Bilincin Bir Yanılsama Olduğu Düşüncesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Bir İllüzyon Olmak Nasıl Bir Şeydir?

Öz

Yanılsamacılık (illüzyonizm) düşüncesi fenomenal bilincin var olmadığını savunur. Buna göre bilince atfedilen fenomenal özellikler sadece aldatıcı görünüşlerden ibarettir. Öznel deneyim sadece bir yanılsamadır. Bu nedenle biz hiçbir türden öznel deneyime sahip değiliz, sadece öznel deneyimin yanıltıcı bir algısına sahibiz. Fenomenal bilinç gerçek olmadığı için bilinç hakkında açıklanması gereken şey fiziksel bir organizmanın nasıl olup da bilinç sahibi olduğu değil, öyle olmadığımız halde neden kendimizi bilinçli olarak algıladığımızdır. Cevaplanması gereken soru nasıl fenomenal deneyime sahip olduğumuz değil, neden fenomenal deneyime sahip gibi göründüğümüzdür. Soruyu bu şekilde sorduğumuzda bilincin zor problemi yerini yanılsama problemine bırakmaktadır. Yanılsamacılık, bilinçle ilgili araştırmalar için teorik bir çerçeve olarak öne sürülmektedir. Bu düşünce, fenomenal deneyimin fiziksel açıklamasının onun aslında bir yanılsamadan ibaret olduğu şeklinde bir teorik çerçeve içinde yapılmaya çalışılmasının, sorunu paradoksal yapısından kurtaracağını savunmaktadır. Bu makalede yanılsamacı argümanların ve bazı teorik yaklaşımların incelenmesi yoluyla yanılsamacı düşüncenin içsel yapısını ortaya koyacağız. Böylece yanılsamacılığın, bilinç paradoksu adını verdiğimiz muammayı nasıl ele aldığına dair bir anlayış geliştirmeye çalışacağız. Diğer taraftan, yapısal nitelikleri bakımından indirgemeci fizikalist yaklaşımların yanılsamacı özellikler taşıdıklarını açıklayacağız. Sonuç olarak, bilincin zor probleminin karakteristik olarak paradoksal olduğu ve yanılsamacılığın bilince bakış açısının Zenon’un hareket ve zaman hakkındaki kanaatleri ile ortak yönlere sahip olduğu açıklanmış olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• zihin-beden problemi
• bilinç
• deneyim
• fenomenal
• yanılsama
• paradoks
• fizikalizm

An Examination on the Idea That Consciousness is an Illusion: What Is It Like to Be an Illusion?

Öz

Illusionism argues that phenomenal consciousness does not exist. Accordingly, the phenomenal features attributed to consciousness are only deceptive appearances. The subjective experience is a mere illusion. So, we do not have any kind of subjective experience, just an illusive perception of it. Since phenomenal consciousness is not real, what needs to be explained about consciousness is not how a physical organism comes to be conscious, but why we perceive ourselves to be phenomenally conscious though we are not. The question to be answered is not how we have phenomenal experience, but why we seem to have phenomenal experience. When we ask the question in this way, the hard problem of consciousness leaves its place to the problem of illusion. Illusionism has been proposed as a theoretical framework for research on consciousness. This idea argues that trying to make the physical explanation of the phenomenal experience within a theoretical framework that it is just an illusion will save the problem from its paradoxical structure. In this article, we will reveal the internal structure of illusionism through the examination of illusionist arguments and some theoretical approaches. Thus, we will try to reach an understanding of how illusionism deals with the enigma that we call consciousness paradox. On the other hand, we will explain that reductive physicalist approaches have similar features to those of illusionism in terms of their structural characteristics. Consequently, it will be explained that the hard problem of consciousness is characteristically paradoxical and illusionism’s point of view on consciousness has common aspects with Zeno’s convictions about motion and time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• mind-body problem
• consciousness
• experience
• phenomenal
• illusion
• paradox
• physicalism

Kaynakça

1. Bach, J. (2018, 22 Aralık). “Phenomenal Experience and the Perceptual Binding State.” Alındığı URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2287/paper29.pdf
2. Bach, J. (2019). “The Cortical Conductor Theory: Towards Addressing Consciousness in AI Models.” A. Samsonovich (Der.), Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 2018-BICA 2018: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing içinde (s. 16-26). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99316-4_3
3. Blackmore, S. (2002a). “There is No Stream of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(5-6): 17-28.
4. Blackmore, S. (2002b). “The Grand Illusion: Why Consciousness Exists Only When You Look For It.” New Scientist, 174(2348): 26-29.
5. Block, N. (1978). “Troubles with Functionalism.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 9: 261-325.
6. Block, N. (1996). “Functionalism (2).” Samuel Guttenplan (Der.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind içinde (s. 326-332). Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Cave, P. (2009). This Sentence is False-An Introduction to Philosophical Paradoxes. London: Continuum.
8. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of A Theory of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Chalmers, D. J. (2003). “Consciousness and its Place in Nature.” Stephen P. Stich-Ted A. Warfield (Der.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind içinde (s. 102-142). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
10. Chalmers, D. J. (2010). The Character of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Churchland, P. M. (1981). “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attidudes.” The Journal of Philosophy, 78(2): 67-90.
12. Churchland, P. M. (1988). Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind-Revised Edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
14. Clark, M. (2012). Paradoxes from A to Z. London: Routledge.
15. Crane, T. (1999). “The Mind-Body Problem.” R. Wilson ve F. Keil (Der.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences içinde (s. 546-548). Cambridge: MIT Press.
16. Crane, T. (2000). “Dualism, Monism, Physicalism.” Mind and Society, 2: 73-85.
17. Crane, T. (2003). The Mechanical Mind: A Philosophical Introduction to Minds, Machines and Mental Representation. London: Routledge.
18. Demertzi, Athena vd. (2009). “Dualism Persists in the Science of Mind.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1157(1): 1-9.
19. Dennett, D. C. (1992). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Back Bay Books.
20. Dennett, D. C. (2003). “Explaining the "Magic" of Consciousness.” Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 1(1): 7-19.
21. Dennett, D. C. (2016). “Illusionism as the Obvious Default Theory of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(11-12): 65-72.
22. Dennett, D. C. (2017). From Bacteria to Bach and Back. New York: Norton & Company.
23. Feigl, H. (1958). The “Mental” and the “Physical”: The Essay and a Postscript. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
24. Flanagan, O. (1993). Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge: Bradford Book.
25. Frankish, K. (2017). “Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness.” K. Frankish (Der.), Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness içinde (s. 13-48). Exeter: Imprint Academic.
26. Frankish, K. (2019, 26 Eylül). “The Consciousness Illusion.” Alındığı URL: https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-your-consciousness-is-an-illusion-created-by-your-brain
27. Gregory, R. (1996). “What are Illusions?” Perception, 25: 503-504. https://doi.org/10.1068/p250503
28. Gulick, R. V. (2001). “Reduction, Emergence and Other Recent Options on the Mind/Body Problem: A Philosophic Overview.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(9-10): 1-34.
29. Heil, J. (2004). Philosophy of Mind: A Guide and Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Humphrey, N. (2011). Soul Dust: The Magic of Consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31. James, W. (1904). “Does Consciousness Exist?” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 1(18): 477-491.
32. Kammerer, F. (2018). “Can You Believe It? Illusionism And the Illusion Meta-Problem.” Philosophical Psychology, 31(1): 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2017.1388361,
33. Kammerer, F. (2021). “The Illusion of Conscious Experience.” Synthese, 198: 845–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02071-y
34. Kemeny, J. G. ve Oppenheim, P. (1956). “On Reduction.” Philosophical Studies, 7(1-2): 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02333288
35. Kim, J. (2011). Philosophy of Mind. Boulder: Westview Press.
36. Kirk, R. (2019, 19 Mart). “Zombies.” E. N. Zalta (Der.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition) içinde. Alındığı URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/zombies/
37. Levine, J. (1983). “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64: 354-361.
38. Levine, J. (2001). Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Lycan, W. G. (1996). “Functionalism (1).” Samuel Guttenplan (Der.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind içinde (s. 317-323). Oxford: Blackwell.
40. McGinn, C. (1999). The Character of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Nagel, T. (1965). “Physicalism.” The Philosophical Review, 74(3): 339-356.
42. Nagel, T. (1974). “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review, 83(October): 435-450.
43. Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Nagel, T. (1998). “Conceiving the Impossible and the Mind–Body Problem.” Philosophy, 73(285): 337-352.
45. Nagel, T. (2012). Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Nagel, T. (2013, 18 Ağustos). “The Core of Mind and Cosmos.” The New York Times: The Opinion Pages. Alındığı URL: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-cosmos/#more-148050
47. Neurath, Otto. (1983). “Physicalism: The Philosophy of the Vienna Circle.” R.S. Cohen-M. Neurath (Der.), Philosophical Papers (1913-1946) içinde (s. 48-51). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
48. Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking About Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Pereboom, D. (2011). Consciousness and the Prospects of Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Place, U. T. (1956). “Is Consciousness a Brain Process?” British Journal of Psychology, 47: 44-50.
51. Polger, T. W. (2021, 17 Nisan). “Functionalism.” J. Fieser ve B. Dowden (Der.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy içinde. Alındığı URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/functism/#H1
52. Rakova, M. (2006). Philosophy of Mind A-Z. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
53. Sainsbury, R. M. (2007). Paradoxes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Searle, J. R. (2014). Zihnin Yeniden Keşfi. Çev. Muhittin Macit. İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık.
55. Shaffer, J. A. (2005). Zihin Felsefesi. Çev. Turan Koç. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık.
56. Shanahan, M. (2016, 19 Ekim). “Conscious Exotica.” Alındığı URL: https://aeon.co/essays/beyond-humans-what-other-kinds-of-minds-might-be-out-there
57. Smart, J. J. C. (1959). “Sensations and Brain Processes.” Philosophical Review, 68(April): 141-156.
58. Strawson, G. (2010). Mental Reality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
59. Strawson, G. (2015, 27 Şubat). “The Consciousness Myth.” TLS: Times Literary Supplement. Alındığı URL: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/consciousness-myth/
60. Tartaglia J. (2017). “What is at Stake in Illusionism?” K. Frankish (Der.), Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness içinde (s. 294-318). Exeter: Imprint Academic.
61. Tura, S. M. (2021). Zor Problem: Bilinç-Bilinç Nörobiyolojisinin Fenomenal Dünya Yorumu. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.