1) Tertiary Cognitive, 2) Secondary Learning & Memory, and
3) Primary Emotional-Affective Processing Systems.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/109303/jcs-articlefinal.pdf
kbehan
“3) Primary-Process, Basic-Primordial Affective States (Sub-Neocortical)
i) Sensory Affects (exteroceptive-sensory triggered pleasurable and unpleasurable/disgusting feelings)
ii) Homeostatic Affects (brain-body interoceptors: hunger, thirst, etc.)
iii) Emotional Affects (emotion action systems — Intentions-in-Actions)”
Thanks for the discussion, are you referring to…in your theories…
“i) Sensory Affects (exteroceptive-sensory triggered pleasurable and unpleasurable/disgusting feelings)
ii) Homeostatic Affects (brain-body interoceptors: hunger, thirst, etc.)”
I am just learning but I really appreciate the “angle” of these discussions
Thanks Everyone
Craig
i!i
It’s interesting to note that Panksepp started out as an evolutionary psychiatrist, meaning he studied evolution from a Neo-Freudian perspective.