A field-theoretic taxonomy of emotions

TL;DR

Existing emotion taxonomies either stipulate discrete natural kinds (Ekman, Plutchik, Panksepp) or deny them in favour of constructed categories (Barrett, Russell). Neither generates a closed taxonomy with substrate-grounded mechanism. This paper proposes an integrative architecture grounded in Friction Theory that recovers both traditions. FT is advanced here as a hypothesis about substrate-general principles, not as a substrate-universal law, and it stands on prior formal accounts including sequential-sampling models and resource-rational analysis (Lieder & Griffiths, 2020). The BFT-within-FT relation is a nesting proposed in Paper 1 and carried here as a working hypothesis, not as an established entailment; the taxonomy requires only that the four fields are the operative decision-structure of the biological substrates whose emotions it classifies.

The framework specifies six moving parts that together produce emotional experience:

1. Friction's quality (strength, distribution, rhythm) — what is actually experienced of the underlying computational mechanism
2. Fields (Safety, Meaning, Ability, Effort) — discrete computational regions
3. Layers (Biological → Emotional → Inner → Cognitive → External) — gradient from substrate-signal to narrative feeling
4. Valence (positive, negative, unresolved)
5. Dynamic effects (anticipation, surprise, prediction-error)
6. Configurations (cross-field, ambivalence, misconfiguration, unresolved)

Each component is conceptually distinct and tentatively mappable to neural systems. Emotions emerge as substrate-level signals, and feelings emerge as interpretive integrations of those signals, following Damasio's distinction at the level of computational layers on a single substrate.

Three positions along the layer-depth gradient (not three categorical levels):

• Deep-layer substrate-signals with dedicated circuitry (Level 2 anchor — Panksepp's territory)
• Mid-layer integrative transitions
• Shallow-layer narrative-labelled feelings (Level 3 anchor — Barrett's territory)

Concrete framework outputs

• ~50 distinct feeling-labels with specific substrate-paths (Feeling Dictionary, §3.10), offered as a proposed mapping rather than a closed lexicon
• Psychiatric conditions predicted as selective field × layer dysfunctions, with dimensional supplement via DSP-3 distribution-shape
• Developmental sequence anchored in Paper 1's intermediate-computation derivation, with Meaning developing in two phases (social/relational in infancy, existential in adolescence)
• Evolutionary ordering of brain-structure development to parallel the field × layer hierarchy
• Cross-substrate predictions for LLMs: functional prediction-signals present; field-emotional-layer signals and interpretive integration absent. Stated as a falsifiable corollary, not as a result this paper settles; the related field-conflict measurement across 15 LLM architectures in Paper 1 §4.3 is cited as a pointer only
• Field-absence (low-tonus) states — boredom, dissociation, some forms of depression — as a category of their own, distinct from negatively-valenced field-activation
• The Panksepp–Barrett disagreement given a precise scope-separation: substrate-realism does not entail category-realism. The coexistence claim is not itself new (Panksepp, 2007; Barrett, Lindquist & Bliss-Moreau, 2007; TenHouten, 2021); the contribution is the generative field × layer mechanism those proposals lacked

Falsification criteria

Three classes of falsifying evidence with quantitative thresholds:

• F1 Neural-dissociation: Cohen's d < 0.3 in meta-analysis of ≥20 studies
• F2 Maturation-ordering: a robust inversion of the predicted developmental or phylogenetic maturation order
• F3 Race-temporal-structure: drift-diffusion fits underperformed by gate-models, BIC > 10 across ≥10 datasets

Compatible with Damasio's somatic markers, Lazarus's core relational themes, Scherer's appraisal-components, LeDoux's survival circuits, Adolphs and Anderson's emotion primitives, and culturally-specific labels (amae, saudade, liget) as instances of the architecture.