A Brief Analysis of the Puzzle of Consciousness

Abstract

The challenging problem of consciousness, or more traditionally the mind-body problem, continues to maintain its vitality and importance despite all philosophical theories and advances in neuroscience, artificial intelligence and technology. The problem of consciousness has been addressed by both philosophers and scientists from ancient times to the present. In the most general sense, the problem of consciousness, also known as the hard problem, is the problem of how subjective mental states arise from a physical piece of meat. The main purpose of this article is to present a categorical and explanatory analysis of this puzzle of consciousness, which is still important today. For this purpose, first of all, the definitions of the concept of consciousness in the literature will be examined in depth. Afterwards, the characteristics of consciousness that are untamed for science, which turns it into the hard problem for us, will be touched upon, and the puzzle of consciousness will be explained with Chalmers' distinction between easy problems and the hard problem of consciousness. Finally, it is aimed to complete this explanatory analysis on the puzzle of consciousness by making a categorical distinction between traditional solution-oriented approaches to the problem of consciousness.

Keywords

• Concept of Consciousness
• The Puzzle of Consciousness
• Subjective Consciousness
• The Hard Problem of Consciousness
• Traditional Solution-Oriented Approaches

Bilinç Bilmecesinin Kısa Bir Analizi

Öz

Bilinç problemi ya da daha geleneksel bir ifadeyle zihin-beden problemi, tüm felsefi teorilere ve nörobilim, yapay zekâ ve teknolojideki ilerlemelere rağmen canlılığını ve önemini korumaya devam etmektedir. Bilinç problemi, antik çağlardan günümüze kadar hem filozoflar hem de bilim insanları tarafından ele alınmıştır. En genel manasıyla, zor problem olarak da bilinen bilinç problemi, öznel zihinsel durumların, fiziksel bir et parçasından nasıl ortaya çıktığı problemidir. Bu makalenin temel amacı, günümüzde hala önemini koruyan bu bilinç bilmecesinin kategorik ve açıklayıcı bir analizini sunmaktır. Bu amaçla öncelikle bilinç kavramının literatürdeki tanımları derinlemesine incelenecektir. Sonrasında bilincin bilim için ehlileştirilemeyen, onu bizim için zor bir probleme dönüştüren özelliklerine değinilecek ve Chalmers'ın bilincin kolay problemleri ve zor problemi ayrımıyla bilinç bilmecesi açıklanacaktır. Son olarak bilinç problemine yönelik geleneksel çözüm odaklı yaklaşımlar arasında kategorik bir ayrım yapılarak bilinç bilmecesine ilişkin bu açıklayıcı analizin tamamlanması amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilinç Kavramı
• Bilinç Bilmecesi
• Öznel Bilinç
• Bilincin Zor Problemi
• Geleneksel Çözüm Odaklı Yaklaşımlar

Kaynakça

1. Alexander, Samuel. Space Time and Deity. London: Macmillan, 1966.
2. Arici, Murat. “The Problem of Phenomenal Consciousness,” MetaMind no. 1 (2018): 1-19.
3. Blackmore, Susan. Consciousness: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2013.
4. Block, Ned. “Concepts of Consciousness” in Philosophy of Mind: Contemporary Readings, Edited by David J. Chalmers, 208-216. Oxford University Press, 2002.
5. Block, Ned. “On a Confusion about the Function of Consciousness,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18, (1995): 227-47.
6. Block, Ned. “Troubles with Functionalism,” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9, (1978): 261-325.
7. Chalmers, David. Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
8. Chalmers, David. The Character of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

9. Churchland, Patricia Smith. Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
10. Churchland, Paul Montgomery. “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes,” The Journal of Philosophy 78, no. 2 (1981): 67-90.
11. Churchland, Paul Montgomery. “Reduction, Qualia and the Direct Introspection of Brain States,” The Journal of Philosophy 82, no. 1 (1985): 8-28.
12. Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes: Volume II. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
13. Feser, Edward. The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction. UK: Oneworld Publication, 2005.
14. Gennaro, Rocco. Consciousness. London: Routledge, 2016.
15. Jackson, Frank. “Epiphenomenal Qualia,” Philosophical Quarterly 32, (1982 April): 127-36.
16. James, William. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1890.
17. Kim, Jeagwon. Philosophy of Mind. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2011.
18. Kriegel, Uriah. “Mysterianism” in The Oxford Companion to Consciousness, Edited by T. Bayne, A. Cleermans, & P. Wilken, 461-62. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
19. Levine, Joseph. Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Conscious Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
20. Lewis, Clarence Irving. Mind and the World Order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929.
21. Lycan, William. “Resisting ?ism” in Consciousness and Its Place in Nature, Edited by A. Freeman, 65-71. Imprint Academic, 2006.
22. Mack, Arien and Irvin Rock. Inattentional Blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
23. Mole, Chiristopher. “Attention and Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 15, no. 4 (2008): 86-104.
24. Nagel, Thomas. “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,” The Philosophical Review 83, no. 4 (1974): 435-450.
25. Nida-Rümelin, Martine. “Pseudonormal Vision: An Actual Case of Qualia Inversion?,” Philosophical Studies 82, (1996): 145-157.
26. Papineau, David and Howard Selina. Introducing Consciousness. UK: Icon Books, 2000.
27. Place, Ullin Thomas. “Is Consciousness a Brain Process?,” British Journal of Psychology 47, (1956): 44-50.
28. Putnam, Hilary. “Psychological Predicates” in Art Mind and Religion, Edited by W. H. Capitan, D. D. Merrill, 37-48. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
29. Rosenthal, David. “A Theory of Consciousness” in The Nature of Consciousness, Edited by Ned Block, Owen J. Flanagan and Guven Guzeldere, 729-753. MIT Press, 1997.
30. Rosenthal, David. “State Consciousness and Transitive Consciousness,” Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal 2, no. 4 (1997): 355-363.
31. Seager, William. “Consciousness, information, and panpsychism,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 272-88.
32. Searle, John. “How to study consciousness scientifically,” Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B 353, (1998): 1935-42.
33. Simons, Daniel and Chabris, Christopher. “Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events,” Perception 28, no. 9 (1999): 1059-1074.
34. Smart, John Jamieson Carswell. “Sensations and Brain Processes,” The Philosophical Review 68, (1959): 141-56.
35. Thompson, Evan. Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015.
36. Tononi, Giuilo. “Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto,” Biology Bulletin 215, (2008): 216-242.