Continued from Space and Counterspace – by Nick Thomas – Ch.1 – Part 4 – Understanding
In his sixth to twelfth paragraphs Nick Thomas gives detailed examples based on our experience of colour, compared with a physicist’s handling of colour. I give his examples verbatim:
- The Moon when eclipsed can exhibit beautiful colours. It may appear to be a rich copper colour, or it may if high in the sky include blues and reds. If it is viewed through powerful binoculars or a telescope those colours may vanish.
- Observe a red surface in a photographic darkroom illuminated by red light, and it will appear to be almost unsaturated, that is a very light red. It will appear to be almost white if the colour of the surface is the same as that of the illumination.
- Observe a dark object against a coloured background, and then remove the object. The background colour where the object was located will appear to be much brighter than the rest.
- In a darkroom, illuminate a post from two directions, one with red and one with white light. The two resulting shadows of the post are red and green, the green being interpreted conventionally as a kind of illusion produced physiologically.
- People who are colour blind may confuse colours which are actually distinct.
These observations have led most scientists to consider that our experience of colour is either illusory, or a flawed artefact – an unfortunate consequence – of our imperfect neuro-physiology. It has also been dismissed as being purely subjective and thus entirely personal – inaccessible to objective scientific methodology. To overcome these alleged issues, physicists – such as Newton and Maxwell – have studied the measurable properties of light such as refraction and wavelength.
When one observes a particular shade of blue, two things may be recorded:
- A quale, or experience, of that shade of colour perceived by our mind.
- The associated electromagnetic wavelength of that colour received by our eye.
Mainstream scientists consider the former to be subjective and the latter objective. An often unstated assumption (presumption?) is that if something is ‘just in one’s mind’ it is ‘unreal’. It may seem ‘real’ for the person making the observation, but if so – where is that reality? Just exactly where in our nerve impulses or chemical processes is this quale to be found – where does it come into being? In more technical terms – what is the ontological status of qualia (in what way do they exist)?
When a salt of potassium is heated in a flame it produces a clear lilac coloured flame. If one shines the emitted light through a prism a number of coloured bands appear. This is called an emission spectrum. The coloured bands are like a finger print – each chemical element has its own unique emission spectrum. The most prominent two bands here are what we might call potassium red and potassium violet. Scientists have very carefully measured the electromagnetic wavelengths of these coloured bands and have shown them to be 766.5 nanometres (about three quarters of a million millionth of a metre) and 404.7 nanometres respectively. Thomas reminds us that this is considered to be objective: “in the sense that it can be measured and compared by different observers“. Such quantitative measurements started to be made in the 1820s. These quantities were obtained using mathematical theory developed from observation.
| Thomas states here that a parallelism has been established between a quale and a wavelength of light. I am at present uncertain how important this particular concept may be, either to Thomas, or the nature of substance as I am exploring it here. However (as is my wont) I will touch on the concept here – just in case. Please note that I have put this text inside a box because it is an optional extra – not because it is of importance. The term parallelism in philosophy is used in relation to the mind-body problem – it is also known as psychophysical parallelism. It is a theory which states that the mind and the body are causally independent of each other, and yet our perceptions of them are completely correlated. An example given by Velmans (page 51) is that of two clocks – each possessing a pre-established harmony – for both tell exactly the same time, yet without a direct causal link between them. The nature of the clocks is entirely immaterial – one may be old fashioned clockwork, the other modern digital – if they possess a pre-established harmony, they both tell the same time. This idea is a third option to: * interactionism (the mind-body dualism of Descartes) – that the mind are body are entirely separate yet each can causally influence the other – they are somehow causally linked though the exact mechanism may be unknown; * one-way body-to-mind causality (e.g., materialism, epiphenomenalism). Variations of parallelism have been held by Malebranche, Spinoza and Leibniz. The reason for my exploration of the concept of parallelism is because the body-mind problem has something to do with the relationship between matter and spirit, and thus – perhaps – with the science between space and counterspace as developed by Nick Thomas. It should be noted that from his use of the term elsewhere he uses the term agnostically – i.e. parallelism is used to mean that there is not (necessarily) a causal connection between two perfectly coordinated entities. |
Thomas’ ninth paragraph relates to an example of the refraction of light when it passes through a prism. The path of the light is bent – in the same way that objects seen through a clear glass of water are bent or distorted. Of interest here is that different colours of light are bent to differing degrees. Potassium violet light is bent more than potassium red light. As we know from above, potassium red and potassium violet lights show a clear parallelism between their qualia and wavelength. Now we also have a parallelism between qualia and angle of refraction, and thus between wavelength and angle of refraction.
Other elements emit other colours when held in a flame. Each has its own unique signature colour(s). Scientists investigating colour perception have reported that all observers (with healthy eyes) report seeing the same unique colours or shades of colours for each element – barium, cadmium, copper, potassium, sodium and strontium are all good examples, giving easily distinguishable colours when held in a flame. (They are responsible for the bright colours seen in a firework display!) Our experiences of colour can therefore be strictly controlled and recorded, based on our knowledge of the exact wavelengths of the emitted light.
His tenth paragraph urges caution, however. Robots, such as those sent to other planets, have carefully calibrated cameras and other optical sensors. These are also capable of ‘observing’ potassium red or potassium violet and recording that information. But these would just be labels correlating items of abstract information – wavelength and sensor data. These robots do not have an experience of these colours. Colour, by definition, is something which we experience with our minds, by way of our eyes, optic nerve, and brain. Nick Thomas clearly states: “that colour has not been identified with wavelengths of radiation, it has only been put in parallel with them“. Physicists say that they know this – I recall reading that Isaac Newton did so somewhere in his writings [where??] – however they (including Newton) very easily forget, and lapse into inexact and misleading language. Colour qualia cannot be reduced to mere wavelengths of light.
This is taken further in his twelfth paragraph. He reminds us that colour – such as potassium red – does not appear the same when projected onto white walls or red. The qualia in such circumstances would not be the same. Physicists – and even some biologists who should know better – also question whether different observers under the same circumstances have different experiences [other than known exceptions – reported colour experiences under the same conditions by different observers are very much the same (see Velmans)]. To avoid this issue physics avoids qualia and hence does not study colour at all. Their use of the word colour is merely a lazy convenience, a meaningless label used as a stand in for wavelength. It is so much easier to say red when one really means light of a wavelength of 766.5 nanometres!
By way of a bridge to his fourteenth paragraph (and my next blog post), he wrote:
Since our primary experience is of qualia, and corresponding wavelengths are only found by experiencing very complex sequences of qualia (known as experiments), it is clearly illogical to dismiss qualia as ‘merely subjective’, or even ‘unreal’. They are real enough in everyday life! As they are only approximately parallel to wavelengths of radiation they cannot be dismissed as a mere correlate of wavelength. They clearly exist in their own right in some sense. So how should we assess them?
Rethinking the Nature of Substance 
Leave a comment