Subjective Physicalism as a Response to the Knowledge Argument

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 199 - 211, 30.12.2019

Tufan Kıymaz

Öz

According to Frank Jackson (1982, 1986), phenomenal knowledge, our first-personal knowledge of subjective experiences, cannot be reduced to objective knowledge that can be expressed in physical/functional terms, and this shows that there are non-physical facts that can only be known from the first-person perspective. This is Jackson’s knowledge argument against physicalism. In this paper, I first give a brief survey of the standard responses to the knowledge argument in the literature and, next, I critically evaluate a relatively less commonly defended response, namely subjective physicalism. I consider two versions of subjective physicalism, namely inclusive subjective physicalism and exclusive subjective physicalism. The former, as I argue, is not a clear and coherent enough theory to be acceptable, and the latter, as I argue, is not plausible since an intuitively acceptable definition of the physical, which would also allow fundamentally subjective/phenomenal properties to be physical, is yet to be proposed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

subjective physicalism, the knowledge argument, physicality, phenomenal knowledge, consciousness, subjectivity

Bilgi Argümanına Bir Yanıt Olarak Öznel Fizikselcilik

Öz

Frank Jackson (1982, 1986), görüngüsel bilginin, yani öznel deneyimlerimizin birinci kişi perspektifinden edinilen bilgisinin, fiziksel ve işlevsel terimlerle ifade edilebilecek nesnel bilgiye indirgenemeyeceğini ve bunun sadece birinci kişi perspektifinden bilinebilecek fiziksel olmayan olguların varlığını gösterdiğini iddia eder. Bu argüman, Jackson’ın fizikselcilik karşıtı bilgi argümanıdır. Bu çalışmada, analitik felsefe literatüründe bilgi argümanına verilen en yaygın fizikselci yanıtları kısaca taradıktan sonra, “öznel fizikselcilik” yanıtını ayrıntılı bir şekilde irdeliyorum. Öznel fizikselciliğin iki çeşidini, yani içerici ve dışlayıcı öznel fizikselcilik görüşlerini ayrı ayrı ele alıp, öznel fizikselciliğin her iki çeşidinin de kabul edilemez olduğu görüşünü savunuyorum. İçerici öznel fizikselcilik, ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelendiğinde, yeterince açık ve tutarlı bir görüş niteliği sergilemiyor. Dışlayıcı öznel fizikselcilik ise, temelde öznel olanın fizikselliğine kavramsal olarak izin verecek, kabul edilebilir bir fiziksellik tanımının ortaya konmaması nedeniyle bilgi argümanına güçlü bir yanıt olarak karşımıza çıkmıyor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

öznel fizikselcilik, bilgi argümanı, fiziksellik, görüngüsel bilgi, bilinç, öznellik

Kaynakça

• Alter, T. (1998). “A Limited Defense of the Knowledge Argument.” Philosophical Studies, 90(1): 35–56.
• Balog, K. (2012). “In Defense of the Phenomenal Concept Strategy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84(1): 1-23.
• Bealer, G. (1994). “Mental Properties.” The Journal of Philosophy, 91(4): 185–208.
• Byrne, A. (2002). “Something about Mary.” Grazer Philosophische Studien, 62: 123–140.
• Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Churchland, P. M. (1985). “Reduction, Qualia and the Direct Introspection of Brain States.” Journal of Philosophy, 82(January): 8-28.
• Conee, E. (1994). “Phenomenal Knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72(2): 136–50.
• Dennett, D. C. (2004). “Epiphenomenal Qualia?” In P. Ludlow, D. Stoljar & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.), There's Something About Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Flanagan, O. J. (1992). Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Horgan, T. (1984). “Jackson on Physical Information and Qualia.” Philosophical Quarterly, 34: 147-52.
• Howell, R. J. (2008). “Subjective Physicalism.” In E. Wright (Ed.), The Case for Qualia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Howell, R. J. (2009). “The Ontology of Subjective Physicalism.” Noûs, 43(2): 315–45.
• Howell, R. J. (2013). Consciousness and the Limits of Objectivity: The Case for Subjective Physicalism. Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, F. (1982). “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” The Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127): 127–36. DOI: 10.2307/2960077
• Jackson, F. (1986). “What Mary Didn’t Know.” The Journal of Philosophy, 83(5): 291–95. DOI: 10.2307/2026143
• Jackson, F. (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford University Press.
• Kıymaz, T. (Forthcoming). “Phenomenal Concepts and Physical Facts: A Dialogue with Mary.” Filozofia: Journal for Philosophy.
• Levin, J. (2007). “What is a phenomenal concept?” In A. Torin, and S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge (pp. 87-110). Oxford University Press.
• Lewis, D. (1983a). Postscript to "Mad Pain and Martian Pain.” Philosophical Papers, 12: 130-133.
• Lewis, D. (1983b). “New work for a theory of universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61(4): 343-377.
• Lewis, D. (2004). “What Experience Teaches.” In P. Ludlow, D. Stoljar & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.), There's Something About Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument. MIT Press.
• Loar, B. (2004). “Phenomenal States (Revised Version).” In P. Ludlow, D. Stoljar & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.), There's Something About Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument. MIT Press.
• Nemirow, L. (1980). "Review of Nagel's Mortal Questions." Philosophical Review, 89: 473-477.
• Nemirow, L. (1990). “Physicalism and the Cognitive Role of Acquaintance.” In W. Lycan (Ed.), Mind and Cognition: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwells.
• Nida-Rümelin, M. (2015). “Qualia: The Knowledge Argument.” In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition). Alındığı URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/qualia-knowledge/
• Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking about Consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Papineau, D. (2007). “Phenomenal and perceptual concepts.” In A. Torin, and S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge (pp. 111-114). Oxford University Press.
• Stemmer, N. (1989). “Physicalism and the Argument from Knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67(March): 84–91.
• Stoljar, D. (2005). “Physicalism and Phenomenal Concepts.” Mind & Language, 20(5): 469–94. DOI: 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2005.00296.x
• Strawson, G. (2006) “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10-11): 3-31.
• Tye, M. (2009). Consciousness Revisited: Materialism Without Phenomenal Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Van Gulick, R. (2004). “So Many Ways of Saying No to Mary.” In P. Ludlow, D. Stoljar & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.), There's Something About Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.