4 ms·
Modern scientific theories do not explain experiences of colour by appealing to the colours of objects, but instead in terms of objects’ dispositions to reflect
by iainmerrick 9y ago
Modern scientific theories do not explain experiences of colour by appealing to the colours of objects, but instead in terms of objects’ dispositions to reflect, refract, or emit light across different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. The conclusion that many have drawn is that we either need to identify colours with the physical properties of things that cause our colour experiences, or admit—like Galileo—that colours do not exist.
Explaining colour in terms of how objects reflect, refract or emit different wavelengths of light (and similarly for the rods and cones in our eyes) sounds perfectly satisfactory to me. What's the problem with that theory?
I really don't see the point of all the metaphysical stuff. It just doesn't tell you anything useful.
- fmoralesc 9y agoDispositional properties are just as difficult metaphysically than any other type of property.
- iainmerrick 9y agoWhat's an example of an object property that is philosophically or metaphysically straightforward?
- dummyfunnytoo 9y agoI'm not sure about straightforward but, as an example, temperature seems simpler than colour.
- mturmon 9y agoNot so fast. By the time you rope in the notions of absolute zero, entropy, and Maxwell's demon, you could kick up enough dust to keep a whole stable of grad students busy. These debates are less about a clear and present problem, than a mode of inquiry asking to look again at something "familiar" in a different way.
- iainmerrick 9y agoPartly I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I'm sure there is a good answer... Can you give me an example of a useful, positive contribution that metaphysics and/or philosophy (I confess I don't know what the distinction is between them) have contributed to these topics? For example, ancient Greek philosophers made many speculations about the nature of atoms, and in some ways their guesses were correct, but I don't think that speculation was especially fruitful. But their advances in geometry and number theory were tremendously productive.
- JadeNB 9y ago> For example, ancient Greek philosophers made many speculations about the nature of atoms, and in some ways their guesses were correct, but I don't think that speculation was especially fruitful. In terms of finding the actual answer (at least to the extent that we know the answer), it probably wasn't; but, in terms of suggesting that the question was one that had an answer, I think it was enormously fruitful. Leon Lederman's wonderful book "The God particle" persuasively (if perhaps slightly tongue-in-cheek?) argues a very direct intellectual through-line from the Greek analyses to (then-)current particle physics. (Having said this, my personal feeling is that philosophy has done its part by expanding the scope of scientific inquiry, but probably doesn't have much to add to modern-day scientific discourse; but, then again, I am a scientist, and so am pre-disposed to believe in the primacy and importance of my discipline.)
- JadeNB 9y ago> I'm not sure about straightforward but, as an example, temperature seems simpler than colour. At least physically, this seems wrong to me. Temperature is an emergent property of systems—there is no such thing as the temperature of an isolated particle—whereas (as spectral analysis shows) even individual atoms have colour.
- Double_Cast 9y ago2% of the population perceive a 4th primary color. Do you know what it looks like? Can you imagine what it looks like? Can Maxwell's equations predict what it looks like?
- iainmerrick 9y agoI think what's needed to help us imagine that is art and literature, not philosophy.
- Double_Cast 9y agoBiologists hypothesize that Mantis shrimps perceive 12 primary colors. Do you expect a sea creature the size of my fist to share art and literature about its inner experience?
- iainmerrick 9y agoA biologist can explain the workings of the mantis's vision system, an artist can imagine what it might be like to be experience it. What does the philosopher contribute? (I'm not asserting there's no contribution, I'd just like someone to explain what it is.)
- Double_Cast 9y agoThe scientist, artist, and philosopher have contributed jack squat. Actually, that's wrong. The scientist has contributed the appearance of knowledge where none exists. I.e. a delusion. The delusion is that modern science understands color. It indeed understands optics, but not color. The Problem of Color is a subset of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Both are uncharted territory. Maybe one day we'll have a half-decent theory of color. When that day comes, it will probably bud-off and begin a field of study distinct from "philosophy proper". Just like math and science budded-off. In the meantime, the only thing we can do is imagine and philosophize. Because we don't understand how to even investigate the problem, let alone solve it. We're still at the stage analogous to when the Ancient Greeks were debating whether matter is continuous or discrete. "Nobody knows for sure, but matter sure feels continuous to me." The least we can do is demarcate our ignorance. Which is why blogposts like this exist. So when you (essentially) say "Our current theory of optics sounds perfectly satisfactory", you are defending the delusion the blogpost meant to correct. My two previous comments aren't meant to contribute a theory of color, but to make obvious that optics and color are not the same thing.