Hume's Missing Shade Of Blue

[humegotitright]

Been away for a while. Thought I’d pop my head back in and delve back into the murky waters of philosophy!

In his most famous work, A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume outlined his account of the human mind. Central to this

Hume himself offered up the missing shade of blue as an exception to his account of the mind, which states that all ideas are formed from impressions. The example he claims provides at least one clear occasion where an idea can be formed without the relevant sensory experience.

The problem is this, directly quoted from Hume, Treatise,

“Suppose, therefore, a person to have enjoyed his sight for thirty years, and to have become perfectly acquainted with colours of all kinds, except one particular shade of blue, for instance, which it never has been his fortune to meet with. Let all the different shades of that colour, except that single one, be placed before him, descending gradually from the deepest to the lightest; it is plain, that he will perceive a blank, where that shade is wanting, and will be sensible, that there is a greater distance in that place between the contiguous colours than in any other. Now I ask, whether it be possible for him, from his own imagination, to supply this deficiency, and raise up to himself the idea of that particular shade, though it had never been conveyed to him by his senses? I believe there are few but will be of opinion that he can”

I was thinking about this, and it seems to me, that even if the man can form the concept of the missing shade of blue, it is not an example of an innate idea, or an idea not caused by an impression.

It is clear that the spectrum of colour is one that progresses along a set pattern. So each increasing shade of blue is one hue more than the previous. So all the set shades of blue that we can perceive could be represented as such:
BlueA, BlueA+1, BlueA+2, BlueA+3, etc…

So if we agree there is such a set pattern, then by perceiving all the shades of blue, bar one, we have perceived this pattern. And if we have perceived the pattern, (had an impression of it) then we can form an idea of the pattern.

So if we have an idea of the pattern that the shades of blue follow, then upon recollecting the shades we have experienced, we should be able to fill in the gap, that is to have an idea of the missing shade.

However this idea is not uncaused or without a relevant impression. Indeed the idea is a complex one formed from both the impression of the shades of blue we have encountered, and the impression of the pattern. So the idea is not one that is formed without the relevant sensory experience.

The best comparison I can make is to numbers. We may have never directly experienced 611 things, but we can form an idea of what 611 is, because we are familiar with the pattern that numbers follow.

Obviously if we did not have an idea of the pattern we could not fill in the missing shade, but to perceive the other shades of blue, is to perceive the pattern. It may not be strikingly obvious, but upon reflection the nature of the pattern should be revealed.

[Ingenium]

However this idea is not uncaused or without a relevant impression. Indeed the idea is a complex one formed from both the impression of the shades of blue we have encountered, and the impression of the pattern. So the idea is not one that is formed without the relevant sensory experience.

I tend to agree with this in terms of the complexity of the idea, although I regard it more as our ability to ‘combine’ or ‘layer’ ideas. It’s necessary to have an idea about the pattern to identify the gap, of course, but I’d take it a step further. IMO, the main dilemma is whether or not there’s a required sensory experience of the missing shade itself in order to formulate the idea of that missing shade. I don’t think it’s as simple as the notion that one can have, er, out of the blue, an idea of something not before seen (or heard or tasted or smelled, for that matter, although for most of us humans sight maybe requires less refinement than smell or taste). We don’t really know what mental processing produces the idea of the shade of blue that fills in the gap. Maybe filling in the gap occurs by combining, or layering, the lighter shade of blue that we were shown right before the missing spot on the color scale with the idea of a darker color that we’ve also already seen, like a shade of black. Or if the preceding color presented to us is darker, then we combine it with the idea of a lighter shade that we’ve seen before. If that turns out to be the case, then the sensory experiences behind the new idea can be identified and linked to it, and prior experience of the missing shade itself isn’t necessary.

[tentative]

There may be sensory input that stands alone, but I can’t think of any. As a comparison/contrast organism, I would think that most, if not all, sensory input falls along a comparison scale. I also suspect that most of the time the comparison function is largely unconscious. We aren’t cognizant of this constant process. I agree that it is our capacity to discern patterns that allows us to fill in the “blanks”. We may use one or several sorting schemes that allows to form a mind picture of something never seen before as long as we have seen a relevent point in past experience. If I’ve seen any single shade of blue in the past, I can picture a “missing” shade by adding white or black. I can warm or cool a color by adding other colors. Just give me a starting point and I can fill in all the blanks, but only because I can see the patterns possible in the color wheel. The same would apply to any kind of sensory input.

Interestingly, this ability to discern patterns can also lead to serious error. We can “jump to conclusions” quite easily. Actually, we haven’t jumped anything, we have simply applied erroneous sorting schemes in the comparisons we make as we seek patterns. The blind men and the elephant are the perfect example. The sticky wicket is when we impose a pattern not supported by the sensory inputs. But that is probably another thread…

[humegotitright]

@Ingenium

However this idea is not uncaused or without a relevant impression. Indeed the idea is a complex one formed from both the impression of the shades of blue we have encountered, and the impression of the pattern. So the idea is not one that is formed without the relevant sensory experience.

I tend to agree with this in terms of the complexity of the idea, although I regard it more as our ability to ‘combine’ or ‘layer’ ideas. It’s necessary to have an idea about the pattern to identify the gap, of course, but I’d take it a step further. IMO, the main dilemma is whether or not there’s a required sensory experience of the missing shade itself in order to formulate the idea of that missing shade. I don’t think it’s as simple as the notion that one can have, er, out of the blue, an idea of something not before seen (or heard or tasted or smelled, for that matter, although for most of us humans sight maybe requires less refinement than smell or taste). We don’t really know what mental processing produces the idea of the shade of blue that fills in the gap. Maybe filling in the gap occurs by combining, or layering, the lighter shade of blue that we were shown right before the missing spot on the color scale with the idea of a darker color that we’ve also already seen, like a shade of black. Or if the preceding color presented to us is darker, then we combine it with the idea of a lighter shade that we’ve seen before. If that turns out to be the case, then the sensory experiences behind the new idea can be identified and linked to it, and prior experience of the missing shade itself isn’t necessary.

I think Hume would be happy enough with the notion of combining ideas. Essentially that’s what a complex idea is.

I would tend to agree with you, that we can ‘fill the gap’ and then later once we have the sensory experience of this gap combine the two.

[humegotitright]

@tentative

There may be sensory input that stands alone, but I can’t think of any. As a comparison/contrast organism, I would think that most, if not all, sensory input falls along a comparison scale. I also suspect that most of the time the comparison function is largely unconscious. We aren’t cognizant of this constant process. I agree that it is our capacity to discern patterns that allows us to fill in the “blanks”. We may use one or several sorting schemes that allows to form a mind picture of something never seen before as long as we have seen a relevent point in past experience. If I’ve seen any single shade of blue in the past, I can picture a “missing” shade by adding white or black. I can warm or cool a color by adding other colors. Just give me a starting point and I can fill in all the blanks, but only because I can see the patterns possible in the color wheel. The same would apply to any kind of sensory input.

Interestingly, this ability to discern patterns can also lead to serious error. We can “jump to conclusions” quite easily. Actually, we haven’t jumped anything, we have simply applied erroneous sorting schemes in the comparisons we make as we seek patterns. The blind men and the elephant are the perfect example. The sticky wicket is when we impose a pattern not supported by the sensory inputs. But that is probably another thread…

The last part is interesting, because as we ‘fill the gap’, in the case of Hume’s Missing Shade Of Blue, we are essentially doing just that. An outsider may be able to verify that our conclusion is correct, but we still haven’t the relevant sensory information to confirm our conclusion. For all we know, we could be wrong.

[tentative]

@humegotitright

@tentative

There may be sensory input that stands alone, but I can’t think of any. As a comparison/contrast organism, I would think that most, if not all, sensory input falls along a comparison scale. I also suspect that most of the time the comparison function is largely unconscious. We aren’t cognizant of this constant process. I agree that it is our capacity to discern patterns that allows us to fill in the “blanks”. We may use one or several sorting schemes that allows to form a mind picture of something never seen before as long as we have seen a relevent point in past experience. If I’ve seen any single shade of blue in the past, I can picture a “missing” shade by adding white or black. I can warm or cool a color by adding other colors. Just give me a starting point and I can fill in all the blanks, but only because I can see the patterns possible in the color wheel. The same would apply to any kind of sensory input.

Interestingly, this ability to discern patterns can also lead to serious error. We can “jump to conclusions” quite easily. Actually, we haven’t jumped anything, we have simply applied erroneous sorting schemes in the comparisons we make as we seek patterns. The blind men and the elephant are the perfect example. The sticky wicket is when we impose a pattern not supported by the sensory inputs. But that is probably another thread…

The last part is interesting, because as we ‘fill the gap’, in the case of Hume’s Missing Shade Of Blue, we are essentially doing just that. An outsider may be able to verify that our conclusion is correct, but we still haven’t the relevant sensory information to confirm our conclusion. For all we know, we could be wrong.

And should I say that I’ve witnessed a UFO and several others confirm my sighting, all parties could still be wrong. “Filling the gaps” is subject to error. If this were not so, why are things the way they are? Imagination isn’t necessarily connected to sensory information. Gaps can kill us.

[Xunzian]

Technetium is the missing shade of blue and the conception of it (well before it was actually encountered) was incredibly close to the truth. Look at this stuff.