SavedAdd your journal

Journals / MetaZihin: Yapay Zeka ve Zihin Felsefesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

Neurophenomenology: A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem (Francisco J. Varela)

Nörofenomenoloji: Zor Problem için Metodolojik Bir Çözüm Yolu (Francisco J. Varela)

Pages
225–254
Publication Date
2026-01-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It needs to expand into a widening research community in which the method is cultivated further.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper starts with one of Chalmers basic points: first-hand experience is an irreducible field of phenomena.
📊
Key Findings & Data:I claim there is no theoretical fix or extra ingredient in nature that can possibly bridge this gap.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It needs to expand into a widening research community in which the method is cultivated further.
🔬Design:Çeviri
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:nörofenomenoloji · fenomenoloji · bilinç

Abstract

This paper starts with one of Chalmers basic points: first-hand experience is an irreducible field of phenomena. I claim there is no theoretical fix or extra ingredient in nature that can possibly bridge this gap. Instead, the field of conscious phenomena requires a rigorous method and an explicit pragmatics for its exploration and analysis. My proposed approach, inspired by the style of inquiry of phenomenology, I have called neurophenomenology. It seeks articulations by mutual constraints between phenomena present in experience and the correlative field of phenomena established by the cognitive sciences. It needs to expand into a widening research community in which the method is cultivated further.

Özet

Bu makale, Chalmers’ın temel iddialarından biriyle başlar: Birinci elden deneyim indirgenemez bir fenomenler alanıdır. Bu uçurumu kapatabilecek teorik bir çözüm ya da doğada fazladan bir bileşen olmadığını öne sürüyorum. Bunun yerine, bilinç fenomenleri, keşif ve analizi için titiz bir yöntem ve açık bir pragmatiğe ihtiyaç duyar. Fenomenolojinin araştırma tarzından ilham alan ve “nörofenomenoloji” adını verdiğim yaklaşımım, deneyimde açığa çıkan fenomenler ile bilişsel bilimler tarafından ortaya konan korelasyonel fenomenler alanı arasındaki karşılıklı kısıtlamalar aracılığıyla açıklamalar geliştirmeyi hedefler. Bu yöntemin daha geniş bir araştırma topluluğunda geliştirilmesi ve ilerletilmesi gerekir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Anonim (2026). Neurophenomenology: A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem (Francisco J. Varela). MetaZihin: Yapay Zeka ve Zihin Felsefesi Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 225–254. https://doi.org/10.51404/metazihin.1788394

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Abrams, D. (1996). The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York: Pantheon.
  2. Baars, B. J. (1998). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Bernet, R. (1994). La Vie Du Sujet. Paris: Preesses Universitaires de France.
  4. Calvin, W. H. (1990). Cerebral Symphony: Seashore Reflections on the Structure of Consciousness. New York: Bantam Books.
  5. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). “Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3): 200-219.
  6. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. Churchland, P. S. ve Sejnowski, T. J. (1992). The Computational Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Scribner’s.
  9. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
  10. Davidson, R. J. ve Sutton, S. K. (1995). “Affective Neuroscience: The Emergence of a Discipline.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5(2): 217-224.
  11. De Waal, F. (1996). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans, and Other Animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  12. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  13. Dennett, D. C. ve Kinsbourne, M. (1992). “Time and the Observer: The Where and When of Consciousness in the Brain.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(2): 183-247.
  14. Depraz, N. (1996). Incarnation et Transcendance. Paris: Vrin.
  15. Depraz, N., Varela, F. J. ve Vermersch, P. (2003). On Becoming Aware: A Pragmatics of Experiencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  16. Dreyfus, H. L. (1982). Husserl: Intentionality and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Dreyfus, H. L. (1993). “Review of the Embodied Mind.” Mind, 102: 542-546.
  18. Edelman, G. M. (1989). The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness. New York: Basic Books.
  19. Flanagan, O. (1992). Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Globus, G. (1995). The Post-Modern Brain. New York: Benjamin.
  21. Howe, R. B. (1991). “Introspection: A Reassessment.” New Ideas in Psychology, 9(1): 24-44.
  22. Husserl, E. (1962). The Idea of Phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  23. Husserl, E. (1966). Zur Phänomenologie Des Inneren Zeitbewusstseins (1893-1917) (R. Boehm, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Partial English Translation: The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness. Bloomington: Indiana University Press (1996).
  24. Hut, P. ve Shepard, R. (1996). “Turning the Hard Problem Upside Down and Sideways.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4): 313-329.
  25. Ihde, D. (1977). Experimental Phenomenology. New York: Open Court.
  26. Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  27. James, W. (1912/1995). The Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  28. Jeannerod, M. (1994). “The Representing Brain: Neural Correlates of Motor Intention and Imagery.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(2): 187-245.
  29. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  30. Klein, P. ve Wescott, M. R. (1994). “The Changing Character of Phenomenological Psychology.” Canadian Psychology, 35(2): 133-157.
  31. Koch, C. (1996). “Review of the Conscious Mind.” Nature, 381: 123.
  32. Langsdorf, L. (1985). “Review of Husserl: Intentionality and Cognitive Science.” Husserl Studies, 3: 303-311.
  33. Leder, D. (1991). The Absent Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Libet, B. (1985). “Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4): 529-566.
  35. Leopold, D. A. ve Logothetis, N. K. (1996). “Activity Changes in Early Visual Cortex Reflect Monkeys’ Percepts During Binocular Rivalry.” Nature, 379(6565): 549-553.
  36. Lyons, W. (1986). The Disappearance of Introspection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  37. Lyotard, J.-F. (1954). La Phénoménologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  38. McGinn, C. (1991). The Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Blackwell.
  39. McInerney, P. (1991). Time and Experience. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  40. McIntyre, R. (1986). “Husserl and the Representational Theory of Mind.” Topoi, 5: 101-113.
  41. Mangan, B. (1993). “Taking Phenomenology Seriously: The Fringe and Its Implications for Cognitive Research.” Consciousness and Cognition, 2(2): 89-108.
  42. Mazoyer, B., Roland, P. E. ve Fox, P. T. (1995). “International Conference on Fuctional Mapping of the Human Brain.” Human Brain Mapping, Supplement 1.
  43. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.
  44. Nagel, T. (1986). The View From Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.
  45. Pessoa, L., Thompson, E. ve Noe, A. (1998). “Finding Out About Filing-In.” Behavioral and Brain Science, 21: 723-748.
  46. Petitot, J. (1995). “Sciences Cognitives et phénoménologie.”Archives de Philosophie, 58(4): 529-532.
  47. Petitot, J., Varela, F. J., Pachoud, B. ve Roy, J.-M. (Ed.). (1999). Naturalizing Phenomenology: Issues in Contemporary Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  48. Picton, T. W. ve Stuss, D. T. (1994). “Neurobiology of Conscious Experience.” Current Biology, 4(2): 256-265.
  49. Posner, M. I. (1994). “Attention: The Mechanisms of Consciousness.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 91(16): 7398-7403.
  50. Posner, M. I. ve Raichle, M. E. (1994). Images of Mind. New York: Scientific American Library.
  51. Roy, J. –M. (1995). “Le ‘Dreyfus Bridge’: Husserlianism and Fodorism.” Archives de Philosophie, 58: 533-549.
  52. Searle, J. R. (1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  53. Smith, B. C. (1996). “Who’s On Third? Subjectivity at the Physical Basis of Consciousness.” Consciousness Research Abstracts, s. 53.
  54. Singer, W. (1993). “Synchronization of Cortical Activity and its Putative Role in Information Processing and Learning.” Annual Review of Physiology, 55: 349-374.
  55. Spiegelberg, H. (1962). The Phenomenological Movement. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  56. Thompson, E. ve Varela, F. J. (1996). “Why the Mind is Not in the Head.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19: 1-15.
  57. Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of Biological Autonomy. New York: North-Holland.
  58. Varela, F. J. (1995). “Resonant Cell Assemblies: A New Approach to Cognitive Functioning and Neuronal Synchrony.” Biological Research, 28(1): 81-95.
  59. Varela, F. J. (1996). “The Specious Present: A Neurophenomenology of Time Consciousness.” J. Petitot., F. J. Varela., B. Pachoud ve J. M. Roy (Ed.), Naturalizing Phenomenology içinde (s. 226-314). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  60. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. ve Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  61. Velmans, M. (1996). The Science of Consciousness. London: Routledge.
  62. Vermersch, P. (1994). L’entretien D’explicitation. Paris: ESF.