Nörofenomenolojinin Temel Yaklaşımı ve Sınırlamaları

Abstract

Bu makalenin amacı, öznel deneyimlerin nöral karşılıklarını anlamaya yönelik bir girişim olarak bilinen nörofenomenolojinin temel ilkelerini ve metodolojisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nörofenomenoloji, öznel deneyimleri sistematik bir biçimde betimleyerek bunları nörobiyolojik verilerle ilişkilendirmeyi hedefler ve bu yönüyle disiplinler arası bir yaklaşım sunar. Bu yöntem, birinci-şahıs deneyim betimlemelerini bilimsel araştırmalarla metodolojik kısıtlamalar çerçevesinde dâhil etmeyi amaçlar. Ancak yöntemin çeşitli sınırlılıkları bulunmaktadır. Makale, genel olarak, nörofenomenolojinin bilinci açıklama konusunda sınırlı bir başarı sergilediğini ileri sürmektedir; zira bilincin karmaşık ve gizemli doğası, mevcut bilimsel yöntemlerle tam anlamıyla açıklanmaya direnmektedir. Bu bağlamda nörofenomenoloji, bilinci anlama yolunda önemli bir adım olarak değerlendirilebilse de, bilinci bütünlüklü ve kapsamlı bir biçimde açıklayabilmek için yeni yaklaşımların ve disiplinler arası araştırmaların gerekliliğine de işaret etmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu yaklaşım, bilincin gizemini çözmeye yönelik nihai bir kuramdan ziyade, sınırlı fakat tamamlayıcı bir metodolojik araç olarak görülmelidir.

Keywords

• nörofenomenoloji
• fenomenoloji
• bilinç
• deneyim
• zor problem

Neurophenomenology: Its Core Approach and Limitations

Abstract

This article examines the fundamental principles and methodology of neurophenomenology, a research program proposed as an attempt to investigate the neural correlates of subjective experience. Neurophenomenology aims to systematically describe subjective experiences and relate them to neurobiological data through a methodologically constrained, interdisciplinary framework. By integrating first-person phenomenological reports with third-person neuroscientific findings, this approach seeks to complement existing scientific methods in the study of consciousness. However, neurophenomenology faces several significant limitations. The article argues that the approach has achieved only limited success in explaining consciousness, insofar as the complex and enigmatic nature of conscious experience resists full scientific explanation by current methodologies. Consequently, while neurophenomenology represents an important step toward understanding consciousness, it also underscores the need for novel approaches and further interdisciplinary research to provide a more comprehensive account. In this respect, neurophenomenology should be regarded not as a definitive solution, but as a limited yet complementary methodological tool.

Keywords

• neurophenomenology
• phenomenology
• consciousness
• experience
• hard problem

References

1. Bayne, T. (2004). Closing the Gap? Some Questions for Neurophenomenology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(4): 349-364.
2. Berkovich-Ohana, A., Glicksohn, J. ve Goldstein, A. (2012). Mindfulness-Induced Changes in Gamma Band Activity: Implications For the Default Mode Network, Self-Reference and Attention. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123(4): 700-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2011.07.048
3. Berkovich-Ohana, A., Dor-Ziderman, Y., Glicksohn, J. ve Goldstein, A. (2013). Alterations in the Sense of Time, Space, and Body in the Mindfulness-Trained Brain: A Neurophenomenologically-Guided MEG Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00912
4. Bitbol, M. (2008). Is Consciousness Primary? NeuroQuantology, 6(1): 53–72. https://doi.org/10.14704/NQ.2008.6.1.157
5. Bitbol, M. ve Petitmengin, C. (2013). On the Possibility and Reality of Introspection. Kairos, 6: 173-198.
6. Block, N. (1995). On a Confusion About a Function of Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2): 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00038188
7. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3): 200-219.
8. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.

9. Christoff, K., Irving, Z. C., Fox, K. C. R., Spreng, R. N. ve Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Mind-Wandering as Spontaneous Thought: A Dynamic Framework. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(11): 718-731. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.113
10. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown and Company.
11. Engel, A. K. ve Singer, W. (2001). Temporal Binding and The Neural Correlates of Perceptual Unity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(1): 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01568-0
12. Fries, P. (2005). A Mechanism For Cognitive Dynamics: Neuronal Communication Through Coherence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10): 474-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.011
13. Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical Conceptions of The Self: Implications for Cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1): 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5
14. Gallagher, S. ve Zahavi, D. (2008). The Phenomenological Mind: An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science. Routledge.
15. Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist Interventions: Rethinking the Mind. Oxford University Press.
16. Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Northwestern UP.
17. Husserl, E. (1991). On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time. Springer.
18. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Harvard University Press.
19. Jack, A. I. ve Roepstorff, A. (2002). Introspection and Cognitive Brain Mapping: From Stimulus-Response to Script-Report. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8): 333-339.
20. Jack, A. I. ve Roepstorff, A. (2003). Trusting the Subject? The Use of Introspective Evidence in Cognitive Science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9-10): 49-67.
21. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4): 354-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1983.tb00207.x
22. Lutz, A., Lachaux, J-P., Martinerie, J. ve Varela, F. J. (2002). Guiding the Study of Brain Dynamics by Using First-Person Data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(3): 1586-1591. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062574799
23. Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Rawlings, N. B., Ricard, M. ve Davidson, R. J. (2004). Long-Term Meditators Self-Induce High-Amplitude Gamma Synchrony During Mental Practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46): 16369-16373. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407401101
24. Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. MIT Press.
25. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2017). Algının Fenomenolojisi. Çev. Emine Sarıkartal ve Eylem Hacımuratoğlu. İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları.
26. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it Like to be a Bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4): 435-450.
27. Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., de Greck,M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H. ve Panksepp, J. (2006). Self-Referential Processing in Our Brain: A Meta-Analysis. Neurolmage, 31(1): 440-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002
28. Revonsuo, A. (2006). Inner Presence: Consciousness as a Biological Phenomenon. MIT Press.
29. Schwitzgebel, E. (2008). The Unreliability of Naive Introspection. The Philosophical Review, 117(2): 245-273. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-037
30. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press.
31. Thompson, E. (2015). Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. Columbia University Press.
32. Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4): 330-349.
33. Varela, F. J., Lachaux, J-P., Rodriguez, E. ve Martinerie, J. (2001). The Brainweb: Phase Synchronization and Large-Scale Integration. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2: 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1038/35067550
34. Zahavi, D. (2004). Phenomenology and the Project of Naturalization. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3(4): 331-347. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000048935.94012.4e
35. Zahavi, D. (2005). Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective. MIT Press.