Does Functionalism Reject Qualia?

Abstract

Functionalism, the most influential theory of consciousness in the philosophy of mind since the 1970s, is the idea that addresses the mental states according to their causal roles in the system of which they are a part, independently from the internal structure that constitutes them. In the 1980s, on the other hand, philosophers such as Ned Block and John Searle suggested that functionalism excluded qualia, which is the fundamental element of experience, and criticized this idea. Qualia is the subjective and qualitative characteristic of experience. Block and Searle thought that a theory of mind should also handle the subjective and qualitative aspect of the experience. My goal in this study is to show that bringing an explanation to qualia is beyond the limits of functionalism. Functionalism is an attempt to find answers to causal questions and is not interested in ontological questions of experience. Nevertheless, some philosophers are attached to a functionalistic program and make ontological inferences. For example, Daniel Dennett says that consciousness is a kind of information processing system, and he rejects qualia. Functionalists such as Hilary Putnam and David Chalmers do not make ontological inferences about consciousness, nor do they reject qualia. At this point, by distinguishing between the theories and the motivations of their proponents, I will claim that Block and Searle's criticisms should be evaluated as directed against some functionalists such as Dennett rather than functionalism itself.

Keywords

• Functionalism
• Qualia
• Consciousness
• Function
• Multiple Realizability

İşlevselcilik Qualia'yı Reddeder mi?

Öz

Zihin felsefesinde 1970’lerden bu yana en etkili bilinç teorisi olan işlevselcilik zihinsel durumları, kendilerini oluşturan içsel yapıya bağlı olmadan parçası oldukları sistemdeki nedensel rollerine göre ele alan görüştür. 1980’li yıllarda Ned Block ve John Searle gibi filozoflar işlevselciliğin deneyimin asli unsuru olan qualia’yı dışladığını iddia ederek bu görüşü eleştirmiştir. Qualia deneyimin öznel ve niteliksel özelliğidir. Block ve Searle’e göre bir zihin teorisi deneyimin öznel ve niteliksel yönüyle de hasaplaşabilmelidir. Bu makalede amacım qualia’ya dair bir açıklama sunmanın işlevselciliğin sınırlarının dışında olduğunu göstermektir. İşlevselcilik deneyimle ilgili ontolojik sorularla ilgilenmeyen, nedensel sorulara cevap bulmaya çalışan bir girişimdir. Buna rağmen işlevselci programa bağlı olup ontolojik çıkarımlar yapan felsefeciler mevcuttur. Örneğin Daniel Dennett bilincin bir tür bilgi işleme sistemi olduğunu söyler ve qualia’yı reddeder. Hilary Putnam ve David Chalmers gibi işlevselciler ise bilince dair ontolojik çıkarımlarda bulunmadıkları gibi qualiayı da reddetmezler. Bu noktada, teorileri ve onları savunan kişilerin motivasyonlarını birbirinden ayırarak Block ve Searle’ün eleştirilerinin işlevselcilikten ziyade Dennett gibi bazı işlevselcilere yönelik olarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini iddia edeceğim.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşlevselcilik
• Qualia
• Bilinç
• İşlev
• Çoklu Gerçeklenme

Kaynakça

1. Bickle, John. “Multiple Realizability” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Editör: Edward N. Zalta, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiple-realizability/
2. Blackmore, Susan. Bilinç: Çok Kısa Bir Başlangıç. Çeviren: Oğuz Akçelik, İstanbul: İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2018.
3. Block, Ned. “Troubles with Functionalism” in Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Editör: Ned Block, 268-305. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
4. Block, Ned. “Are Absent Qualia Impossible?,” Philosophical Review 89, (1980a): 257-274.
5. Brigandt, Ingo ve Alan Love, “Reductionism in Biology” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Editör: Edward N. Zalta, 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/
6. Chalmers, David. “Facing Up To The Problem of Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies no. 3 (1995): 200-219.
7. Chalmers, David J. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
8. Churchland, Paul M. Madde ve Bilinç: Zihin Felsefesine Güncel Bir Bakış. Çeviren: Berkay Ersöz, İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2012.

9. Cummins R. and D. D. Cummins. Minds Brains and Computers: The Foundations of Cognitive Science. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
10. Demircioğlu, Erhan. Makinedeki Hayalet. Ankara: Fol Yayınları, 2021.
11. Dennett, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co, 1991.
12. Fiegl, Herbert. “The ‘Mental’ and the ‘Physical,’ Minnesota Studies in The Philosophy of Science no.2 (1958): 370-497.
13. Fodor, A. Jerry. “Special Sciences (Or The Disunity of Sciences as a Working Hypothesis),” Synthesis 28 (2), (1974): 97-115.
14. Heil, John. Zihin Felsefesi: Çağdaş Bir Giriş. Çeviren: Seda Akbıyık ve Merve Bilgili, İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2020.
15. Hempel, Carl G. “The Logical Analysis of Psychology” in Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Editör: Ned Block, 14-24. London: London University Press. 1989.
16. Kim, Jaegwon. Mind in a Physical World. MIT Press, 2000.
17. Levin, Janet, “Functionalism” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Editör: Edward N. Zalta, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
18. Lewis, David. “Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50(3), (1972): 249–58.
19. Nagel, Thomas. “What Is It Like To Be a Bat,” Philosophical Review (83), (1974): 435-450.
20. Place, U. Thomas. “Is consciousness a Brain Process?,” British Journal of Psychology 47 (1), (1956): 44-50.
21. Priest, Stephan. Zihin Üzerine Teoriler. Çeviren: Ayhan Dereko, İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2018.
22. Putnam, Hilary. “The Nature of Mental States” in Art, Mind and Religion, Editör: W.H. Capitan and D.D. Meril, 223-231. Pittsburgh University Press., 1967.
23. Putnam, Hilary. Mind, Language, and Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
24. Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson Press, 1949.
25. Searle, John. “Minds, Brains and Programs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, (1980): 417-57.
26. Searle, John. Minds, Brains, and Science. Harward: Harward University Press, 1986.
27. Searle, John. Rediscovery of Mind. MIT Press, 1992.
28. Searle, John. Mystery of Consciousness. London: Granta Books, 1997.
29. Searle, John. Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
30. Shagrir, Oron. “Hilary Putnam ve Bilgisayar İşlevselciliği” Zihin Felsefesi içinde, Çeviren: Füsun Doruker, 177-201. Ankara: Fol Yayınları, 2019.
31. Smart, John J. C. “Sensations and Brain Processes,” Philosophical Review no. 68 (1959): 141-156.
32. Sober, Eliot. “Panglossian Functionalism and The Philosophy of Mind,” Synthese 2, sayı: 64 (1985): 165-193.
33. Sober, Eliot. “Putting the Function Back into the Functionalism,” Synthese 2, sayı: 64 (1990): 97-106.
34. Turing, Alan. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Mind 50, (1950): 433-460.
35. Vicari, Giuseppe. Beyond Conceptual Dualism. New York: New York University Press, 2008.