Bilinç Problemi ve Panpsişizm

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 67 - 91, 30.06.2019

Ferhat Onur

Öz

Öz:
Bilinç problemi söz konusu olduğunda radikal bir alternatif olarak panpsişizm
pek tercih edilebilen bir yaklaşım değildir. Bunun sebebi panpsişizmin
radikalliğinden ziyade iyi bilinen bir görüş olmamasıdır. Oysa tezi ve
argümanları doğru bir şekilde anlaşıldığında köklü bir geçmişe sahip bu görüşün
en az diğerleri kadar iddialı olabildiği fark edilecektir. Bu çalışmanın amacı
da tam olarak budur: Panpsişizmin sınırlarını çizerek onu daha bilinir hale
getirmek. Bu doğrultuda öncelikle sözü edilen bilinç probleminin ne olduğunu
ortaya koydum. Daha sonra problemin konusu olan bilinç kavramına ışık tutmaya
çalıştım. Ardından panpsişizmi tanımlayıp temel argümanlarını sırasıyla
açıkladım. Son olarak panpsişizmin bilinç problemi karşısında bize nasıl
yardımcı olabileceğini kısaca gösterdim. Buna göre, panpsişizm bilinç
probleminin iki veçhesinden biri olan insan bilincine nasıl ulaşıldığının arzu
edilir bir açıklamasını veremese de bir diğeri olan insan bilincinin neden var
olduğu sorusuna cevaben söyleyecek bir şeyleri olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

bilinç, zihin, fenomenal bilinç, deneyim, farkındalık, öznellik, bilinç problemi, zor problem, panpsişizm, pandeneyimcilik

The Problem of Consciousness and Panpsychism

Öz

Abstract: When it comes to problem of consciousness
panpsychism as a radical alternative is not a well-received approach. The
reason for this is not it’s radicalism but rather the fact that it’s not a
well-known view. Nevertheless, if it’s thesis and arguments are understood correctly
it will be realized that this view with a long-standing past can be as ambitious
as the others. So, this is exactly the purpose of this paper: Making it more
known by drawing the boundaries of panpsychism. In this direction, I will first
explain the mentioned problem of consciousness. Then I will try to shed light
on the concept of consciousness which is the subject of the problem. Next, I
will define panpsychism and explain it’s fundamental arguments one by one.
Finally, I will briefly show how panpsychism can helps us in the face of the
problem of consciousness. According to this, even if panpsychism cannot give a
desirable explanation of one of the two aspect of the problem of consciousness
which is how human consciousness has been achieved it has something to say as
an answer to the other which is why there is human consciousness at all.

Anahtar Kelimeler

consciousness, mind, phenomenal consciousness, experience, subjectivity, problem of consciousness, the hard problem, panpsychism, panexperientialism

Kaynakça

• Agamben, Giorgio (2004). The Open: Man and Animal. Çev. Kevin Attell. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Arıcı, Murat (2018). “The Problem of Phenomenal Consciousness.” MetaZihin, 1(1): 1-19.
• Block, Ned (2002). “Concepts of Consciousness.” David J. Chalmers (Der.), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings içinde (s. 206-226). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Broad, Charlie D. (1925). The Mind and Its Place in Nature. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
• Chalmers, David J. (2017). “Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism.” Godehard Brüntrup ve Ludwig Jaskolla (Der.), Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives içinde (s. 19-47). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chalmers, David J. (2010). The Character of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chalmers, David J. (2006). “Strong and Weak Emergence.” Philip Clayton ve Paul Davies (Der.), The Re-Emergence of Emergence içinde (s. 244-254). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Clarke, David S. (2004). Panpsychism: Past and Recent Selected Readings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Clarke, David S. (2003). Panpsychism and the Religious Attitude. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• De Landa, Manuel (2005). Çizgisel Olmayan Tarih. Çev. Ebru Kılıç. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Dennett, Daniel C. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Dennett, Daniel C. (1997). “Quining Qualia.” Ned Block, Owen Flanagan ve Güven Güzeldere (Der.), The Nature of Consciousness içinde (s. 619-642). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Flanagan, Owen (1992). Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Gallup, Gordon G. (1970). “Chimpanzees: Self-Recognition.” Science, 167: 86-87.
• Goff, Philip (2009). “Why Panpsychism Doesn’t Help Us Explain Consciousness.” Dialectica, 63(3): 289-311.
• Griffin, David R. (2007). Whitehead’s Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Guthrie, William K. C. (1962). A History of Greek Philosophy Volume I: The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam Books.
• Hill, Christopher (2009). Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• James, William (1981[1890]). The Principles of Psychology. Cambridge ve London: Harvard University Press.
• James, William (1920). A Pluralistic Universe. New York: Longman’s, Green, and Co.
• James, William (1912). Essays in Radical Empiricism. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.
• Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1890[1714]). The Philosophical Works of Leibniz. Çev. George M. Duncan. New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor.
• Levine, Joseph (2001). Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Pres.
• Long, Anthony A. (1974). Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. London: Duckworth.
• Mandik, Pete (2014). This Is Philosophy of Mind: An Introduction. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
• McGinn, Colin (2004). Consciousness and Its Objects. New York: Oxford University Press.
• McGinn, Colin (1999). The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World. New York: Basic Books.
• McGinn, Colin (1997). The Character of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nagasawa, Y. ve Wager, K. (2017). “Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism.” Godehard Brüntrup ve Ludwig Jaskolla (Der.), Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives içinde (s. 113-129). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nagel, Thomas (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Parkes, G. (2009). “The Awareness of Rock: East-Asian Understandings and Implications.” David Skrbina (Der.), Mind that Abides: Panpsychism in the New Millennium içinde (s. 325-340). Amsterdam ve Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Peirce, Charles S. (1935[1898]). Collected Papers Vol. 6: Scientific Metaphysics. Der. Charles Hartshorne ve Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Pinker, Steven (2007). “The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness.” Alındığı URL = http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
• Pitt, David (2004). “The Phenomenology of Cognition or What is it Like to Think That P?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69(1): 1-36.
• Pross, Addy (2012). What Is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Revonsuo, Antti (2010). Consciousness: The Science of Subjectivity. Hove ve New York: Psychology Press.
• Rosenthal, David M. (1997). “A Theory of Consciousness.” Ned Block, Owen Flanagan ve Güven Güzeldere (Der.), The Nature of Consciousness içinde (s. 729-753). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Russell, Bertrand (1992[1927]). The Analysis of Matter. London: Routledge.
• Schopenhauer, Arthur (1889). “On the Will in Nature.” Two Essays by Arthur Schopenhauer. London: George Bell and Sons.
• Seager, William (2016). Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction and Assessment (Second Edition). London ve New York: Routledge.
• Seager, William (2009). “Panpsychism.” Brian McLaughlin, Ansgar Beckermann ve Sven Walter (Der.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind içinde (s. 206-219). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Searle, John R. (1997). The Mystery of Consciousness. New York: NYREV.
• Skrbina, David (2005). Panpsychism in the West. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Spinoza, Baruch (2002[1677]). “Ethics.” Michael L. Morgan (Der.), Spinoza: Complete Works içinde. Çev. Samuel Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Strawson, G. (2018). “What Does Physical Mean? A Prolegomenon to Physicalist Panpsychism.” Alındığı URL = https://www.academia.edu/38245741/What_does_physical_mean_Strawson
• Strawson, Galen (2008). Real Materialism and Other Essays. Now York: Oxford University Press.
• Stubenberg, Leopold (1998). Consciousness and Qualia. Amsterdam ve Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Stubenberg, Leopold (2017). “Neutral Monism and Panpsychism.” Godehard Brüntrup ve Ludwig Jaskolla (Der.), Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives içinde (s. 349-368). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Tura, Saffet M. (2018). Zor Problem: Bilinç. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Tylor, Edward B. (1871). Primitive Culture Vol. I. London: Bradbury, Evans, and Co.
• Waddington, Conrad H. (1961). The Nature of Life. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
• Whitehead, Alfred N. (1978[1929]). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: The Free Press.
• Whitehead, Alfred N. (1925). Science and the Modern World. New York: The Macmillan Company.