Finally there is the Schacter-Singer Theory. I believe that this theory is one of the best I have read about because it takes into account what is believed to be the vital ingredients for an emotional experience namely physiological arousal and an interpretation of this arousal which is related to the persons surroundings. It states that after an emotional stimulus a person must simultaneously experience physiological changes and an awareness of these changes as well as a cognitive appraisal of the situation around them before an emotion is experienced.
The above theories are very simplified and the reality is that it is far more complex. Very little research had been done into the brains role in an emotional experience until fairly recently when psychologists and neuroscientists have been working on mapping out the functioning of the brain with particular reference to how it functions before and during a specific emotion. This includes the enormous emotional spectrum and also how the way in which a situation is interpreted effects the levels of emotional arousal. The first and essential aspect to understand is that the term ‘an emotion’ is simply a word that describes many different experiences and brain functions. To understand how the brain functions we need to consider each different emotion separately as there is no uniform answer. It is essential also to understand that the conscious emotional feeling is not what is under scrutiny. Scientists must start at the beginning and so most of the research into emotions done by physiologists concerns how our systems detect the stimulus that leads to the emotion. Any physiological or autonomic changes and the resulting feeling is caused unconsciously by the system which detects this initial stimulus. Clearly most that constitutes an emotion occurs on a subconscious level long before we become consciously aware of our feelings. Also we have very little conscious control over these emotions because evolution dictated that the connections from the emotion systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than those from the cognitive systems to the emotional systems.
Many physiological theories as to the origins of an emotion in the brain have been discussed throughout history. All modern theories have been based on the studies of Phrenology which concluded that functional localisation existed. However it was concerned only with the localisation of specific personality traits. The most prominent and well known theory is that of the Limbic system discovered by Paul MacLean. In its simplest form it has been defined as “A circle of connections that mediates emotions”. It is a system that connects areas of the hypothalamus controlling emotional expression and the cerebral cortex controlling emotion experience. However the area known as the limbic system is no longer easy to define. The mistake that MacLean made was to package all emotions into one system because as I said above all the separate emotions need to be considered separately. One of MacLean’s arguments in favour of his limbic system was one of evolution and that emotions exist because they are essential to our survival. He believed that all emotions evolved in the same way at the same rate as if they were one thing. He never considered that in fact as different emotions are involved in different survival functions, each will involve a different brain system and so will have evolved for different reasons. This is the essence of the most modern scientific studies. It is true that all emotions have their own separate systems, which all need to be mapped. It is still believed that the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus are at the centre of these emotions but each network is different.
What function do these convoluted emotions have? I believe that there are two reasons why emotions exist. The first and probably most important reason published by Darwin. He believed that emotional expressions were innate and so do not have to be learnt. He believed that as they were inherited from our ancestors and had survived the process of evolution that they must be essential to our survival. Many experiments have been conducted to prove this theory. Ekman and Friesen showed that isolated New Guinea tribesman could recognise western facial expressions illustrating emotions just as they too could make facial expressions to illustrate emotions themselves. Also another study showed that blind children had very similar facial expressions to sighted children. This clearly shows that people do not have to learn to express emotions. This in itself illustrates my second reason. It would seem that the facial expression associated with a particular emotion is clearly innate but we very rarely see our own facial expressions to an emotion so this can not be a personal thing. These facial expressions must be there for others to see. There is a social nature to emotional expression. It is known that emotions communicate important information to others so that we can integrate better as a species, which in turn improves our chances of survival. Kraut and Johnston (1979) discovered that people are more likely to express happiness in front of others. So they concluded that emotions are usually displayed for others perhaps so that they can imitate this and empathise with a person making a response to a conversation easier. In addition emotions have an inner or unconscious function. Emotion health is essential to our well being and many psychological and physical disorders result in unbalanced emotions.
As I have illustrated, emotions are an essential human and animal function, but what would life be like without emotions? Most psychological disorders that are affected by emotions are due to “too much of a specific emotion”. Phobias are caused by an irrational fear of something. The mind produces excess fear. Manic depression is in part an excess of negative emotions. Psychopaths have extreme rage and anger resulting in violence. However what would people be like if they were devoid of certain emotions. Some say psychopaths are devoid of humanity but that is not an emotion it is a moral value. Psychopaths still experience pleasure and pain but it has little moral grounding. Maybe it would be good thing if people were devoid of anger and hatred. The world would be more peaceful and happy. However in many ways anger spurs people forward in positive ways. It maybe anger towards oppression, injustice or others anger and hatred. The truth is that without anger there is an imbalance. Anger is an emotion required for survival. In the past it has been necessary for animals to protect their nests and offspring and to protect themselves to insure their personal survival and the survival of their species.
On the other hand there is a world without happiness, fun, excitement, a world that does not bare thinking about. A perpetual nightmare that we do not imagine and that is only seen in films. Then there is a world with no emotions? As we have seen it would appear that all emotions have a function otherwise they would not have survived the evolutionary processes. They are all essential to our survival and so by definition without them survival would not be possible. Every single action, thought or dream is accompanied by an emotion and many of these reach the conscious level. They control us and are our moral guides. The basis of modern morals has grown up out of the evolution of emotional experiences and an empathy for others’ experiences. We try to understand the emotions that a person is going through when they are in a situation. This situation tends to be considered morally wrong if it induces unnecessary negative emotions such as anger, pain, hurt, fear and hatred in a person or even animal. These emotions should not have to be experienced and that is what makes it wrong. This also leads to the formation of our modern legal system, which is based on our moral beliefs. Therefore we often prosecute people who induce strong negative emotions in others and what they have done is considered to be against the law. Of course this is a huge simplification but I believe that it illustrates why society and the individual require emotions.
To conclude, it is clear that emotions are a very complex issue but are a central part of both our survival and our social lives. No matter how complex the psychological and physiological theories become, the simple truth is that without emotions life would not exist, as we know it anyway. It seems that scientists have now come to the conclusion that emotions must be mapped and studied as separate functions instead of one. In addition they have stated that the majority of an emotional experience occurs subconsciously and that in fact how we behave and what we feel is only the tip of the iceberg. I believe that this has given me a new outlook on the functioning of an emotional experience. Finally and I believe most facinating is the role of evolution in the development of emotions and from this our moral code. It is clear that emotions have evolved through time to reach the emotional pinicle at which humans stand. What the future holds is speculation but I believe that it will be facinating to follow. As Artificial intelligence develops to levels and emotions are mapped through our nervous system and brain, who knows, maybe computers wil be able to feel pleasure, pain, anger and joy.
