g., Darwin, 1872, James, 1884, Cannon, 1927, Cannon, 1931, Duffy, 1934, Duffy, 1941, Tomkins, Imatinib mw 1962, Mandler, 1975, Schachter, 1975, Ekman, 1980, Ekman, 1984 and Ekman,

1992; Izard, 2007, Frijda, 1986 and Russell, 2003;; Ekman and Davidson, 1994, LeDoux, 1996, Panksepp, 1998, Panksepp, 2000 and Panksepp, 2005; Rolls, 1999, Rolls, 2005, Damasio, 1994, Damasio, 1999, Leventhal and Scherer, 1987, Scherer, 2000, Ortony and Turner, 1990, Öhman, 1986, Öhman, 2009, Johnson-Laird and Oatley, 1989, Ellsworth, 1994, Zajonc, 1980, Lazarus, 1981, Lazarus, 1991a, Lazarus, 1991b, Barrett, 2006a, Barrett, 2006b, Barrett et al., 2007, Kagan, 2007, Prinz, 2004, Scarantino, 2009, Griffiths, 2004, Ochsner and Gross, 2005 and Lyons, 1980). One point that many writers on this topic accept is that, while there are unique features of human

emotion, at least some aspects of human emotion reflect our ancestral past. This conclusion is the basis of neurobiological approaches to emotion, since Dinaciclib nmr animal research is essential for identifying specific circuits and mechanisms in the brain that underlie emotional phenomena. Progress in understanding emotional phenomena in the brains of laboratory animals has in fact helped elucidate emotional functions in the human brain, including pathological aspects of emotion. But what does this really mean? If we don’t have an agreed-upon definition of emotion that allows us to say what emotion is, and how emotion differs from other psychological states, how can we study emotion in animals or humans, and how can we make comparisons between species? The short answer is that we fake it. Introspections from personal subjective experiences tell us that some mental states have a certain “feeling” associated with them and others do not. Those Ribonucleotide reductase states that humans associate with feelings are often called emotions. The terms “emotion” and “feeling” are, in fact, often used interchangeably. In English we have words like fear, anger, love, sadness, jealousy, and so on, for these feeling states, and when scientists study emotions in

humans they typically use these “feeling words” as guideposts to explore the terrain of emotion. The wisdom of using common language words that refer to feelings as a means of classifying and studying human emotions has been questioned by a number of authors over the years (e.g., Duffy, 1934, Duffy, 1941, Mandler, 1975, Russell, 1991, Russell, 2003, Barrett, 2006a, Barrett, 2006b, Kagan, 2007, Griffiths, 1997, Rorty, 1980, Dixon, 2001 and Zachar, 2006). Whatever problems might arise from using feeling words to study human emotion, the complications are compounded many fold when such words are applied to other animals. While there are certainly emotional phenomena that are shared by humans and other animals, introspections from human subjective experience are not the best starting point for pursuing these.