Is darkness a non-physical property?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

♫Communication Breakdown♫

 

[DaveC426913]

An interesting effect you can observe is if you shine a colored light on an object and project its shadow on a white surface. The color of that shadow will be the complimentary color of the color of the light. Red light for instance produces green shadows. But a shadow is still just darkness, the absence of the red light in this case.

This is not strictly true.

In a controlled scenario, with a single light source, the shadows will be black. Shadows cast by an object under a red light will not be green.

What happens is that most scenarios we encounter in real life are uncontrolled - with multiple light sources. The shadow area behind an object is therefore not black but simply dark - it is still lit by other, dimmer sources that usually balance out close to white light. By contrast to the red around it, that shadow is red's opposite, or green (strictly, it is dim, white light with a dearth of red).

the green color isn't physically "there" like the red light is. It isn't being generated by the wavelength of any light. But we see it anyway. A case of a perceived color being totally generated by the brain.

Yes, this too.

 

[DaveC426913]

One can certainly speak of darkness as a property.

For example, in painting. Subtractive colours certainly can have some colours darker than others, and you can increase that darkness by the addition of more black.

That's a real property of a real thing.

Green: Dark green:

 

[Pinball1970]

One can certainly speak of darkness as a property.

For example, in painting. Subtractive colours certainly can have some colours darker than others, and you can increase that darkness by the addition of more black.

That's a real property of a real thing.

Green: View attachment 6373 Dark green: View attachment 6374

That is a different "darkness," here in your example this means depth of colour. How many coats or how concentrated is your colour?

The absence of light is a different thing, absence rather than level.

 

[(Q)]

One can certainly speak of darkness as a property.

For example, in painting. Subtractive colours certainly can have some colours darker than others, and you can increase that darkness by the addition of more black.

That's a real property of a real thing.

Green: View attachment 6373 Dark green: View attachment 6374

Maybe that's because it's a whole lot easier to add black to paint to make it darker rather than trying to remove the white.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is a different "darkness,"

"Different"? from what?

The OP did not specify a specific type of darkness; that was an constraint replaced by subsequent posters. "The absence of light" was a flavour not introduced until post 5.

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe that's because it's a whole lot easier to add black to paint to make it darker rather than trying to remove the white.

Of course.

Nonetheless, the point is made. Darkness is a quantifiable, controllable property of paint colours.

 

[Pinball1970]

Maybe that's because it's a whole lot easier to add black to paint to make it darker rather than trying to remove the white.

That would change the tone, to make a colour darker you simply increase the concentration.

Technically L is "lightness" H hue and C chroma. The higher the L value the paler the colour.
We use this in DE evaluation.

 

[Pinball1970]

"Different"? from what?

The OP did not specify a specific type of darkness; that was an constraint replaced by subsequent posters. "The absence of light" was a flavour not introduced until post 5.

Shadow was mentioned but since the OP was nebulous to begin with I think we are splitting hairs.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Is darkness a non-physical property?
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ Magical Realist, Pinball1970, et al,

It is an interesting question. Darkness is NOT a property. It has to be defined by the frequencies or energy that is absent.

If it isn't and it's physical, then what's it made of? Can it be measured? Does it occupy space? What is its velocity?

If it is and it's non-physical, how can we perceive it? CAN we see darkness? How can a shadow carry information about its object?

Bonus question: Is a mirror in a totally dark room reflecting the darkness in front of it or is it showing the darkness inside of it?

Follow up question: Is cold a non-physical property?

(COMMENT)

Science cannot prove that there is a location (under the laws of the universe as we know them today) that is absent of everything (which would be "darkness") divorced of all energy. When layman speaks of "darkness" they refer to the absence of energy in the spectrum of visible light (≈700 nm to ≈350nm).

Remember, light (photons) are themselves NOT visible. The reflection of light (photons) on an illuminated surface is what is detected.

Darkness falls fast in the tropics.

Seriously, darkness is the absence of light. I.e. an abstract concept. Philosophers warn us about assigning too much reality to abstractions - they call it reification.

(COMMENT)

This is a layman's view (the absence of light). Even on the dark side of the moon, you can see stars. It is not known if there is any location in the Milky Way Galaxy where cosmic energy (in one frequency or wavelength) is not detectable. A layman would be hard-pressed to be (assuming outside an enclosure) to detect visible light from somewhere in the cosmos.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[DaveC426913]

Darkness is NOT a property. It has to be defined by the frequencies or energy that is absent.

I literally just pointed out how it is a property, in post 47. I even showed a sample.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Is darkness a non-physical property?
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ DaveC426913, et al,

I literally just pointed out how it is a property, in post 47. I even showed a sample.

(COMMENT)

I wish to express my open apology. I mistakenly assumed this was an implied "Scientific" discussion and not a discussion of artificially reflecting surface colorings like paint in shades from black to that shade reflecting what is called white.

Again, My apology to DaveC426913.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[DaveC426913]

I wish to express my open apology. I mistakenly assumed this was an implied "Scientific" discussion and not a discussion of artificially reflecting surface colorings like paint in shades from black to that shade reflecting what is called white.

"Scientific"? How is analysis of paint colours any less scientific than analysis of light bulb colours?

 

[Pinball1970]

I literally just pointed out how it is a property, in post 47. I even showed a sample.

The OP was definitely referring the darkness when light is removed.

"CAN we see darkness? How can a shadow carry information about its object?
Bonus question: Is a mirror in a totally dark room reflecting the darkness in front of it or is it showing the darkness inside of it?"

So that darkness is not a property, it is an absence.

"Darker" colour does not mean with the light removed, it simply means "deeper" Like going from pink to red

 

[DaveC426913]

The OP was definitely referring the darkness when light is removed.

Still, this is the philosophy forum and the OP was asking a broad, ill-defined question. I think it is perfectly valid to explore the leaky margins of the question in search of enlightenment.

It's certainly no farther from the mark than this:

Is a mirror in a totally dark room reflecting the darkness in front of it or is it showing the darkness inside of it?"

"Darker" colour does not mean with the light removed, it simply means "deeper" Like going from pink to red

Right. Which isn't any less valid than "does a mirror show the darkness inside it?"

Thus, "darkness" is a quantifiable, controllable, repeatable property of colour.

 

[C C]

[...] If it is and it's non-physical, how can we perceive it? CAN we see darkness? How can a shadow carry information about its object? [...]

Registering a diminished amount of visible-range EM activity beyond one's body is a key factor to survival as much as registering a higher degree of it. The sensory system accordingly has its "internal icon" or "manifestation manner" for representing those measurements.

When solely pertaining to the meaning of "darkness" and "silence" in everyday parlance -- our visual and auditory experiences of them -- they are just the brain's phenomenal presentations for indicating no significant visual and auditory input from the eyes and ears is being received. (Those negative mental states being most absolute with respect to people who are blind and deaf.)

Since matter in general is non-conscious (exceptions again being when organized into brains), the cosmos normally does not manifest as anything. Neither an expanse of "brightness" nor an expanse of "darkness" is applicable, or any kind of specific introspective slash extrospective content that humans are familiar with.

And in that context, the topic's question is arguably a great way of illustrating how most humans are actually implicit panpsychists, with respect to the answers they might give. The average person does not conceive the universe as being devoid of presentations, cognitive distinctions, and conceptual identifications when there are no conscious systems providing that.

And even the traditional (hard-core) materialist -- though freely acknowledging that death is a return to the conventional "absence of everything" -- usually fails be consistent with the consequences of their doctrine in practice. Because "absence of everything" (not in an existential sense but in a presentation sense) is not a utile revelation.

Materialists either have to confine themselves to representing the non-mental world as abstract description, or perversely populate it with the phenomenal objects and language-mediated understandings of their minds. And that includes spatial patches of "light" and "dark" in brain product context. We project the conscious properties in (or associated with) our heads "out there" on the non-conscious environment.

A panpsychist is as a panpsychist does -- and not with respect to how we deny being such, or deny having to resort to a vestige of that philosophical stance (in practice).
_

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Is darkness a non-physical property?
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ et al,

WOW!

I was under a similar impression that Pinball1970 expressed in Posting #54. And I think "CC" was quite elegant in response. However, I still hold that "color" is a reflection of wavelengths. The sky is blue because it is a reflection of the ultraviolet light hitting the Ozone. Having said that, it does not answer the original question: "Is darkness a non-physical property?" From a technical aspect, the answer is "no."


_________________________________
OXFORD Encyclopedic English Dictionary EDITED BY JOYCE M. HAWKINS AND ROBERT ALLEN © Oxford University Press 1991 First published 1991 Reprinted 1991, 1994 Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0x2 6DP Oxford New York (Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data)

dark /da:k/ adj. & n. —adj. Page 390
1 with little or no light. 2 of a deep or sombre colour.

property /'propoti/ n. (pl. -ies) Page 1159
2. an attribute, quality, or characteristic (has the property of dissolving grease).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[DaveC426913]

The sky is blue because it is a reflection of the ultraviolet light hitting the Ozone.

No. The sky is blue due primarily to Rayleigh scattering - the tendency for bluer light to scatter more than red light due to the atmosphere. That scattering means that light that would otherwise go over our head, gets redirected toward us, and, since it's blue, it means we see a bluer sky.

RE: Is darkness a non-physical property?
"Is darkness a non-physical property?" From a technical aspect, the answer is "no."

From one narrow perspective, if that's the way you choose to interpret it.

 

[TheVat]

Thus, "darkness" is a quantifiable, controllable, repeatable property of colour.

This might be one of those chats where phenomenology collides with scientific tries at objective description. Darkness seems to be phenomenal (something brains derive from perceptual inputs), but we try to take it beyond this abstraction and determine objective absences of, say, visible light, thus defining a phenomenon by its opposite. (we do this with "cold," too)

I could say for example that "scaryness" is a quantifiable, controllable, repeatable property of horror movies. We could measure galvanic skin response, pulse and perspiration during different movie scenes, correlate this with reported experiences of viewers being scared, and come up with a dataset of physiological changes that is then put under the phenomenal umbrella of scaryness. But when we're packing up the equipment and heading home, we can admit that scaryness, as an abstract way of speaking about scenes in fright flicks, remains in the phenomenological sphere and is not a more objective set of physical properties like, say, cinema projector photons passing through rectangular frames of film emulsion and bouncing off a phosphor screen 24 X/sec. into human eyes where they strike visual pigment molecules and trigger electrochemical signals through the optic nerve etc.

I think it's easy to get into what philosophers call category errors.

Category mistake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We don't find a chemist who will separate out all the compounds in paint and then produce one on a little sample tray and say "here is the darkness!" (or if she does, then we take it as metaphor, not a literal substance with the unique property of darkness)

 

[DaveC426913]

We don't find a chemist who will separate out all the compounds in paint and then produce one on a little sample tray and say "here is the darkness!" (or if she does, then we take it as metaphor, not a literal substance with the unique property of darkness)

Right. Because, as the argument has been going, it is a property of thing, not a thing itself.
You can't reduce a rock to say "here is the mass".

So I do not see how it is a category error.