The status of qualia in naturalistic theories of consciousness

Philosophy

Authors

  • Ekaterina V. Uskova Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, 19, Mira st., Ekaterinburg, 620002, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2020-2-192-202

Keywords:

analytical philosophy, theory of consciousness, consciousness and the unconscious, qualia, phenomenal consciousness, mental states of consciousness,, physicalism, naturalism

Abstract

The article analyzes naturalistic theories of consciousness in the framework of analytical philosophy. The choice of these theories is due to the monistic interpretation of consciousness in them. This position seems, on the one hand, to be logically sound, and, on the other hand, to have sufficient explanatory power. However, there are weaknesses in this position, some of which are considered in the article. One of the obvious difficulties for any theory of consciousness, especially the naturalistic one, is the interpretation of qualia or the qualitative scope of our mental states. Scientists are faced with such questions as: «Why does it even exist?» and «What is its practical meaning?» We find possible answers to them in the theories of J. Searle, N. Humphrey, and F. Peters. Each of them agrees that consciousness is generated by the brain, but they differ in the interpretation of its ontological status. Nevertheless, their understanding of the epistemic status of consciousness is similar: correlation of views on consciousness from the position of the 3rd and 1st person is always problematic. At the same time, both consciousness itself and its qualitative scope can and should be explained within the framework of the evolutionary approach. It is obvious that none of the naturalistic theories of consciousness has yet given answers to all questions (if it is even possible), but the search for these answers, in our opinion, should be carried out precisely within this approach.

Author Biography

Ekaterina V. Uskova, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, 19, Mira st., Ekaterinburg, 620002, Russia

Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Departmentof Personnel Management and Psychology

References

Васильев В.В. Трудная проблема сознания. М.: Прогресс–Традиция, 2009. 272 с.

Вергаувен Р., Ищенко Е.Н. Проблема квалиа: онтологические и эпистемологические следствия // Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: Философия. 2018. № 4(30). С. 38–49.

Волков Д.В. Решение проблемы ментальной каузальности в биологическом натурализме Дж. Сёрля // Философская мысль. 2017. № 2. С. 1–12. URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=21743 (дата обращения: 02.04.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7256/2409-8728.2017.2.21743

Гаспарян Д.Э. Бои за эпистемическое первенство: трансцендентальные границы современного натурализма // Вопросы философии. 2014. № 12. С. 58–68.

Иванов Е.М. Тупики натуралистических теорий сознания и выход из них // Философская мысль. 2019. № 6. С. 13–38. URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=30360 (дата обращения: 02.04.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2019.6.30360

Леонтьев А.Н. Проблема возникновения ощущения // Избранные психологические произведения: в 2 т. М.: Педагогика, 1983. Т. 1. С. 143–183.

Сеченов И.М. Избранные философско-психологические труды. М.: Госполитиздат, 1947. 647 с.

Чалмерс Д. Сознающий ум. В поисках фундаментальной теории / пер. с англ. В.В. Васильева. М.: Либроком, 2013. 509 с.

Dennett D. Consciousness Explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1991. 511 p.

Humphrey N. The invention of consciousness // Topoi. 2017. Vol. 39, iss. 1. P. 13–21. URL: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11245-017-9498-0.pdf (accessed: 02.04.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9498-0

Nagel T. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? // The Philosophical Review. 1974. Vol. 83, iss. 4. P. 435–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914

Peters F. Consciousness should not be confused with qualia // Logos & Episteme. 2014. Vol. 5, iss. 1. P. 63–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20145123

Searle, J.R. Biological Naturalism // The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness / ed. by M. Velmans, S. Schneider. N.Y.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004. P. 325–334.

Searle J.R. Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1999. 192 p.

Searle J.R. Why I am not a property dualist // Philosophy in a new century (Selected essays). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. P. 152–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812859.010

References

Chalmers, D. (2013). Soznayuschiy um: v poiskakh fundamental’noy teorii, per. s angl. V.V. Vasil’eva [Conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. Trans. from Eng. by V.V. Vasiliev]. Moscow: Librokom Publ., 509 p.

Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company Publ., 511 p.

Gasparyan, D.E. (2014). Boi za epistemicheskoe pervenstvo: transtsendental’nye granitsy sovremennogo naturalizma [Fights for epistemic primacy: the transcendental boundaries of modern naturalism]. Voprosy filosofii [Russian Studies in Philosophy], No. 12, pp. 58–68.

Humphrey, N. (2017). The invention of consciousness. Topoi. Vol. 39, iss. 1, pp. 13–21. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11245-017-9498-0.pdf (accessed 02.04.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9498-0

Ivanov, E.M. (2019). Tupiki naturalisticheskikh teoriy soznaniya i vykhod iz nikh [Deadlocks of naturalistic theories of mind and the way out]. Filosofskaya mysl’ [Philosophical Thought]. No. 6, pp. 13–38. Available at: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=30360 (accessed 02.04.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2019.6.30360

Leontiev, A.N. (1983). Problema vozniknoveniya oschuscheniya [The problem of sensation]. Izbrannye psikhologicheskie proizvedeniya: v 2 t. [Selected psychological works: in 2 vols]. Moscow: Pedagogika Publ., vol. 1, pp. 143–183.

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review. Vol. 83, iss. 4, pp. 435–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914

Peters, F. (2014). Consciousness shoud not be confused with qualia. Logos & Episteme. Vol. 5, iss. 1, pp. 63–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20145123

Searle, J.R. (2004). Biological Naturalism. The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, ed. by M. Velmans and S. Schneider. New York: Wiley-Blackwell Publ., pp. 325–334.

Searle, J.R. (1999). Mind, language, and society: philosophy in the real world. New York: Basic Books Publ., 192 p.

Searle, J.R. (2008). Why I am not a property dualist. Philosophy in a new century (Selected essays). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812859.010

Sechenov, I.M. (1947). Izbrannye filosofsko-psihologicheskie trudy [Selected philosophical and psychological works]. Moscow: Gospolitizdat Publ., 647 p.

Vasil’ev, V.V. (2009). Trudnaya problema soznaniya [A hard problem of consciousness]. Moscow: Progress–Traditsiya Publ., 272 p.

Vergauven, R. and Ischenko, E.N. (2018). Problema kvalia: ontologicheskie i epistemologicheskie sledstviya [The qualia-problem: ontological and epistemological consequences]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series «Philosophy»]. No. 4(30), pp. 38–49.

Volkov, D.V. (2017). Reshenie problemy mental’noy kauzal’nosti v biologicheskom naturalizme Dzh. Serlya [Solving the problem of mental causation in the biological naturalism of J. Searle]. Filosofskaya mysl’ [Philosophical Thought]. No. 2, pp. 1–12. Available at: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article./php?id=21743 (accessed 02.04.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7256/2409-8728.2017.2.21743

Downloads

Published

2020-06-30

Issue

Вестник 2020 Выпуск 2 (2)

Section

Статьи

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.