Download PDF
Nervenheilkunde 2018; 37(07/08): 489-499
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1668315
Mentalismus
Georg Thieme Verlag

Die Mentalismusfrage

The question of mentalism
M. R. Pawelzik
1   EOS-Klinik für Psychotherapie, Münster
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingegangen am: 10 April 2018

angenommen am: 02 May 2018

Publication Date:
31 July 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Mentalismusfrage zielt auf ein zentrales theoretisches Problem der Psychiatrie: Wie ist das Psychische richtig zu verstehen? Dass diese Frage bis heute nicht schlüssig beantwortet werden kann, liegt nicht allein an unserer empirischen Ignoranz. Die Schwierigkeiten, eine Antwort zu finden, sind ebenso auf die bisherige Art der wissenschaftlichen Herangehensweise, d. h. auf Forschungsmethodik und Modellierung, zurückzuführen. Um etwas Licht in die infrage stehenden Zusammenhänge zu werfen, werde ich fünf Fragen stellen und tentativ zu beantworten versuchen – Fragen nach dem ontologischen Status der mentalen Sphäre, nach der Beschreibung und der Erkenntnis des Mentalen und nach seiner Stellung in der Naturgeschichte und seiner erfolgversprechendsten wissenschaftlichen Modellierung. Ziel meiner Diskussion der Fragen wird es sein, den Stellenwert der Mentalismusfrage zu verdeutlichen, das Verständnis für die zugrundeliegenden Probleme zu vertiefen und um für eine theoretische Re-Orientierung des Faches zu werben.

Summary

The status of mentalism is highly controversial. How should we understand the mind from an evidence-based perspective as psychiatrists? The difficulties in answering this question are empirical as well as theoretical in kind. In order to elucidate some of the problems that determine the question of mentalism, I shall pose and answer five questions concerning the ontology of the mental, an adequate descriptive account of the mind, the best epistemic approach, the mind’s role in cultural evolution and the best way to scientifically model the mind-brain-behaviorenvironment-conundrum. My main aim is to highlight the importance of these “eternal” questions and the need for a more “enactivist” re-orientation of psychiatric and psychotherapeutic research.

Schlüsselwörter

Leib-Seele-Problem - wissenschaftlicher Materialismus - Alltagspsychologie - kulturelle Evolution - Enaktivismus

Keywords

Mind-body problem - scientific materialism - folk psychology - cultural evolution - enactivsm
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Dennett D. The intentional stance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1987
  • 2 Lieberman DA. Behaviorism and the mind: a (limited) call for a return to introspection. American Psychologist 1979; 34: 319-333.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bunge M, Ardila R. Philosophy of psychology. New York: Springer; 1987
  • 4 Churchland PS, Sejnowski TJ. The computational brain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1992
  • 5 Wilson TD. Stangers to ourselves. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 2002
  • 6 Levine J. The explanatory gap. McLaughlin BP, Beckermann A, Walter S. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Ryle G. Thinking and Saying. In: Derselbe. On Thinking. Cambridge: Blackwell; 1979: 79-93.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Sellars W. Philosophy and scientific image of man. In: Sharp K, Brandom RB. (eds.) In the space of reasons. Selected essays of Wilfrid Sellars. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 2007. (ursprünglich 1963).
    Google Scholar
  • 9 McEwen B. Physiology and neurology of stress and adaption: Central role of the brain. Physiological Review 2007; 87: 873-904.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Laureys S. The neural correlate of (un)awareness: lessons from vegetative state. Trends in Cognitive Science 2005; 09: 556-559.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baars B. A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988
  • 12 Dehaene S, Lau H, Kouider S. What is consciousness, and could machines have it?. Science 2017; 358: 486-492.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Humphreys P. Emergence. A philosophical account. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Block N. Mental paint. In: Hahn M, Ramberg B. (eds.) Reflections and Replies: Essays on the Philosophy of Tyler Burge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Tomasello M. A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 2014
  • 16 Husserl E. Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag; 2012
  • 17 Russell B. An inquiry into meaning and truth. London: George Allen & Unwin; 1950
  • 18 Domhoff GW. The emgergence of dreaming. Mind wandering, embodied simulation, and the default network. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Castelfranchi C. Minds as social institutions. Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. 2013 doi 10.1007/s1107–013–9324–0.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dennett D. The self as center of narrative gravity. In: Kessel F, Cole P, Johnson D. (eds.) Self and Consciousness: Multiple Perspectives. Hilssdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Mercier H, Sperber D. Why do humans reason? Arguments for argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2010; 34: 57-111.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Nagel T. What is it like to be a bat?. The Philosophical Review 1974; 83 (04) 435-450.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chalmers D. Facing up the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1995; 02 (03) 200-219.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 McGinn C. Can we solve the mind-body problem?. Mind 1989; XCVIII (391) 349-366.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Brüntrüp G, Jaskolla L. (eds.) Panpsychism. Contemporary perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Dennett D. From bacteria to Bach and back. The evolution of minds. New York: Norton; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Meehl P. Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978; 46: 806-834.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Leibnitz GW. Monadologie und andere metaphysische Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner; 2014: § 17
  • 29 Edelman GM, Gally JA. Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. PNAS 2001; 20: 13763-13768.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Anderson LA. After phrenology. Neural reuse and the interactive brain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Costand M. Neuroplasticity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2016
  • 32 Noppeney U, Friston KJ, Price CJ. Degernate neuronal functioning sustaining cognitive functions. Journal of Anatomy 2004; 205: 433-442.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Friston KJ, Price CJ. Degeneracy and redundancy in cognitive anatomy. Trends in Cognitive Science 2003; 07: 151-157.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hacking I. The looping effect of human kinds. In: Dan Sperber, David Premack, Ann-James Premack. (Eds.) Causal cognition: a multiperspective Debate. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Romeo RR. et al. Beyond the 30-million-word-gap: Children’s conversational exposure is associated with language-related brain function. Psychological Science. 2018 doi: 10.1177/0956797617742725.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Alexander RD. How did humans evolve? Reflections on the uniquely unique species. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan; 1990
  • 37 Flynn MV. et al. Ecological dominance, social competition, and coalitionary arms race: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelligence?. Evolution and Human Behavior 2005; 26: 10-46.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sterelny K. The evolved apprentice. How evolution made us unique. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Cole SW. Human social genomics. PLOS Genetics 2014; 10 (08) e1004601.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Morin O. How traditions live and die. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016
  • 41 Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2005; 02 (08) e124.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Henriques G. A new unified theory of psychology. New York: Springer; 2011
  • 43 Erneling CE, Johnson DM. Between brain and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005
  • 44 Pawelzik MR. Gibt es psychische Störungen? Journal für Philosophie und Psychiatrie. 2018 in Vorbereitung.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chemero A. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2009
  • 46 Moreno A, Mossio M. Biological autonomy. A philosophical and theoretical enquiry. New York: Springer; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Damasio A. The strange order of things. New York: Pantheon Books; 2018
  • 48 Pawelzik MR. Psychotherapie des sozialen Gehirns. Verhaltenstherapie und Verhaltensmedizin 2013; Teil I: 34 (01) 43-74 Teil II: 34(2): 143–177.
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Gergely G. The role of contingency detection in early affect-regulative interactions and the development of different types of infant attachment. Social Development 2004; 13 (03) 468-488.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Gallagher S. Enactivist interventions. Rethinking the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Di Paolo EA, Buhrmann T, Barandiaran XE. Sensorimotor life. An enactive proposal. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Fodor J. Methodological sollipsism considered as a research strategy on cognitive science. In: Boyd R, Gasper P, Trout JD. (eds.) The philosophy of science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Miller GA. The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science 2003; 07 (03) 141-144.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Shuler MG, Bear MF. Reward timing in the primary visual cortex. Science 2006; 311 (5767): 1606-1609.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Barrett LF, Bar M. See it with feeling: Affective prediction during object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on London, Series B, Biological Sciences 2009; 364: 1325-1334.
    Google Scholar