The Analysis of Matter

have been developing is essentially Berkeley's: whatever is, is perceived. But our reasons are somewhat different from his. We do not suggest that there is any impossibility about unperceived existents, but only that no strong ground exists for believing in them. Berkeley believed that the grounds against them were conclusive; we only suggest that the grounds in their favour are[Pg 214] inconclusive. I am not asserting this: I am proposing it as a view to be considered. The great difficulty in the above theory of "ideal" elements is that it is hard to see how anything merely imaginary can be essential to the statement of a causal law. We have to explain the dictaphone which repeats the conversation. We will suppose that it was seen in place before and after the conversation, but not during it. Consequently, on the view we are examining, it did not exist at all during the conversation. Causal laws, stated without fictitious elements, will thus involve action at a distance in time and space. Moreover, our percepts are not sufficient to determine the course of nature: we derive causal laws from close observation, and preserve them in other cases by inventing "ideal" things. This would not be necessary if percepts sufficed for the causal determination of future percepts. Thus the view we are examining is incompatible with physical determinism, in fact though not in form. We could multiply difficulties of this kind indefinitely. No one of them is conclusive, but in the aggregate they suffice to account for the fact that it is almost impossible to compel oneself to believe such a theory. Perhaps continuity (not in a strict mathematical sense) is one of the strongest objections. We experience sensible continuity when we move our own body, and when we fixedly observe some object which does not explode. But if we repeatedly open and shut our eyes we experience visual discontinuity, which we find it impossible to attribute to the physical objects which we alternately see and do not see, the more so as, to another spectator, they remain unchanged all the time. Causation at a distance in time, though not logically impossible, is also repugnant to our notions of the physical world. Therefore, although it is logically possible to interpret the physical world in terms of ideal elements, I conclude that this interpretation is implausible, and that it has no positive grounds in its favour. [Pg 215] Nevertheless the above construction remains valid and important, as a method of separating perceptual and non-perceptual elements of physics, and of showing how much can be achieved by the former alone. As such, I shall continue to utilize it in the sequel. The only thing rejected is the view that "ideal" elements are unreal.[48] The matter would, of course, be otherwise in this last respect if we could accept the argument for idealism, whether of the Berkeleyan or the German variety. These arguments profess to prove that what exists must have a mental character, and therefore compel us to interpret physics accordingly. I reject such a priori argumentation, whatever conclusion it may be designed to prove. There is no difficulty in interpreting physics idealistically, but there is also, I should say, no necessity for such an interpretation. "Matter," I shall contend, is known only as regards certain very abstract characteristics, which might quite well belong to a manifold of mental events, but might also belong to a different manifold. In fact, the only manifolds known for certain to possess the mathematical properties of the physical world are built up out of numbers, and belong to pure mathematics. Our reason for not regarding "matter" as actually being an arithmetical structure derived from the finite integers is the connection of "matter" with perception; that is why our present discussion is necessary. But this connection, as I shall try to show, tells us extremely little about the character of the unperceived events in the physical world. Unlike idealists and materialists, I do not believe that there is any other source of knowledge from which this meagre result can be supplemented. Like other people, I allow myself to speculate; but that is an exercise of imagination, not a process of demonstrative reasoning. I shall assume henceforth not only that there are percepts[Pg 216] which I do not perceive, connected with other people's bodies, but also that there are events causally connected with percepts, as to which we do not know whether they are perceived or not. I shall assume, e.g. that if I am alone in a room and I shut my eyes, the objects in it which I no longer see (i.e. the causes of my visual percepts) continue to exist, and do not suddenly become resurrected when I re-open my eyes. This must be taken in conjunction with what was said earlier about perspective in a generalized sense, and about the common space in which we locate the physical objects which, for common sense, are perceived by several people at once. We collect correlated percepts into a group, and we suppose that there are other members of the group, corresponding to places where there is no percipient—or, to speak more guardedly, where there is not known to be a percipient. But we no longer assume, as when we were constructing "ideal" elements, that what at such places is what we should perceive if we went to them. We think, e.g., that light consists of waves of a certain kind, but becomes transformed, on contact with the eye, into a different physical process. Therefore what occurs before the light reaches an eye is presumably different from what occurs afterwards, and therefore different from a visual percept. But it is supposed to be causally continuous with the visual percept; and it is largely for the sake of this causal continuity that a certain re-interpretation of the physical world seems desirable. In some ways, the language of causation is perhaps not the best for expressing what is intended. What is intended may be expressed as follows. Confining ourselves, to begin with, to the percepts of various observers, we can form groups of percepts connected approximately, though not exactly, by laws which may be called laws of "perspective." By means of these laws, together with the changes in our other percepts which are connected with the perception of bodily movement,[Pg 217] we can form the conception of a space in which percipients are situated, and we find that in this space all the percepts belonging to one group (i.e. of the same physical object, from the standpoint of common sense) can be ordered about a centre, which we take to be the place where the physical object in question is. (For us, this is a definition of the place of a physical object.) The centre is not to be conceived as a point, but as a volume, which may be as small as an electron or as large as a star. The essential assumption for what is commonly called the causal theory is, that the group of percepts can be enlarged by the addition of other events, ranged in the same space about the same centre, and connected both with each other and with the group of percepts by laws which include the laws of perspective. The essential points are (1) the arrangement about a centre, (2) the continuity between percepts and correlated events in other parts of the space derived from percepts and locomotion. The first is a matter of observation; the second is a hypothesis designed to secure simplicity and continuity in the laws of correlation suggested by the grouping of percepts. It cannot be demonstrated, but its merits are of the same kind as those of any other scientific theory, and I shall therefore henceforth assume it. FOOTNOTES: [43] On this subject, cf. chap. IV. of Dr Broad's Perception, Physics, and Reality, Cambridge, 1914. [44] Perhaps it would not really be lawless; I shall discuss this at a later stage. [45] On this subject, cf. my Knowledge of the External World. [46] See Dr Whitehead's tract on this subject (Cambridge University Press). Also Pasch, Neuere Geometrie, Leipzig, 1882. [47] The definition of an "ideal" point is as follows. Let , be any two lines in one plane, any point not in this plane. Then the planes , have a line in common, say . The class of all such lines as , when is varied while and remain fixed, is the "ideal" point determined by the two lines , . [48] The character of the "ideal" elements, also, will be less similar to that of percepts than in the above construction, or at least cannot be known to be so similar. [Pg 218] CHAPTER XXI PERCEPTION AND OBJECTIVITY WHEN a number of people are, from the standpoint of common sense, observing the same object, there are both likenesses and differences among their percepts. For common sense, with its naive realism, the differences constitute a difficulty, since they render the percepts mutually inconsistent if taken to be each wholly a revelation of one and the same physical object. But to the causal theory of perception this difficulty is non-existent. We have now, however, an opposite difficulty—namely, that of deciding what elements in a percept I can be used for inference as to the existence of something other I than itself, and as to the nature of the inferences when they can be drawn. For the moment, I am not thinking of inferences involving motion, but only of inferences as to the present state of the physical object which is being observed. We must be on our guard against a confusion which is difficult to avoid in such inquiries. Perception, as an event in our own history, is a recognizable occurrence; its psychological meaning is fairly definite. But it has also an epistemological meaning, and this is hardly capable of being made as definite as could be wished. Perception is interesting to us, in our present discussion, because it is a source of knowledge, not because it is an occurrence which a psychologist can recognize. So long as naive realism remained tenable, perception was knowledge of a physical object, obtained through the senses, not by inference. But in accepting the causal theory of perception we have committed ourselves to the view that perception gives no immediate knowledge of a physical object, but at best a datum for inference. A perception does,[Pg 219] however, still give knowledge of something: if I perceive a round red patch, I know that there is a round red patch in the world now, and no account of the causes of my perception can destroy this knowledge. It may be conceded that, in saying this, I am using "perception" more narrowly than it might be used in psychology: I am confining it to cases where we notice explicitly what we are perceiving. For epistemological purposes, this restriction is essential. I am deliberately refraining from all analysis of "knowing" since that would take us too far from our subject. The inferences to be primarily drawn from a perception are, as to other members of the group to which the percept concerned belongs. This is done, in a confused way, by common sense, when it infers the "real" size or shape of an object from its "apparent" size or shape, i.e. from the real size or shape of the percept. The "real" size or shape is a norm, from which the percept of a spectator in a given relative situation can be inferred. Ordinarily, there is no conscious inference involved; but conscious inference can be used without invoking any fresh knowledge. For example, an architect can show the view of a proposed house from any angle when he knows its measurements, and for this purpose he uses only systematized common sense; and he can infer the measurements approximately when he has viewed an actual house from several angles. The "real" object, as opposed to its "appearances," is thus something of the nature of a formula by means of which all sufficiently