In another passage, he associates consciousness with the act of breathing: "Let the case be what it may in others, I am as confident as I am of anything that, in myself, the stream of thinking (which I recognize emphatically as a phenomenon) is only a careless name for what, when scrutinized, reveals itself to consist chiefly of the stream of my breathing. The 'I think' which Kant said must be able to accompany all my objects, is the 'I breath' which actually does accompany them. There are other internal facts besides breathing (intracephalic muscular adjustments, etc., of which I have said a word in my larger Psychology), and these increase the assets of 'consciousness,' so far as the latter is subject to immediate perception; but breath, which was ever the original of 'spirit,' breath moving outwards, between the glottis and the nostrils, is, I am persuaded, the essence out of which philosophers have constructed the entity known to them as consciousness. That entity is fictitious, while thoughts in the concrete are fully real. But thoughts in the concrete are made of the same stuff as things are."
A blog dedicated to philosophy, history, politics, literature
Friday, 8 March 2019
Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?
In another passage, he associates consciousness with the act of breathing: "Let the case be what it may in others, I am as confident as I am of anything that, in myself, the stream of thinking (which I recognize emphatically as a phenomenon) is only a careless name for what, when scrutinized, reveals itself to consist chiefly of the stream of my breathing. The 'I think' which Kant said must be able to accompany all my objects, is the 'I breath' which actually does accompany them. There are other internal facts besides breathing (intracephalic muscular adjustments, etc., of which I have said a word in my larger Psychology), and these increase the assets of 'consciousness,' so far as the latter is subject to immediate perception; but breath, which was ever the original of 'spirit,' breath moving outwards, between the glottis and the nostrils, is, I am persuaded, the essence out of which philosophers have constructed the entity known to them as consciousness. That entity is fictitious, while thoughts in the concrete are fully real. But thoughts in the concrete are made of the same stuff as things are."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
James was essentially correct. There *is* an entity involved in thinking, the brain - and there is a stuff involved in thinking, the gray matter (neurons) of the brain. The analogy to the lungs is apt. There is an entity involved in breathing, the lungs - and there is a stuff involved in breathing, the tissues and cells of the lungs and bronchial tubes (as well as the diaphragm, the nasal passages, etc.). But there is no additional entity lurking in the brain - no soul, no mind, etc. - that causes it to think, any more than there is an additional entity lurking in the lungs that causes it to breathe.
Roger, That is a good point. In fact, I liked this article by James. He offers several wise perspectives and ends his essay on a very non-dogmatic note, which shows that he understands the complications of the subject.
Post a Comment