A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Interesting Ian]

I believe it was Galileo who originally made a distinction between what he called the primary and secondary qualities of objects. The primary qualities being those such as length, width, shape, mass, internal structure etc, which could be measured and treated mathematically, and the secondary qualities such as colour, taste and smell which were not considered to be intrinsic attributes of matter but were purely subjective phenomena which matter gave rise to.

So something like length and mass etc, are really out there in the world, but smells, tastes, the phenomenological experience of colour etc merely represent the powers of the primary qualities to produce the secondary qualities of colour, taste, smell etc within us.

In modern science is this distinction still maintained? Or have scientists now recognised their stupidity and agree that no such distinction between "primary qualities" and "secondary qualities" can be made?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

In modern science is this distinction still maintained? Or have scientists now recognised their stupidity and agree that no such distinction between "primary qualities" and "secondary qualities" can be made?

I think that notion was dismissed as fundamentally meaningless a long time ago. I certainly don't know of any modern scientists who subscribe to this kind of dualism.

Way to load the question, by the way. I don't think this view was so much stupidity, as naivety and lack of information.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Diamond]

This is a qualia question for idiots, isn't it?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



I think that notion was dismissed as fundamentally meaningless a long time ago. I certainly don't know of any modern scientists who subscribe to this kind of dualism.

Way to load the question, by the way. I don't think this view was so much stupidity, as naivety and lack of information.


Dr. Stupid

Right, so the smell of a fart is actually constitutive of reality itself rather than the fart molecules?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Right, so the smell of a fart is actually constitutive of reality itself rather than the fart molecules?

The smell of a fart does not exist. The process of smelling a fart is a physical process occurring in your brain. The memory of what a fart smells like is stored in the structure of your brain. The experience of remembering what a fart smells like is a process in your brain, and so on.

When we talk about the smell of a fart, we are talking about a process as though it were an object. That is just a quirk of language, based on intuitive preconceptions which date back hundreds, and even thousands of years. It is not an indication of what the true nature of reality is.

I think I see where you are going with this. The mistake in the "primary and secondary qualities" idea is not that there is no difference between things like length, and things like color. It is that the color of an object is not a "quality" of that object at all.

The color of an object is a part of the experience you have when you see, or remember seeing, that object. It is a physical process occurring in your brain.

There are qualities of an object which correspond to the experience of color. Namely the wavelengths of light that it emits and/or reflects. Those are standard qualities of the object, fundamentally no different than length or mass.

The idea that scientists claim that color itself is just a wavelength of light, or a property of a wavelength of light, is a misconception. The color of an object is a process occurring in your brain, usually (but not always) as a result of light of a particular wavelength entering your eyes. It is not a property of the object itself. We tend to intuitively think of it that way, but as is often the case, our intuition is simply wrong.


Dr.Stupid

 

[wollery]

The smell of a fart is due to a chemical reaction between the molecules of the gases in the fart and the smell sensors of the poor git who smells it. However since everybody has slightly different smell sensors and gets a different amount of molecules and has a brain which interprets the neural responses differently, everyone will smell something slightly different. This doesn' mean that the smell isn't an intrinsic property, just that no two people will agree exactly on how it smells.
Unless it's really bad.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



The smell of a fart does not exist.

Now I've heard it all! But thanks for providing me with a great sig!

The process of smelling a fart is a physical process occurring in your brain. The memory of what a fart smells like is stored in the structure of your brain. The experience of remembering what a fart smells like is a process in your brain, and so on.

They might well be, but what about the actually raw experience of the smell of the fart itself?? If it is only the physical processes occuring in my brain which is constitutive of the reality of a fart, does that mean that one is misguided in blaming the emitter of the fart for the subsequent phenomenal sensation of the smell of the fart? I mean if a fart literally simply is a physical process in my brain . . .

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

When we talk about the smell of a fart, we are talking about a process as though it were an object.

Very naughty of us I'm sure.

That is just a quirk of language, based on intuitive preconceptions which date back hundreds, and even thousands of years. It is not an indication of what the true nature of reality is.

This is how you talk when the subject of farts come up!?? Everyone else laughing and giggling, and you talking as if you're practicing writing a Ph.D thesis!

 

[Interesting Ian]

The smell of a fart is due to a chemical reaction between the molecules of the gases in the fart and the smell sensors of the poor git who smells it. However since everybody has slightly different smell sensors and gets a different amount of molecules and has a brain which interprets the neural responses differently, everyone will smell something slightly different. This doesn' mean that the smell isn't an intrinsic property, just that no two people will agree exactly on how it smells.
Unless it's really bad.

But does it not seem strange to deny that the smell of a fart is not actually constitutive of reality itself? And presumably the same would go for the raw experience of colours etc. Does this not lead you to a profound skepticism about the external world? It seems you're saying that what science tells us about reality ie our measurements, is right, but what we actually experience is a lie.

Also it seems you are indeed drawing a distinction between our primary and secondary qualities.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,


I think I see where you are going with this. The mistake in the "primary and secondary qualities" idea is not that there is no difference between things like length, and things like color. It is that the color of an object is not a "quality" of that object at all.

Oh well, suppose this is at least consistent with you saying the smell of a fart doesn't exist! LOL

The color of an object is a part of the experience you have when you see, or remember seeing, that object. It is a physical process occurring in your brain.

You're saying the phenomenal experience of smelling a fart is one and the very same thing as a physical process in the brain. But does this not sound a trifle daft? (to put it very politely!).

There are qualities of an object which correspond to the experience of color. Namely the wavelengths of light that it emits and/or reflects. Those are standard qualities of the object, fundamentally no different than length or mass.

Yes I agree.

The idea that scientists claim that color itself is just a wavelength of light, or a property of a wavelength of light, is a misconception. The color of an object is a process occurring in your brain, usually (but not always) as a result of light of a particular wavelength entering your eyes. It is not a property of the object itself. We tend to intuitively think of it that way, but as is often the case, our intuition is simply wrong.

Seems to me that if the external world (both primary and secondary qualities) is physical processes in our head then the total;ity of reality is in our heads How implausible can you get?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

The smell of a fart does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I've heard it all! But thanks for providing me with a great sig!

Yes. Out of context quotes make great sig material, don't they?

The process of smelling a fart is a physical process occurring in your brain. The memory of what a fart smells like is stored in the structure of your brain. The experience of remembering what a fart smells like is a process in your brain, and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They might well be, but what about the actually raw experience of the smell of the fart itself??

The "raw experience" of the smell is exactly what I am saying does not exist. It is meaningless to talk about the experience in the absence of the process, because the experience is the process.

If it is only the physical processes occuring in my brain which is constitutive of the reality of a fart, does that mean that one is misguided in blaming the emitter of the fart for the subsequent phenomenal sensation of the smell of the fart? I mean if a fart literally simply is a physical process in my brain . . .

Of course not. The farter caused you to have this unpleasant experience by farting.

When we talk about the smell of a fart, we are talking about a process as though it were an object.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very naughty of us I'm sure.

No, just naive and ill-conceived.

That is just a quirk of language, based on intuitive preconceptions which date back hundreds, and even thousands of years. It is not an indication of what the true nature of reality is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is how you talk when the subject of farts come up!?? Everyone else laughing and giggling, and you talking as if you're practicing writing a Ph.D thesis!

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to have a serious discussion, and used farts as an example to add levity. I didn't realize that you were just making a silly fart joke, disguised as a question about science.

The color of an object is a part of the experience you have when you see, or remember seeing, that object. It is a physical process occurring in your brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're saying the phenomenal experience of smelling a fart is one and the very same thing as a physical process in the brain.

I don't know what you mean by "phenomenal experience". I am saying that the experience is a physical brain process.

But does this not sound a trifle daft? (to put it very politely!).

No, why would you think so?

The idea that scientists claim that color itself is just a wavelength of light, or a property of a wavelength of light, is a misconception. The color of an object is a process occurring in your brain, usually (but not always) as a result of light of a particular wavelength entering your eyes. It is not a property of the object itself. We tend to intuitively think of it that way, but as is often the case, our intuition is simply wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems to me that if the external world (both primary and secondary qualities) is physical processes in our head then the totality of reality is in our heads

What makes you think that things like the length of an object are physical processes in your head? What makes you think that I am suggesting this?

How implausible can you get?

How implausible do you want me to get?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



Yes. Out of context quotes make great sig material, don't they?

Yes I agree it's unfair, so I've clarified what you actually mean

 

[iankaplan]

Interesting Ian said:

Seems to me that if the external world (both primary and secondary qualities) is physical processes in our head then the total;ity of reality is in our heads How implausible can you get?

Regular Ian responds:

It seems obvious to me that the molecules which cause me to smell a fart literally came out of someone's behind, and that the smell of the fart is literally a physical process in my brain.

I suppose someone could quibble with the definition of the word "smell", claiming that the molecules that might cause one to turn away in disgust are themselves called "smell". In that case, I would have to amend my statement to the following:

It seems obvious to me that the smell of a fart literally came out of someone's behind, and that the smelling of the fart is literally a physical process in my brain.

Stimpy, are either of those statements agreeable to you? How about you, Ian?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

iankaplan,

It seems obvious to me that the molecules which cause me to smell a fart literally came out of someone's behind, and that the smell of the fart is literally a physical process in my brain.

I suppose someone could quibble with the definition of the word "smell", claiming that the molecules that might cause one to turn away in disgust are themselves called "smell". In that case, I would have to amend my statement to the following:

It seems obvious to me that the smell of a fart literally came out of someone's behind, and that the smelling of the fart is literally a physical process in my brain.

Stimpy, are either of those statements agreeable to you? How about you, Ian?

They're fine with me.

Dr. Stupid

 

[jj]

The real question is:

Why is anyone bothering to discuss this semantically unclear, slippery-slope set of terms with Ian in the first place.

Yes, I know that there exist "definitions". That doesn't mean that they relate to either the scientific process or to a potential version of "reality" in any meaningful fashion.

And, Ian, you claim to know what kind of "god" I don't believe in. You have to date refused to demonstrate any extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary assertion that you can read my mind and learn such a thing.

Please provide this evidence forthwith.

 

[wollery]

Okay, two points to clear up here.

1. How can the smell of a fart not be real? It is the result of the comparison of a stored smell memory (electrical neuron activity) to a smell stimulus (more neuron activity) stimulated by a chemical reaction of a gas molecule with the smell sensors. All of these are real physical processes.

2. You can measure the colour of an object. You simply compare the amount of electromagnetic radiation recieved from it in different narrowband filters. This allows you to describe the colour as a ratio of fluxes at different wavelengths. In the extreme you take a very high resolution spectrum, which shows the wavelengths the colour is produced by in minute detail! Easy.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

wollery,

Okay, two points to clear up here.

1. How can the smell of a fart not be real? It is the result of the comparison of a stored smell memory (electrical neuron activity) to a smell stimulus (more neuron activity) stimulated by a chemical reaction of a gas molecule with the smell sensors. All of these are real physical processes.

That's just the point. Smelling something is a process, not an object. The memory of having smelled something exists. The process of smelling something exists, but to say that the smell itself exists, somehow independently of these things, is simply nonsensical. When we use the word "smell" as a noun, we are referring to a specific instantiation of the process of smelling something, not to some sort of object.

It is essentially a question of semantics. By referring to smells as though they were things, the false impression is created that there is something more to the experience of smelling than just the physical process. As is clear from Ian's prior post, it creates the impression that smell is a property of things, and that we experience that property. It is this kind of misconceptualization that leads to dualism. Once you acknowledge that smell, color, etc... are not properties of things, but rather processes of our brains interacting with those things, the apparent dualism vanishes into thin air.

2. You can measure the colour of an object. You simply compare the amount of electromagnetic radiation recieved from it in different narrowband filters. This allows you to describe the colour as a ratio of fluxes at different wavelengths. In the extreme you take a very high resolution spectrum, which shows the wavelengths the colour is produced by in minute detail! Easy.

Once again, this is a question of semantics. Clearly there are properties of objects which determine what color we see when we look at them, namely those properties you described. You can certainly refer to those properties as "color". But there is also the color we actually see. That is not a property of the object. It is a process occurring in our brain.

This too leads to dualistic misconceptualizations. A dualist will claim that an apple has two different types of color properties. It has the physical properties of color, namely the spectrum of wavelengths it reflects, and it has the subjective properties of color, namely the way it looks to you.

But the second type of color is not a property of the apple at all. It is a physical process occurring in your brain. Objects do not have physical and subjective properties. They just have physical properties. What we often think of as their subjective properties are actually just the processes by which we process the sensory input of those objects.


I hope that clears up what I am trying to say. I realize that this type of wording is somewhat confusing, but I am trying to point out the flaw in the entire idea of there being irreducibly subjective properties of objects. Ian has often expressed that he thinks it is incomprehensibly stupid that a materialist would claim that subjective properties are really physical properties, but the fact of the matter is that materialists do not think that there is any such thing as subjective properties, and that what he is calling subjective properties are actually not properties at all.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Mercutio]

If I might add just one thing to stimpy and wollery's discussion, wollery's point 1, though an improvement on discussion, is needlessly complex, due to the influence of the "cognitive revolution". The "comparing to memory" part is not necessary, even when you define it as a biological process. The unpleasantness of the smell is the result of natural selection (probably smells just great to a dung beetle), not because we store some conceptual platonic fart (thank you II, for choosing an example for which even serious discussion seems silly). I realize that is probably not what wollery intended, but it is part of the semantic baggage that stimpy so correctly blames for the problem.

Oh, and more agreement with iankaplan's analysis. Sensation&perception psychologists make the same distinction using the terms "distal stimulus" and "proximal stimulus".

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian said: Regular Ian responds:

It seems obvious to me that the molecules which cause me to smell a fart literally came out of someone's behind, and that the smell of the fart is literally a physical process in my brain.

I suppose someone could quibble with the definition of the word "smell", claiming that the molecules that might cause one to turn away in disgust are themselves called "smell". In that case, I would have to amend my statement to the following:

It seems obvious to me that the smell of a fart literally came out of someone's behind, and that the smelling of the fart is literally a physical process in my brain.

Stimpy, are either of those statements agreeable to you? How about you, Ian?

Complete unadulterated gobbledegook

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
Seems to me that if the external world (both primary and secondary qualities) is physical processes in our head then the totality of reality is in our heads
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stimpy
What makes you think that things like the length of an object are physical processes in your head? What makes you think that I am suggesting this?

Quite simple. You have denied there is a distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities. Therefore if the smell of a fart is literally in ones head, so then necessarily must a length of an object necessarily be in ones head. Otherwise there is a distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Which you initially denied!

Make your bloody mind up!