The physical world, I suggest, considered as perceptible, consists of
occurrences having this twofold location. For the moment I am concerned
to assign the place of perception in such a scheme.
Consider a spherical light-wave proceeding from a momentary flash.
In vacuo, it advances in accordance with Maxwell's equations,
but when it encounters matter it becomes transformed in one way or
another according to circumstances. What do I mean by saying that it
"encounters matter"? The answer is quite straightforward. Connected
with each electron or proton there is a gravitational field and an
electromagnetic field; these are displayed by laws modifying the
"undisturbed" distribution about other centres of such[Pg 259] things as
light-waves. In fact, the fields may be said actually to consist
of the formulæ of such modification. Therefore when I say that a
light-wave "encounters matter," I mean that it is near the centre of
some such systematic modification. The eye is a collection of such
centres, and after traversing it the process which was a light-wave
obeys a different set of laws. The percept is a term of this process,
characterized by the fact that it occurs after traversing a region of
a certain sort—to wit, an eye, an optic nerve, and part of a brain.
Owing to its causal continuity with other parts of the process, it has,
as its twofold location, on the one hand the source of light, on the
other hand the brain. If it is said that a percept is "obviously" not
in the brain, that is because we are thinking of its location in the
physical object, and comparing this with the location of the brain as a
physical object.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account