The Specious Present

1
The Specious Present

• the short duration of which we are immediately
  and incessantly sensible
• James

2
Consciousness
Time
Specious Present
time as it most directly and distinctively
manifests in experience
3
BUT specious present particularly controversial
( baffling)
Does it really exist?
Isnt it paradoxical?
4
My aims

• Survey the main options comment on James
  position
• Isolate some key assumptions motivating the
  different positions
• Defend a neo-Jamesian conception
• Counter some recent criticisms of Sean Kellys
• Explore a few implications

5
Specious Present why believe?

Primary reason to make sense of our experience
6
change itself is one of the things immediately
experienced. (James,WPE)

• Some changes too slow to be perceived (growth
  of oak tree).
• Some are too fast (speeding bullet).
• Some are just right we directly apprehend them.

7
Seeing motion
8
Enter SP all the changes in place of a meteor
seem to be contained in the present. (Clay)

1 sec
t2
t1
So our direct perceptual awareness cant be
confined to a durationless instant
9
Further data phenomenal depth
Most simple sensations have some temporal depth
Strictly durationless tone hard to conceive
10
More generally (typical) streams of
consciousness are continuous
each phase is experienced as giving way to the
next
11
A puzzle about length a core of about a dozen
seconds, up to a minute (James)
Were not directly aware of what we experienced
a minute ago
Or even a few seconds!
12
(Partially) plausible diagnosis
James the practically cognized present is no
knife-edge, but a saddleback
SP proper (e.g. 1sec)
Vivid anticipations
Vivid short-term memories
13
Making sense of SP two main models

• Retentionalist
• immediate experience of change occurs in a single
  moment
• specious present does not really extend through
  time

• Extensionalist
• immediate experience of change is not confined to
  a single moment
• specious present is spread through time

14
Extensionalism 1 SP
specious present
B
C
real (clock) time
15
Extensionalism streams of SPs
succession of tones
Pulse version (Whitehead, Sprigge)
succession of tones
Overlap version (Russell, Foster)
16
Retentionalist Model 1 SP
more past
B
less past
Specious present
C
D
E
clock time
B
C
D
E
17
Retentionalist Model 3 SPs
succession of tones in real time
18
Retentionalist Model full glory
succession of tones in real time
19
James Retentionalist or Extentionalist??
20
Sean Kelly (recent recommendation)

• Specious present what James was committed to
• James Extensionalist

• So distinguish specious present theories from
  Retentionalist approaches

21
James Extensionalist?
stream doctrine
duration-blocks
22
James Stream doctrine
experiences unified by soul-substance (rationalis
m)
experiences not unified (empiricism)
REJECT
Experience unifies itself, synchronically
diachronicallyvia conjunctive relations
23
Conjunctive relations

• The conjunctive relation that has given most
  trouble to philosophy is the co-conscious
  transition, so to call it, by which one
  experience passes into another when both belong
  to the same self. this sense of continuity in
  that most intimate of all conjunctive relations
  (WPE)

24
But James Retentionalist!
The knowledge of some other part of the stream,
past or future, near or remote, is always mixed
in with knowledge of the present thing
Volkmann has expressed the matter admirably if
A and B are to be represented as occurring in
succession they must be simultaneously
represented
25
James SP diagram pure Retentionalism!
The feeling of past time is a present feeling
specious present
B
C
D
E
clock time
B
C
D
E
26
Diagnosis

• In Principles James is pulled in different
  directions
• Retentionalist when in scientific mode
• Extentionalist when in phenomenological/philosophi
  cal mode

27
Terminological Recommendation

• Specious Present for any account which
  attributes apparent temporal depth to experience
• E.g. Retentionalism
• E.g. Extensionalism

28
Retentionalism main advocates
Kant
Ward
James(/2)
Lockwood
Brentano
Broad (L)
Husserl
Dobbs
29
Retentionalism motivation (i)
Avoid!
awareness
Past Present Future

• Can we really be directly aware of what lies in
  the past? (Or the future?) Or is clairvoyance
  commonplace?

30
Retentionalism motivation (ii)

• Simultaneous Unity Thesis (SUT)
• to be apprehended as successive, contents must
  be presented together in consciousness at the
  same moment
• regarded as axiomatic by Volkmann, Ward, James,
  Husserl, Dobbs

31
SUT
entails
Retentionalism
32
Objections to Retention 1
Why arent these experienced as a chord, rather
than a succession?
B
specious present
C
D
E
time
B
C
D
E
33
Main solutions
Broads presentedness Dobbs gravitas
Husserls retentions
unclear
implausible
No matter it still may be possible for momentary
experience to have apparent temporal depth
34
Objection 2 phenomenologically dubious
Are we really aware, at each moment, of a
temporal spread of content?
Im only aware of whats happening now!
35
Objection 3 expensive and exotic
Multiplies total quantity of experience in
universe
retentions
36
Exotic Dobbs ( Broad) properly viewed,
retention model two-dimensional time
Specious present
Experiential (extensive) time
Ordinary (transition) time
37
2-D time construal fully justified
more past
B
less past
temporal interval
C
D
E
clock time
B
C
D
E
38
2-d time view vulnerable
Phenomenal time
ordinary time
Surprising important discovery?
Or needless posit?
39
Objection 4 James insight lost?
Stream fragmented
Stream adjacent phases UNIFIED
40
Extensionalist Alternative?
41
Two Extensionalisms
stream
Pulse version
stream
Overlap version
42
Fragments stream
succession of tones
BETTER secures continuity of consciousness
succession of tones
43
Overlap Model basic ingredients
Jamesian duration block
single specious present
Parts spread across time AND experienced together
as a succession
44
Diachronic co-consciousness directly
experienced succession/persistence
A
B
A
B
Doesnt mean hearing A and simultaneously
hearing B (i.e.before it has occurred!)
Does mean directly hearing A-being-followed-by-B
45
Diachronic co-consciousness
In consciousness together, but as a succession
(not simultaneously retentional model)
46
Overlap model from blocks to streams
Stream of consciousness
47
Overlap no (unwanted) duplications
D
C
SP1
D
E
SP2
E
F
SP3
Overlapping SPs possess common parts (D in SP1
D in SP2, etc)
48
What explains the apparent direction of
experience?

• The asymmetric character of diachronic
  co-consciousness relationship?

• The intrinsic character of phenomenal contents?

More economical option
49
Duration-blocks inherently dynamic
motion!
motion!
50
Overlap but no temporal modes (
austere)
Jamesian saddleback
more past
just past
present
we have a constant feeling sui generis of
pastness, to which every one of our experiences
falls prey James
qualities/intrinsic properties
51
Modes are intelligible in Retentionalist Model
succession of tones in real time
3 numerically distinct experiences - varying
properties not a problem
52
Not in Overlap Model
present
SP1
D
C
D
SP2
E
just past
A single experience, at a particular time, cant
have different and incompatible intrinsic
properties at that time!
53
But with dynamic contents, temporal modes arent
needed to account for perceived passage
motion!
motion!
54
Extension (certain forms) of Retention
Realistic specious present
anticipations
Fringe feelings images
sensory core
short-term memories (echoes)
55
Was James an Overlap Extensionalist?

• At times .

56
lingerings of the past dropping
successivelyaway, and the incomings of the
future making up the loss
57
Extension/Overlap v. Retentionalism
KEY ISSUE
Simultaneous Unity Thesis
58
Accepting Overlap rejecting SUT
Non-simultaneous
C
D
But unified experienced together
59
Why accept SUT?
James accommodate Kantian insight
A certain conception of time
A metaphysical assumption
60
James A succession of feelings, in and of
itself, is not a feeling of succession
True! But
Diachronic co-consciousness
CDE
C
D
E
C
D
E
Difference can be explained in Extensional way
also
61
2nd Motivation a Neo-Rationalist Assumption?

• Eg unity of consciousness requires something
  SIMPLE (non-extended, part-free)
• - so a temporal spread of content must be
  unified by a non-extended experiencing
• Question why believe this?

62
Antidote a relevant spatial analogue
PHENOMENAL EXPANSE
ALL SPATIAL PARTS EXPERIENCED TOGETHER
63
If we reject
point of awareness
then
Unity a product of inter-experiential relations
(in Jamesian style)
64
IF CO-CONSCIOUSESSCAN CROSS SPACE, WHY NOT TIME?
specious present
65
Why SUT?
3nd motivation
Tacit commitment to presentism?
66
If reality is like this
No past
No future
time
then Extensionalism cant be true
67
Obvious observation

• 19th century Presentism (probably) very common

• 21st century less common (among philosophers)
• 4-d world-view more prevalent

68
4-d perspective extension through (space)time
unproblematic
4-d hunk of wood (perduring)
4-d stream of experience
69
So

• SUT less than wholly compelling
• Hence overlap theory remains a live option
• maybe the better option (assuming we want a SP at
  all)

70
Sean Kellys (main) objectionsto Extensionalism?
71

• how can we be aware
• of whats no longer
• happening?

awareness
No only a diachronic co-consciousness relation
past
future
(not as problematic as)
72
2. Cant explain how successive specious
presents are related
Yes it can via overlap
73
3. Cant explain perceived change
Yes it can via animated contents within
duration blocks
motion!
motion!
74
Overlap Theory implications
75
An argument (sketch) for dualism

• There is no temporal passage in the physical
  world (McTaggart, relativity, etc.)
• There is temporal passage in experience.
• So experience is non-physical.

76
But Overlap Theory looks to be compatible with
4-d cosmology
77
2 explanations for limited span of SP
non-existence of past future
short-span of diachronic co-consciousness
looks compatible with 4-d worldview
78
But what about flow? Doesnt experience have a
felt direction?
Doesnt require universal becoming/annihilation
Yes but phenomenal flow intrinsic feature of
experience
No more (or less) a problem for materialism than
phenomenal colour
79
Objection accounts of SP should be
metaphysically neutral.Retentionalism
compatible with all conceptions of time Overlap
Theory isnt.
80
True!
Ret Ext
Yes Yes
Yes ?
Yes No
Eternal block
Growing Block
Presentism
81
But

• Why must SP-theories be metaphysically neutral?

• Mightnt SP provide empirical evidence for the
  nature of time in our universe?
• Why shouldnt SP offer some clues as to the
  nature of time?

82
Illustration

• Julian Barbour
• Quantum Gravity
• Wheeler-De Witt equation
• Universe collection of 3-d slices existing in
  phase space/platonia

• Our experience is confined to momentary time
  capsules
• Temporal unity of world illusion

83
Time Capsules specious presents
Platonia/Phase Space
84
However

• If consciousness physical

• Overlap theory refutes Barbours speculation

Streams of experience bridge universe-phases
85
If dualism unified streams sustained by
disunified world-phases - maybe possible?
stream of consciousness
Platonia/Phase Space
86
Final speculation

• Specious Present as a guide to the cosmos a
  Jamesian Universe?

87
Standard alternatives to eternal 4-d cosmos
Broad-Tooley Growing Block
Presentism
88
Whats not to like about the Growing Block?
The PAST its still THERE!
89
Whats not to like about Presentism?
No unity between successive presents
Its just too thin to contain anything!
90
A middle way cosmos consists of Overlapping
Extended Presents
absolute becomings
D
C
D
E
absolute annihilations
E
F
NO PAST UNITY (ENOUGH) BREADTH ( explanation
of why temporal breadth of experience is what it
is .)
91
END