Does Consciousness Exist?

Rachael Dziechciarz

The short answer is no. For James, consciousness does not exist as an entity, but more as a function of how humans "know" things in the outer world. However, since this is hard to grasp intuitively, more explanation is necessary to understand what exactly James means. Consciousness is impersonal, and merely shows that humans have an "awareness of content" (James 2) of what rests around them and what happens to them.

Before James' radical view of consciousness, many philosophers and psychologists held the idea that consciousness undeniably existed, yet they could offer no proof as to how it came to be or what it exactly is. James feels that his definition of what consciousness actually is, both a thought and a thing, is a more pragmatic way of defining how people relate their experiences of the past and present. He uses an example of how we are conscious of the room that we are sitting in. The room is both physically in front of us, and simultaneously in our minds. There are two ways to process the external world, both of which are important and "whole" in their own ways. The first is a personal biography, which is your own experience or memory of the room. The second is the history of that which is related to the room, like the house where the room is located. This compiles a lot of information about practically everything related to the room, from the history of the house to the neighborhood that the house is in. Both are valid ways to process the room, and both constitute our awareness or 'consciousness' of the room. There is only one room, yet there are two ways in which to be aware of it.

This analogy relates to human 'consciousness' because James argues that everything is pure experience, yet this can still be divided into thoughts and things. I think that the quote in James' piece by Professor Munsterberg best sums up this idea: "The object of which I think, and of whose existence I take cognizance without letting it now work upon my senses, occupies its definite place in the outer world as much as does the object which I directly see." In short, thoughts and the things that are thought about are one and the same. Both require a relationship with the past and the present, as well as a relationship with the outer and inner world where they exist (simultaneously).

Expected arguments against James and his rebuttal:

Argument: If experience has no 'consciousness,' then what is it?
Reply: Pure experience is everything, basically whatever it is you are conscious of. There is no universal element to consciousness, instead it is particularly and directly related to the specific thought or thing (for example: heavy, purple, sharp, etc.).

Argument: If thought and thing are the same "pure experience" in two different realms, then why are they so fundamentally different?
Reply: The difference between thought and thing lies only in the consequences. Each has the same "pure experience," yet as a thing the outcomes are real, and as a thought the outcomes can be whatever you choose. James uses the example that "mental knives may be sharp, but they won't cut real wood." (James 8)

Argument: How can you deny the existence of consciousness, when I know that I am conscious of what I do and who I am, and I can feel the thought and flow of consciousness within me?Reply: The ideas behind ‘consciousness’ (thought up by philosophers) come from the same continuous action of breathing. It is a convenient way to describe the mental processes that are present every moment, but should not suggest that an actual 'conscious' entity exists within the human being.

James' best sums up his argument for the non-existence of consciousness at the end of his essay, " That entity [consciousness] is fictitious, while thoughts in the concrete are fully real. But thoughts in the concrete are made of the same stuff as things are."This reiterates James' view that the 'consciousness' that people think they are aware of is more of the way they experience the world and relate experiences in the world. Furthermore, he states again that the dichotomy of thought and things is not what it was in the past. After all, isn't a thought merely a thing in our mind?