The Great William James
Does it matter? The origins of our consciousness has been a source of philosophical debate throughout human history, but do the origins of consciousness really matter? If humans someday figure out the how and why of consciousness, will that in any way directly change or alter the way I have my experiences or conduct my daily life? Well, say Quantum Mechanics suddenly finds the missing key and unequivocally proves how consciousness works. What will I do? What will change for me? Ultimately, I am still going to get up at the same time tomorrow morning for work, drive the same route in the same car, enjoy my morning coffee and podcasts like every other morning and conduct my day in the same exact way I have in the past. So why focus on the origins of consciousness when it is the function consciousness brings us that truly matters.
The great William James presents us with the idea that our experiences, i.e. language, subjectivity, taste, etc., all enter as just that, experiences. They are already bundled and make up, what he coined, our stream of thought or consciousness, meaning we do not experience experiences as chopped up bits and pieces but as a continuous flow. It is only when we attempt to breakdown and analyze the stream into bits and pieces that it all seems to fall apart and we disrupt the original continuity. Therefore, our world is purely experiences and should instead be looked at as a function.
“I believe that 'consciousness,' when once it has evaporated to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of disappearing altogether. It is the name of a nonentity, and has no right to a place among first principles. Those who still cling to it are clinging to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the disappearing 'soul' upon the air of philosophy. During the past year, I have read a number of articles whose authors seemed just on the point of abandoning the notion of consciousness, and substituting for it that of an absolute experience not due to two factors. But they were not quite radical enough, not quite daring enough in their negations. For twenty years past I have mistrusted 'consciousness' as an entity; for seven or eight years past I have suggested its non-existence to my students, and tried to give them its pragmatic equivalent in realities of experience. It seems to me that the hour is ripe for it to be openly and universally discarded.” -William James, 1904
Why do some of us find ourselves struggling to accept this idea? Why does there seem to be some need to either prove or disprove the duality of consciousness? It is because of its nature. Consciousness seems to be something of the mind while also being something of the body. We can reasonably fit it into both categories. James give the example of paint. Paint in a can on a shelf at the store among many other cans of paint has a function of ‘saleable matter.’ Paint spread on a canvas among other paints hung in a museum has a ‘spiritual function.’ Since paint can fit into both categories, it has a dualistic nature. Human consciousness is the same. It can be agreed upon that science has made great advancements in exploring the human brain and has shown promise in providing insight into the relationship between the physical brain and consciousness, thus making consciousness a thing. Yet, due to our ability through consciousness to understand this knowledge or have awareness of our own awareness, this seems to categorize consciousness as a thought. Instead of worrying about whether consciousness is a thing or thought, ultimately, we are talking about the same ‘paint’. Philosopher George Berkeley once put it, ‘What common sense means by realities is exactly what the philosopher means by ideas.’
James, W. (1904). Does `Consciousness’ Exist? The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 1(18), 477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2011942
My Thoughts…
In short, James is arguing sure you can hypothesis all you want with thought experiments of rooms on fire and keeping a person locked up in a colorless bunker only to expose them to the color saturated outside world all you want but in real life application (meaning as we experience our world), the room would burn to the ground and it is clearly unethical to lock a person in a room making this extremely hard to test. Therefore, instead of looking at abstract mental examples to explain consciousness that can never be truly experienced by us, look at the practical function it brings in relation to the outside world we experience. Dr. Phil Oliver of MTSU explains in his book, “Like a cup of strong coffee, many of the unexceptional events of daily life may yield exceptional moments. When I walk for an hour or more, I almost always experience at least a fleeting sense of heightened significance. There are natural- chemical explanations of this, of course, having to do with the body's production of endorphins, the presence or absence of dopamine and other natural substances, and so forth. A naturalist admits and welcomes such explanations, and their contextual relevance to a physiological account of human functioning. But a walker does not want to hear about it, not while he is walking and not when he recalls the pleasures of walking. Is that because he prefers an ostrich-like posture or has a compelling ‘will to make-believe’? Bertrand Russell might say so, but James charitably presumes not; and as a walker I prefer simply to say that I take my walking experience seriously.” (Oliver, 2001). The ordinary experience had with a cup of coffee is more real to us than extravagant imagined scenarios. So, does this mean my hopes of finding some grand, glitter-filled explanation of how mysteriously divine and elegant the existence of consciousness is should be abandoned or holds misplaced hope? Not necessarily. James is not opposed to there being or us finding the origins and explanations of consciousness however if it were to be found he would simply ask, what practical difference would it make to you or I? In a discussion with Dr. Oliver he pointed this out by saying, “That is why James's pragmatism is also a pluralism. If a Penrose theory or a Dennett theory or a Pinker theory turns out to have positive practical consequences for those who somehow ‘act upon’ it, he'd be first in line to say it's been pragmatically ‘verified.’"
Oliver, P. (2001). William James’s "Springs of delight : the return to life”. Vanderbilt Univ. Press.