Is darkness a substance?

[HinduWoman]

According to one school of Indian philosophy, darkness is a substance.

According to another darkness is not a substance since it is merely the absence of another substance light.

The first school retorted that light is the absence of the substance darkness.

What do you think?

[Cath B]

I remember once reading a short story by Ursula le Guin called The Darkness Box.

I can't remember anything about it except her introduction, where she said that her inspiration for the story came from her young son who once approached her with a box and asked her to guess its contents. After many failed guesses he revealed the answer to be darkness.

Back to the OP. No, I wouldn't call darkness a substance, but thanks for reminding me of the Ursula le Guin vignette.

[Ray Moscow]

Our modern understanding would indicate that darkness is just a relative absence of visible light.

[ofro]

There is no question about what science says about that. See previous post.

Your OP is analogous to describing the functioning of a vacuum pump as one that pumps vacuum into a flask instead of pumping gas out of it.

[Danhalen]

What is a substance?

[Eudaimonist]

What do you think?

I think we need to start by defining "substance".

Next, I think we need to distinguish between the experience of brightness or darkness, and their referents. I'll assume the issue is about their referents, but this isn't a perfectly safe assumption. Something about the way the issue is framed makes it sound awfully subjective.

Then, the issue of photons is sure to arise, and which way we go will depend on what a "substance" is. If a volume of spacetime with a very low density of photons in the visible light spectrum (e.g. a dark room) is nevertheless the presence of something, is that something "darkness"? Or is simply a room that we perceive as dark?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

What is a substance?
as far as Moriah understands, NEITHER darkness nor light would be "a substance." :dunno:

[Jobar]

Technic'ly, Moriah is right. Substance requires mass, by the conventional definition.

However, since Einstein tells us mass and energy are intraconvertible, and light is energy, we can reasonably say that light is a substance, or could be turned into a substance.

I didn't know that there was a Hindu philosophy which considered darkness a substance. It would seem obvious to even a primitive human that light was the 'thing', and darkness its absence. If you go in a cave, it's dark; but strike a spark and light a fire, and the darkness is filled.

What sort of conclusions come from the premise that darkness is a substance? I suspect some rather Lovecraftian horror stories could be written about this!

[His Noodly Appendage]

More to the point, carry a torch into a dark cave, and the darkness disappears. If it's a substance, where does it all go?

[Tawny]

I'm with Moriah...Bearing in mind I am only educated to GCSE Level. Isn't a substance somthing tangible, ie you can touch it?

[HinduWoman]

Definition of dravya/substance: Anything that possesses qualities and actions. There cannot be any qualities without a substance in which to inhere and it is also the ground for change.

In Indian philosophy the vaishashikas held that substance can be both material and immaterial, because of the above definition. For example time was also considered a substance since it is the ground and cause of cognition of past, present and future.

Nyaya school rejects this because in their definition substances are concrete objects existing in real time and space. They therefore reject darkness as a substance.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Well, by that definition, three is a substance. It has the quality of numericality (it is too a word - ask any Rails coder!), and the action of dividing neatly into twelve.

[HinduWoman]

No, according to them number is a quality, not a substance. It is the quality of a thing by virtue of which it is counted.
Three for example inheres in something else than itself and so cannot be a substance.

[dancer_rnb]

I think darkness is just a lack of photons.


And if there are no eyes, is there still darkness?:evil:

[ofro]

deleted

[Danhalen]

Definition of dravya/substance: Anything that possesses qualities and actions. There cannot be any qualities without a substance in which to inhere and it is also the ground for change.So any variable which can be predicated is a substance. Is this a correct statement?

In Indian philosophy the vaishashikas held that substance can be both material and immaterial, because of the above definition. For example time was also considered a substance since it is the ground and cause of cognition of past, present and future.If we are the ground for the passing of past, present and future, and time is the cognition of each, then time is immaterial and not a substance.

It is one thing to define what a substance is. It is quite another to determine if a thing can be predicated.

I'll grant that time is a substance given your definition of time is correct.

Nyaya school rejects this because in their definition substances are concrete objects existing in real time and space. They therefore reject darkness as a substance.Then it is not the case that substances are exhaustively defined as "Anything that possesses qualities and actions" in the Indian traditions.

The Nyaya school must define substance as (at least): Anything that possesses qualities, actions and is a discreet existent within the world of public perception.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Technic'ly, Moriah is right. Substance requires mass, by the conventional definition.

However, since Einstein tells us mass and energy are intraconvertible, and light is energy, we can reasonably say that light is a substance, or could be turned into a substance.

I didn't know that there was a Hindu philosophy which considered darkness a substance. It would seem obvious to even a primitive human that light was the 'thing', and darkness its absence. If you go in a cave, it's dark; but strike a spark and light a fire, and the darkness is filled.

What sort of conclusions come from the premise that darkness is a substance? I suspect some rather Lovecraftian horror stories could be written about this!
That would be fun. We have speculated about inventing a DarkBulb, too, where when you switch it on during the day it DIMS the level of daylight in the room rather than putting out artificial light to decrease the level of darkness at night. (Between that and the Microfreeze, which does the opposite of what a microwave oven does and fast-freezes/chills things, we should be rich, rich, rich!!! LOL).

Light and darkness seem to be two polar ends on a spectrum rather than an "either/or" equation as some want to make them out to be. True, light dispels darkness, but only in proportion. A dim or small light can only dispel darkness immediate to its surrounding, but not the darkness in the far corner of the room. And both equally have the capacity to blind absolutely, just in different ways. That fact alone should make for some interesting mystical, metaphysical, spiritual, or just plain metaphorical pondering, right there. :evil:

[HinduWoman]

Sorry about one mistake. It is not the vaisesiks but one branch of Purva-mimansa --

So any variable which can be predicated is a substance. Is this a correct statement?

I am not sure. Dravya is the material of which a thing is made and the substratum in which change occurs. Without it quality and action cannot take place. Apparently, according to one person I spoke to qualities of a substance are to be predicated.

If we are the ground for the passing of past, present and future, and time is the cognition of each, then time is immaterial and not a substance.

It is one thing to define what a substance is. It is quite another to determine if a thing can be predicated.

I'll grant that time is a substance given your definition of time is correct.


I think you are misunderstanding the position.
We are not the ground of passing of time. Rather time is a single unit and all pervading. Time is the cause of cognition of past, present and future
Secondly dravya can be immaterial --- time is regarded as a real force but nonmaterial. We can never know what exactly time is and we can never perceive it as it is but we experience its effects. By its continuous actions we know that such a substance exists.

Then it is not the case that substances are exhaustively defined as "Anything that possesses qualities and actions" in the Indian traditions.

The Nyaya school must define substance as (at least): Anything that possesses qualities, actions and is a discreet existent within the world of public perception.


Well it depends on what you call public perception.
Dravya need not be always perceived by a sense organ but inferred as well. The soul and mind therefore are also considered substance.

P.S I think the translation 'substance' muddies the waters; in English substance is something material. It would be more correct to say perhaps 'substratum'. ?

[Danhalen]

I am not sure. Dravya is the material of which a thing is made and the substratum in which change occurs. Without it quality and action cannot take place. Apparently, according to one person I spoke to qualities of a substance are to be predicated.It really sounds like dravya (in its simplest form) is an unbound variable. So I think it is possible to say dravya is a thing which may be predicated. Interestingly, this sounds like Quine's statement: to be is to be the value of a variable.

I think you are misunderstanding the position.
We are not the ground of passing of time. Rather time is a single unit and all pervading. Time is the cause of cognition of past, present and future
Secondly dravya can be immaterial --- time is regarded as a real force but nonmaterial. We can never know what exactly time is and we can never perceive it as it is but we experience its effects. By its continuous actions we know that such a substance exists.Actually I was merely commenting that time is not necessarily properly defined as you had defined it. It is possible your given definition of time is incorrect. Then I granted you your definition and conceded the point as trivial to the discussion at hand. After all, your argument is not concerning the nature of time, it's about whether darkness is or is not a substance.

Well it depends on what you call public perception.
Dravya need not be always perceived by a sense organ but inferred as well. The soul and mind therefore are also considered substance.Well that really does muck things up a bit. My understanding of the concept of soul in the Hindu traditions is that there is no single way to determine between traditions what the soul really is. In some traditions the atman is unique to the individual and can therefore be predicated. In other traditions it is a mistake to believe the atman is separate from brahman (par-atman) and the realization of non-duality (advaya nyana) is release from the illusion of separation. Therefore the atman is brahman and can be infinitely predicated which causes problems of another sort: discreet things (substances) are finitely predicated.

P.S I think the translation 'substance' muddies the waters; in English substance is something material. It would be more correct to say perhaps 'substratum'. ?I think "unbound variable" works just as well.

[David B]

According to one school of Indian philosophy, darkness is a substance.

According to another darkness is not a substance since it is merely the absence of another substance light.

The first school retorted that light is the absence of the substance darkness.

What do you think?

If I were going to go all Fritjof Capra on this question, I would be making analogies with some grounds state being darkness, and excited states being light, and claiming that Hindu mystics had apprehended some deep truth behind the universe.

At one time in my life, I would have done so.

No more!

Looks more like attempts at one-upmanship between competing theologians to me.

David

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Not to mention theological hairsplitting and pedanticism, too.
(Hmmm, would "pedanticism" even be a WORD? LOL)

[Goldie]

If a tree falls in the woods...and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?


Sheesh!

[JamesBannon]

The conventional (classical) notion of substance is something that has mass, therefore, by that definition, darkness cannot be a substance. Neither can light, since light has no mass as such.

However, in the end, it's just one of those philosophical puzzles that excite some people. For the life of me, I cannot understand why.

[Jobar]

All this sounds more like a semantic difficulty that a real philosophical problem. How we define 'substance' seems to be the real question.

Using the Western, scientific definition, then darkness is obviously not substantial. But it appears that dravya includes things we would think of as abstract entities, not substantial ones.

I once started a thread on II called 'Pantheism, or doing quantum mechanics in Chinese'. (It was with Amos/Chili, so it was just as surrealistic as you would expect.) It would seem we English speakers have a similar problem with doing philosophy in Sanskrit. :)

[HinduWoman]

Well that really does muck things up a bit. My understanding of the concept of soul in the Hindu traditions is that there is no single way to determine between traditions what the soul really is. In some traditions the atman is unique to the individual and can therefore be predicated. In other traditions it is a mistake to believe the atman is separate from brahman (par-atman) and the realization of non-duality (advaya nyana) is release from the illusion of separation. Therefore the atman is brahman and can be infinitely predicated which causes problems of another sort: discreet things (substances) are finitely predicated.



But except in materialist philosophy atman is also a dravya.
there are lots of interesting arguments to prove its existence and attributes --- thanks to scientific advancements they are all obselete by now. :D

[dancer_rnb]

The conventional (classical) notion of substance is something that has mass, therefore, by that definition, darkness cannot be a substance. Neither can light, since light has no mass as such.

However, in the end, it's just one of those philosophical puzzles that excite some people. For the life of me, I cannot understand why.

Just to quibble, photons have no REST mass.

[Eudaimonist]

Definition of dravya/substance: Anything that possesses qualities and actions. There cannot be any qualities without a substance in which to inhere and it is also the ground for change.

That's precisely why I mention the example of the dark room.

Is there a substance/entity involved that we may call "darkness"? Or is the substance/entity the room, which we perceive as dark due to the lack of a sufficient number of photons in the visible spectrum?

I'd say that it is the room.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[dancer_rnb]

That's precisely why I mention the example of the dark room.

Is there a substance/entity involved that we may call "darkness"? Or is the substance/entity the room, which we perceive as dark due to the lack of a sufficient number of photons in the visible spectrum?

I'd say that it is the room.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think you are right. What if we didn't have eyes, but used electical fields as our major sense?
Would we have any more natural concept of light/dark than we do of the presence or absence of magnetic or electrical fields?