The Five Marks of the Mental.
Frontiers in psychology January 1, 2017 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01084 via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe mental and physical realms appear distinct, with the mental dependent on yet different from the physical. This review identifies five marks of the mental—intentionality, consciousness, free will, teleology, and normativity—that are commonly associated with mental phenomena and each conflict with a physical view of reality in unique ways. Rather than defining mentality, these features highlight that there is no single mind-body problem but a set of interconnected problems. Each problem is analyzed, and their differences, similarities, and connections are identified, offering a foundation for future theoretical work in psychology and philosophy of mind, which has often suffered from unclarities and conflations.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Review Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Access consciousness Folk psychology Free will Intentionality Mind-body problem |
| Citations | 27 |
| Key finding | There is no single mind-body problem but a set of distinct yet interconnected problems arising from five marks of the mental: intentionality, consciousness, free will, teleology, and normativity. |
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.