the five marks of the mental

Clicks: 198
ID: 216732
2017
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #993 of 1,131 articles by views in accounts of chemical research

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,131 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The mental realm seems different to the physical realm; the mental is thought to be dependent on, yet distinct from the physical. But how, exactly, are the two realms supposed to be different, and what, exactly, creates the seemingly insurmountable juxtaposition between the mental and the physical? This review identifies and discusses five marks of the mental, features that set characteristically mental phenomena apart from the characteristically physical phenomena. These five marks (intentionality, consciousness, free will, teleology, and normativity) are not presented as a set of features that define mentality. Rather, each of them is something we seem to associate with phenomena we consider mental, and each of them seems to be in tension with the physical view of reality in its own particular way. It is thus suggested how there is no single mind-body problem, but a set of distinct but interconnected problems. Each of these separate problems is analyzed, and their differences, similarities and connections are identified. This provides a useful basis for future theoretical work on psychology and philosophy of mind, that until now has too often suffered from unclarities, inadequacies, and conflations.
Le domaine du mental semble différent du domaine physique ; le mental est considéré comme dépendant du physique, tout en en étant distinct. Mais en quoi, précisément, ces deux domaines sont-ils censés différer, et qu'est-ce qui engendre, exactement, cette juxtaposition en apparence insurmontable entre le mental et le physique ? Cette revue identifie et examine cinq marques du mental, caractéristiques qui distinguent les phénomènes typiquement mentaux des phénomènes typiquement physiques. Ces cinq marques (l'intentionnalité, la conscience, le libre arbitre, la téléologie et la normativité) ne sont pas présentées comme un ensemble de critères définissant le mental. Chacune d'entre elles correspond plutôt à ce que nous semblons associer aux phénomènes considérés comme mentaux, et chacune semble entrer en tension, à sa manière propre, avec la conception physique de la réalité. Il est ainsi suggéré qu'il n'existe pas un unique problème corps-esprit, mais un ensemble de problèmes distincts quoique interconnectés. Chacun de ces problèmes distincts est analysé, et leurs différences, similitudes et liens sont identifiés. Cela fournit une base utile pour de futurs travaux théoriques en psychologie et en philosophie de l'esprit, qui n'ont jusqu'à présent que trop souvent souffert d'imprécisions, d'insuffisances et d'amalgames.
Reference Key
pernu2017frontiersthe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Tuomas K. Pernu;Tuomas K. Pernu
Journal accounts of chemical research
Year 2017
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01084
URL
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01084/full
Keywords
free will

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.