Published July 2018 | Version public
Journal Article

Author Reply: We Don't Yet Know What Emotions Are (But Need to Develop the Methods to Find Out)

  • 1. ROR icon California Institute of Technology
  • 2. ROR icon Sorbonne University

Abstract

Our approach to emotion emphasized three key ingredients. (a) We do not yet have a mature science of emotion, or even a consensus view—in this respect we are more hesitant than Sander, Grandjean, and Scherer (henceforth "SGS") or Luiz Pessoa (henceforth "LP"). Relatedly, a science of emotion needs to be highly interdisciplinary, including ecology, psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy. (b) We recommend a functionalist view that brackets conscious experiences and that essentially treats emotions as latent variables inferred from a number of measures. (c) But our version of functionalism is not definitional or ontological. It is resolutely methodological, in good part because it is too early to attempt definitions.

Additional Information

© 2018 The Author(s). Article first published online: July 27, 2018; Issue published: July 1, 2018. We thank Andrea Scarantino for helpful comments on a draft of this response, and Frederick Eberhardt and Christopher Hitchcock for stimulating discussion. Funded in part by a Conte Center grant from NIMH.

Additional details

Identifiers

Eprint ID
89590
DOI
10.1177/1754073918772092
Resolver ID
CaltechAUTHORS:20180912-151443744

Related works

Funding

Caltech Conte Center for the Neurobiology of Social Decision Making
NIH

Dates

Created
2018-09-12
Created from EPrint's datestamp field
Updated
2021-11-16
Created from EPrint's last_modified field