December 3, 2016

December 3, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-seventh response to “The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: Do animals have affective lives?” by J. Panksepp (2011). Again, my dear reader, please don’t be offended that I copy large pieces of Panksepp’s paper as it is relevant to behaviorism as well as to the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Why don’t behaviorist talk about him?

“Before causal neuroscience studies of the early 1950s (e.g., self-stimulation and escape from aversive Electrical Brain Stimulation (ESB) investigators had no real basis for evaluating whether animals experienced their emotional arousals—whether they felt their emotions—but learning mediated by ESB induced reward and punishments solved that problem a long time ago; we just chose not to modify well-established ways of speaking (behavior-only lingo) and related neuroscientific ways of thinking (ruthless reductionism).” (italics added). Here he literally identifies our way of speaking!!!

Although Panksepp advocates for a different way of talking, he only refers to the lingo, to the content as he too doesn’t realize that the SVB/NVB distinction is needed to change the way in which we speak.

“During the current era, only the most affect-sensitive kinds of human brain imaging, mainly PET scans, can visualize the ghostly tracks of primal affective experiences in the deepest areas of the human brain. But it is now noteworthy that these regions have long been implicated in engendering emotionality in animals. And ESB studies in humans have been quite consistent in generating intense affective experiences during stimulation of such brain regions. Never have such profound

emotional states been provoked by stimulating neocortical regions.

Although some emotional responses have been recently evoked by

cortical micro-stimulation, the rewarding and punishing properties of such brain sites remain to be evaluated.” In SVB we acknowledge and accurately express affective experiences, in NVB this is impossible.

December 2, 2016

December 2, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-sixth response to “The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: Do animals have affective lives?” by J. Panksepp (2011). I will continue to copy large pieces of this paper as a way to introduce behaviorist colleagues to this researcher’s excellent work.

“As already noted, that overused concept of “reinforcement”—a presently very mysterious process of the brain—may simply turn out to be a shorthand way of talking about how brain affective networks promote learning.” His research shows that he is correct. Moreover, reinforcement is delivered by our way of talking. This is how parents, teachers or therapists promote learning. Reinforcement is given by means of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), but punishment is delivered by means of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). This effects our brains.

“One can easily envision that, perhaps through neuropsychological UCR and UCS based “attractor landscapes”—which may help sensitize glutamatergic channels from temporally associated conditioned stimuli (CSs)—new conditioned response (CR) pathways are opened up to brain emotional operating systems (which originally engendered the affective attractor neurodynamics in the first place).” This can be interpreted in terms of how our way of talking determines the working of our brains.

“This potential shortsightedness, of not recognizing the role of UCR systems (e.g. the FEAR circuitry) in the establishment of conditioning, may arise from the fact that most behavioral investigators have not envisioned that the emotional UCR generating systems of the brain can also generate emotional feelings. It is traditional to believe that only the UCS systems might have psychological attributes. It requires a shift in perspective to consider that certain UCR systems, such as the primary-process emotional circuits, can also have psychological properties.” The shift in perspective can only be achieved once we discriminate NVB and SVB and decrease NVB and increase SVB.

December 1, 2016

December 1, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-fifth response to “The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: Do animals have affective lives?” by J. Panksepp (2011). As I write about the importance of this researcher, I want copy every sentence that is pertinent to the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Panksepp was trained as a behaviorist and he discovered the affective brain mechanisms involved in conditioning. You can also obtain this paper on Google scholar. Please read  it as I only use parts of it for my purpose.

As it deals with behaviorism I will copy quite a bit of Panksepp’s text.

“Within the subcortical terrains of raw affective experience, there are many varieties of affects. There are (i) the emotional affects, which arise from the same neural circuits that integrate and orchestrate the emotional action and autonomic responses of the brain-body continuum, (ii) the homeostatic affects that arise from intero-receptors that gauge a variety of bodily states from air-hunger to thirst, and (iii) the sensory affects that arise rather directly through our various sensory portals, especially taste, touch, smell and sound. These affects are the same “unconditioned stimuli” (UCSs) and “unconditioned responses” (UCRs) that behaviorists used to train their animals. The procedure called reinforcement (sensory cues followed quickly with sensory rewards and punishments) can be very effectively used to bring brain-learning processes under “stimulus-control”, but that ghostly process of “reinforcement” remains to be empirically demonstrated within brain dynamics to anyone’s satisfaction.”

I listened to Panksepp’s lectures and I was immediately struck by the fact that he has a lot of SVB. I have read many behaviorist papers, but none of them has ever mentioned Panksepp. How in the world is it even possible that nobody talks about this crucially important work? It is deeply sad that nobody has taken the effort to respond to him. Even if behaviorists disagree with Panksepp they should have let him know about how their views differ from his, but no behaviorist paper has been published that even mentions his work. Absolutely unbelievable!

November 30, 2016

November 30, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-fourth response to “The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: Do animals have affective lives?” Panksepp lists “key neuroanatomical and neurochemical factors that contribute to the construction of basic emotions in the mammalian brain.”  He identifies positive emotions as LUST/Sexuality, PLAY/joy, CARE/nurturance and SEEKING/expectancy, motivation and negative emotions as RAGE/anger, FEAR/anxiety and PANIC/separation. These specific emotions are mediated by key brain areas. Research has been done!

Areas that mediate positive emotions are of course activated while we are engaged in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and areas which mediate negative emotions are activated when we are engaged in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). I  agree with Panksepp that without understanding “primary processes” we will not be able to make any sense of how the “secondary-process mechanisms of learning and memory, deeply unconscious brain processes, are regulated by more primal emotional systems and how tertiary-process substrates for various higher brain functions remain tethered to what came before.” However, unless this knowledge is taught by a SVB speaker, it will not do anybody any good.

Although anyone who knows about the SVB/NVB distinction will agree that Panksepp is, for the most part, a SVB speaker, as far as I know he never addresses this vital aspect of disseminating his work. In therapy it is evident that “the secondary and tertiary functions of the brain rely critically on unconditional networks that evolved earlier.” If the therapist is incapable of using his or her voice in such a way that he or she continuously produces SVB, he or she will not be able to address or discuss the ‘deeper’ issues mental health clients are struggling with. The absence of aversive stimulation, which makes SVB possible, is also absolutely needed for therapeutic interventions to be successful.

November 29, 2016

November 29, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-third response to “The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: Do animals have affective lives?” I find Panksepp’s animal research of great importance as it provides neuroscientific evidence why certain stimuli affect humans positively or negatively. I am very interested in the listener’s experience of the speaker’s voice.

“All other mammals learn to vigorously self-inject drugs that are addictive in humans, probably because they produce similar desirable feelings, and this eagerness can be monitored in at least some species of rodents by their enthusiastic euphoric, SEEKING-indicative ultrasonic vocalizations.” Likewise, when people engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), they agree with each other that they sound good. Moreover, experience of the SVB speaker is addictive; the more you hear it, the more you want it, as it produces “desirable feelings.”

My goal is to create an addiction for SVB. If we all became addicted to SVB, we would change the world. “Surely we can conclude that the only reasons addictions occur is because drugs produce desired feelings, in both mice and men.” No doubt “the brain mechanisms for psychological experiences are very important guides for what humans and animals do,” but without Panksepp’s electrical brain stimulation or without SVB, these “desired feelings” would not and could not occur.

Panksepp states “The resulting “Law of Affect” is that ‘rewards’ and ‘punishments’ would NOT work unless they changed the way animals feel affectively.” Each time the “Law of Affect” worked properly in our conversation it was because the affect of the listener was changed and improved by the speaker. Thus, the SVB speaker creates an appetitive contingency, but the NVB speaker creates an aversive contingency for the listener. Positive behavioral control can only be achieved with SVB and negative, coercive, punitive behavioral control always involves NVB.