چکیده:
چکیدهیکی از رویکرد هایی که مدعی پاسخگویی به مساله آگاهی است رویکرد فضای کاری عصبی است که تلاش می کند با بررسی دقیق بر روی ساختارهای همبسته های عصبی به ما بگوید کدام فعالیت های نورونی با آگاهی همبسته اند.در مقابل تئوری حسی حرکتی ایده ای است که بیان می کند درک آگاهانه به واسطه بازنمود های ذهنی یا کارکردهای محاسباتی مغز ایجاد نمی شود؛بلکه بواسطه تعامل مستقیم با محیط حاصل می شود .در واقع عوامل ادراکی به شکلی منفعلانه واجد تجربیاتشان از دنیا نمی شوند .تجربه کردن اتفاقی نیست که در ما رخ بدهد بلکه آن چیزی است که ما انجام می دهیم . ما بر اثر کنش گری با جهان خارجی ضوابط حاکم بر جهان را بواسطه بدنی که در موقعیت خاصی است، کشف می کنیم.هم رویکرد حسی حرکتی و هم رویکرد فضای کاری عصبی مدعی پاسخگویی به شکاف تبینی در مساله آگاهی هستند . برخی نیز تلاش می کنند با تلفیق این دو دیدگاه به این چالش پاسخ دهند. در اینجا نشان داده می شود نه تنها تئوری حسی حرکتی به تنهایی قادر به حل شکاف تبینی نیست ، توسل به فضای کاری عصبی نیزراه حل مناسبی برای این چالش نخواهد بود.
Introduction: Probably, the answer to the difficult problem of
consciousness is one of the most complicated problems in the philosophy
of mind. At the same time, consciousness is very familiar to us, but it
seems difficult to explain it. So far, many theories have come up to answer
the difficult problem of consciousness. One of these theories is the
sensory-motor approach claims that the rules between sensory inputs and
motor outputs are able to explain the phenomenal quality. Adherents of the
neural workspace approach try to explain consciousness by separating
personal and sub-personal space and consider consciousness to be the
result of what happens at the personal level. Sensory-motor approaches
have problems in explaining their claim. Degnar believe that the
integration of sensory-motor and neural workspace solves the challenges
of both well.
Methodology: The research method in this article is descriptive and the
challenges in both approaches have been addressed as much as possible.
Findings: Neural workspace theories alone face the challenge of
considering only the internal aspects of the brain and neural processes
responsible for creating consciousness. Although they can provide
explanations about the neural correlates of consciousness, they cannot
explain the quality of a experience tells us something. In contrast,
embodied approaches tried to solve this problem by moving away from the
idea that perception is something related to our brains. They try to attribute
conscious understanding to a person with a body who is in a certain
position and is interacting with the world. Oregan claims mastery of the
sensorimotor rules that we acquire in interaction with the environment
alone to explain How to get consciousness is enough, but despite the
efforts of the organization, such a view has serious challenges. Although
Degennar tries to create a coherent structure of these two theories, he does
not reach the desired result. Therefore, the combination of these two views
may be a relatively suitable explanation to describe the extroverted and
introverted aspects of awareness, but it cannot explain the quality of
consciousness.
What these approaches should answer exactly is why combining these
approaches and structuring them with each other creates a certain
complexity, after which we get a phenomenal feeling. The combination of
sensorimotor and workspace approaches, contrary to their claims, do not
have the ability to respond to the absolute gap of explanation. The
integration of such views may be able to provide descriptions about the
comparative gap, but the question still remains, why are some of our
experiences associated with consciousness?
Conclusion: According to sensorimotor approach, they have many
descriptive problems in response to such a challenge. Although
sensorimotor theories have relative success by combining bodily actions
with the outside world and trying to distance themselves from the
explanation of consciousness through brain processes, there is always this
question. that all that is talked about as the discovery of meaning and
consciousness, apart from the fact that it takes place in the brain or in our
bodily interactions under a series of sensorimotor criteria, in what context
does such views happen ?
this view by discarding concepts such as the soul or The human ego
considers such concepts responsible for the mysteriousness of the
intellectual space regarding the way of perception, but they do not provide
much explanation about the self that is discovering external meanings.