How is each word defined in NLP?

The Society of NLP manual (my preferred source for definitions) does not define 'emotions' or 'feelings'.

It does offer, and I quote:

Kinesthetic: Relating to body sensations. In NLP the term kinesthetic is used to encompass all kinds of feelings including tactile, visceral, and emotional.

State: the total ongoing mental and physical conditions from which a person is acting.

This definition of kinesthetic positions emotions and feelings as examples of, but not the totality of, what is kinesthetic.

As for state, I find it common that people confuse 'state' with 'feeling'. In computing, the word 'state' refers to a description of the machine as it is at a point in time, such that if you re-loaded that state, the machine could re-start from that point. So, machine state might include: what programs the machine is running, the value of the program counter, the value of any registers, the contents of its memory, and what it's 'mode' switches are set to.

The human analogy of that would include what's going on in your current sensory experience (anyone remember 4-tuples?), what strategies you're running, what meta programs are operational, etc.

In that sense, a distinction between 'state' and 'feeling' would be that what's going on in the visual part of your current experience is part of your state, but it's not part of your feeling.

(And it's worth contemplating that machines, such as robots, can have states and kinesthetic activity but not feelings or emotions.)

It might help to further contemplate state by having a look at 'finite state automata', which is a model of machines that have a finite number of states and shift between them as they process information. From memory (I got a First in Computer Science but it's about 20 years since I did this stuff) it's not dissimilar to TOTE in that it's a simple model of programmed behaviour interacting with input. (But TOTE does not presuppose a finite number of states.)

I haven't studied this article in sufficient detail to decide whether it's a good account, but try: Finite-state machine. I'm attracted to the note that: "In computer science, finite state machines are widely used in the modelling of application behaviour, ..., and the study of computation and languages". Sound analogous to something?

Cheers

So in terms of state, reps/thoughts, and behavior/physiology... state is like a particular configuration in the reps and behavior?

Well, bearing in mind I'm not claiming to be 'right' (because the definition is imprecise and open to interpretation), I'm really just musing with you ...

But I tend to think it's along those lines. Remember, you're current 'physical' configuration (your physiology) is part of 'the total ongoing mental and physical conditions from which a person is acting', too.

Let's muse more ...

Let's take a common machine. Your car. And let's say you're driving someplace.

Does the car have a 'state'? Yes. If you could press a button and get a state readout, it might reports things like: current speed, current gear, current location, current direction, current temperature, fuel level, oil level, brake pad wear, mileage, noise level, emissions level, etc. The car's current performance will be influenced by these factors.

If you wanted to replicate the car's exact present performance, you'd want to replicate its state. Do you need everything just described? Maybe not. It may be more of a description than is necessary. One part of its state (how dirty it is) might not be relevant for the aspect of performance you want to replicate. But then again, ...

And if you wanted to change it's perfomance, you might want to change it's state. (Like, change gear.)

Does it have 'kinesthetics'? Yes. The car's performance is a result of internal kinesthetic activity causing external kinesthetic activity. If you wanted to precisely describe the car's kinesthetics, you might do so in terms of current revs, and temperature, all of which might also be described as part of its present state.

Does it have 'feelings'? Well, not that the car is conscious of or responding to.

Does it have 'emotions'? Well, my car has never cried. Not even when I banged it's nose.

Now, I say again, I'm not claiming to be right. But given the overt metaphor in NLP of humans running programs, and that 'state' is such a recognisable and well-used term in computer science, I do tend to think of 'state' more as 'current operating mode' rather than 'feelings'.

So, when someone says, "I'm in a state of fear", I believe them. But, as we know, the word 'fear' is merely a label not a description. Hence all the emphasis on getting sensory specific detail.

Incidentally, above, I mused that things like "what strategies you're running" and "what meta programs are operational" might be a useful part of a complete description of state. If I was being strictly reductionist, I might say that, actually, a true point-in-time snapshot of state might simply be the fully described 4-tuple, i.e. the fully described current sensory experience. Because, if you exactly match a person's internal and external sensory experience (including their precise physiology, breathing rate, etc) all those other things should lock into place.

That said, noting what strategies, meta programs, and 'outcomes' are operational can be useful.

Like many things NLP, we learn to be guided by what's useful in the given context, rather than what's "right" (from some unspecified point-of-view). If it's useful to capture information about strategies and meta programs to do what I want to do, I'll capture it. Whether or not it's "strictly" part of state.

Cheers

I'm going to play a bit with what Stephen has already mentioned.

State, I imagine, was borrowed from theoretical computer science, like many early NLP concepts. The current state of a machine determines what that machine will do in response to the current input. Analogically, in humans, a state would be whatever determines how you react to your current stimuli.

Generally, state is probably the sum of your current feelings, thoughts (i.e., non-emotional processing), and actions. Like, you may love to eat chocolate cake, but if I offer you a piece while you're taking a shower, you probably won't want to eat it right then (conflict with action). Likewise, if you're feeling nausea, you probably won't accept my offer (conflict with feeling). If you're thinking hard about some problem, you may not accept (conflict with thoughts).