Continued from Space and Counterspace – by Nick Thomas – Ch.1 – Part 5 – Parallelism
By way of further support for the importance of qualia in scientific endeavour, Nick Thomas refers us, in his fourteenth paragraph, to the authority of Werner Heisenberg. (For those who have jumped straight in here, qualia are qualities which we have consciously experienced, and a quale is an single experience of a particular observed phenomena – such as a sensory experience of a particular shade of red, though they may also be feelings, aesthetic or spiritual experiences.) In the fifth of a lecture series about Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science (which I very much recommend reading), Heisenberg contrasts the differing approaches of Goethe with that of Newton and contemporary science in general. Goethe followed a qualitative path – a science based on qualia. Newton followed a quantitative path – the same route that modern physics follows today. Here Heisenberg, in particular is considering the teachings of Goethe and Newton on colour in the light of modern physics. Thomas quotes:
In our advance in the field of exact science we shall, for the time being, have to forgo in many instances a more direct contact with nature such as appeared to Goethe the precondition for any deeper understanding of it. We accept this because we can, in compensation, obtain an understanding of a wide range of inter-relations, seen with complete mathematical clarity.
Goethe, too, sensed an injury in the advance of science. But we may be certain that that final and purest clarity, which is the aim of science, was entirely familiar to Goethe the poet.
Heisenberg 1952, Chapter 5.
Based on this, and presumably Nick Thomas’ previous evidence given earlier (elaborated by myself), Thomas quite reasonably states in his fifteenth paragraph: “we will challenge the idea that qualia are always and necessarily subjective“. I agree with the statement, but struggled with Thomas’ choice of quotes from Heisenberg to back that statement up.
| Let me explain – and yes I am very much aware of the danger that by trying to explain I am potentially making it yet more confusing – which is why this is in a box. Stuff that I write in boxes are optional!! 1. In the first sentence of the first quote we have: * … direct contact with nature such as appeared to Goethe the precondition for any deeper understanding; 2. And in the final sentence of the second quote we have: * … we may be certain that that final and purest clarity, which is the aim of science, was entirely familiar to Goethe the poet. With (1.) we have a potential confusion; the phrase as it appeared to Goethe may taken to mean: * ‘as it seemed to Goethe‘ i.e. ‘as Goethe believed it to be‘ (which is how I originally understood it). However, I believe the sense in which the word should be taken is: * ‘as Goethe experienced it‘. It may be that, in Heisenberg’s original German, his meaning is obvious. It may also be obvious to those, who unlike me, come from anthroposophical (followers of the ideas of Rudolf Steiner), Goethean (followers of the scientific world view of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe), or phenomenological backgrounds (my original background is from mainstream science). Goethe did not call himself a scientist. He called himself an observer of nature. In modern terms he was a phenomenologist. Phenomenology comes from the Greek phainómenon, meaning “that which appears“. With (2.), I now believe that Thomas’ argument is complete – Goethe’s study of the appearances of nature as they presented themselves to his senses (qualia) was conducted by him with a final and purest clarity, which is the aim of science itself. In Heisenberg’s view, a scientific study based on qualia is equally valid as that of a science based on mathematical abstractions. Elsewhere in this lecture he also acknowledged that only Goethe’s science can possess meaning, or enable a true understanding of Nature. |
Heisenberg clearly points out in his lecture that Goethe’s ‘theory of colour’ is a ‘theory of colour‘ (i.e. of our experience(s) of colour qualia). Newton’s was a theory of the quantitative aspects of light radiation. The parallelism is broken when one recognises that Newton’s use of the word colour is purely in the sense that a robot might use it, as shorthand label for wavelength or degree of refraction. It is easy to forget that labels are often used in explanations even when they are known to be without meaning. Meaning is personal – in the sense that it requires conscious, intelligent beings to understand (it is not personal in the sense that it cannot be shared.
- Meaning is an empirical judgement – it is based on observation, on qualia.
Thomas, citing Heisenberg, contrasts this with:
- Explanations, in the sense of linguistics, based on the use of meaningless labels.
… one should particularly remember that the human language permits the construction of sentences which do not involve any consequences and which therefore have no content at all – in spite of the fact that these sentences produce some kind of picture in the imagination; for instance, the statement that besides our world there exists another world, with which any connection is impossible in principle, does not lead to any experimental [empirical] consequence, but does produce a kind of picture in the mind. Obviously such a statement can neither be proved or disproved [by observation]. One should be especially careful in using the words ‘reality’, ‘actuality’, [or in our case colour] etc., since these words very often lead to statements of the type just mentioned.
Heisenberg, 1930, p.15.
Thomas is reminded here: “of the Vienna school and so-called empiricism in general“. He is probably thinking of the verification principle. Here we are not concerned with the logical status of the use the label ‘red’, linguistically or otherwise. We are concerned – as Heisenberg acknowledged as being the case with Goethe – with our experience of it. Thomas also informs us that he chose to quote from Heisenberg:
- Heisenberg is recognised as a great authority in physics
- and he wrote with a great clarity of expression.
And here I finish – till next time.
Rethinking the Nature of Substance 
Leave a comment