Hermann von Helmholtz

Hermann von Helmholtz (18211894) participated in two of the most signifcant developments in
physics and in the philosophy of science in the 19th centry! the proof that "clidean geometry does
not descri#e the only possi#le visaliza#le and physical space$ and the shift from physics #ased on
actions #etween particles at a distance to the feld theory% Helmholtz achieved a staggering nm#er
of scientifc reslts$ inclding the formlation of energy conservation$ the vorte& e'ations for (id
dynamics$ the notion of free energy in thermodynamics$ and the invention of the ophthalmoscope% His
constant interest in the epistemology of science garantees his endring signifcance for philosophy%
1. Biographical Note and Selective Timeline
)he defnitive #iography of Hermann von Helmholtz (18211894) is #y his friend and associate$ the
mathematician *eo +,nigs#erger% +,nigs#erger-s #iography is availa#le in toto from .oogle /oo0s$
since it is in the p#lic domain% 1hile +,nigs#erger-s treatment of scientifc s#2ects can #e dated
somewhat$ for #iographical information his accont is nrivaled%
3elective )imeline
1844 5oins /erlin 6hysical 3ociety
1847 89n the :onservation of ;orce$< pamphlet
1849
1844
6rofessor of 6hysiology at +,nigs#erg
184= Description of an Opthalmoscope for the Investigation of the Retina in the Living Eye$
/erlin! >erlag von ?% ;,rster
1844
1848
6rofessor of 6hysiology and ?natomy at /onn
184@
18@7
Handbook of Physiological Optics$ *eipzig! *eopold >oss
1848 89n Antegrals of the Hydrodynamic "'ations which "&press >orte&BCotions$<
:relle-s Journal fr die reine und ange!andte "athematik$ >ol% 44
1848
1871
6rofessor of 6hysiology at Heidel#erg
18@D On the #ensations of $one as a Physiological %asis for the $heory of "usic$ /ranschweig!
>erlag von ;r% >ieweg nd 3ohn
18@7 Eiemann-s Habilitationsrede$ given 1= 5ne 1844$ 89n the Hypotheses Fnderlying
.eometry$< p#lished posthmosly #y Gede0ind$ &bhandlungen der '(niglichen
)esellschaft der *issenschaften +u )(ttingen$ volme 1D
18@8 89n the ;actal ;ondations of .eometry$< *ectre in Heidel#erg$ p#lished in the
>erhandlngen des natrhistorischBmedicinischen >ereins z Heidel#erg%
18@8 89n the ;acts Fnderlying .eometry$< 14th volme of the &bhandlungen der '(niglichen
)esellschaft der *issenschaften +u )(ttingen
18@9 :orrespondence with /eltrami
187=
1874
89n the )heory of "lectrodynamics$< :relle-s Journal fr die reine und ange!andte
"athematik$ 6art A$ >ol% 72 (187=)H 6art AA$ >ol% 74 (187D)H 6art AAA$ >ol% 78 (1874)
1871
1877
6rofessor of 6hysics$ Fniversity of /erlin
1871 8)he >elocity of 6ropagation of "lectrodynamic "Iects$< /erliner ?0ademie
1877
1887
6rofessor of 6hysics$ Cilitary Anstitte for Cedicine and Surgery$ /erlin
1878 8)he ;acts in 6erception$< address delivered on the ;ondation Gay of the Fniversity of
/erlin
188@ 89n the 6hysical 3ignifcance of the 6rinciple of *east ?ction$< :relle-s Journal fr die reine
und ange!andte "athematik$ >ol% 1==
1887
1894
;onding president of the 6hysicalischB)echnische Eeichsanstalt in /erlin
189D 8:onse'ences of Ca&well-s )heory :oncerning the Cotions of the 6re "ther$< /erliner
?0ademie
2. Helmholtz's Sign Theory and The Nativism Debate
Helmholtz-s earliest stdy of physiology was with 5ohannes CJller% CJller (18=11848) was a 0een
e&perimenter and natralist along the lines of "rnst Haec0el and ?le&ander von Hm#oldt$ sailing to
the tropics to fnd specimens for his stdies (9tis 2==7$ @14)% "arly in his career$ CJller was also a
proponent of 3chelling-s ,aturphilosophie% ,aturphilosophie too0 its ce from what 3chelling too0 to
#e +ant-s assertion that$ while each part of an organism spported the whole$ the only prpose of a
living organism was itself% 8CJller-s enormosly in(ential Handbook of Human Physiology$ written
and rewritten #etween 18DD and 1844$ shows his simltaneos commitments to vitalism$ philosophy$
and rigoros science< (9tis 2==7$ 21)%
?ccording to the 8pro2ection< theory of the physiology of perception$ a stimls cases its response
directly% )hat is$ or nerves are mallea#le$ li0e wa&$ and the o#2ects 8pro2ect< signals onto the nerves
directly$ li0e a 0ey pressed into the wa&% /ased on e&periments in his la#oratory$ and on the
phenomena of #inoclar vision revealed #y the stereoscope :harles 1heatstone invented in the
18D=-s$ CJller o#served that several phenomena of the physiology of perception contradict the
pro2ection theory% 9ne sch phenomenon is stereoscopic #inoclar vision$ in which the two images on
or retinas are resolved into one image$ the image we see% Af images are pro2ected directly onto the
sense nerves$ CJller as0ed$ then how is stereoscopic vision possi#leK CJller also cited the fact that
images from o#2ects are pro2ected onto the retina pside down$ #t we see them as right side p% )he
pro2ection theory has no e&planation of these eIects%
An response to e&perimental data$ CJller constrcted the 8law of specifc sense energies<
L#innesenergienM% CJller arged that each nerve is confgred to receive a specifc range of signals$
as a radio is tned to receive sond on a certain wavelength (of corse$ CJller did not se this
analogy)% CJller called the confgration a 8specifc sense energy%< CJller e&plained stereoscopic
vision #y arging that each retina is a#le to perceive itself$ that is$ to perceive a priori the manifold$ or
grid$ of points that can #e pro2ected onto the retina% CJller hypothesized that there was an organic
correlation #etween the left and the right retinas of the eye (CJller 18D7184=$ 2! D41D84$ see also
)rner 199D$ 1491@=)% "ach point on the left retina is inde&ed to one and only one point on the right
retina% CJller arges that for each point seen in stereoscopic vision$ the two signals from the
corresponding points on the two retinas are pro2ected onto a single point%
CJller-s e&planation appeals to an a priori perception of the retina #y itself$ and to the activity of
pro2ecting two points onto a theoretical pro2ection srface a priori% CJller tries to se +antian
philosophy to spport his theory$ arging that #y the 8manifold accessi#le to pre intition< +ant
meant$ or cold have meant$ the a priori possi#le manifold of physical points that cold #e perceived
#y the retina% Eo#ert Gi3alle presents evidence that this view is not +antian (Gi3alle 199D$ 4=2I)%
;rom 18D8 to 1842$ Helmholtz stdied medicine nder CJller% ;rom 1842 to 1848$ while wor0ing as an
army srgeon in 6otsdam$ Helmholtz made many trips to /erlin to wor0 in .stav Cagns-s li#rary%
Gring these trips$ Helmholtz stayed in contact with fellow stdents of CJller-s he had met while
wor0ing in CJller-s la#oratory$ "mil d /oisBEeymond and "rnst /rJc0e% An 1844$ Helmholtz 2oined the
/erlin 6hysical 3ociety$ which was fonded #y d /oisBEeymond and also conted among its
mem#ers /rJc0e and 1erner von 3iemens% G /oisBEeymond fonded the 6hysical 3ociety to spport
e&periment and to #anish vitalism from scientifc research% ;or more on Helmholtz-s early career and
relationship with the 6hysical 3ociety$ see 3lloway 1992$ 14I% and @4I%$ and :ahan 2=12%
1hile Helmholtz did not contradict CJller #y name in his writings on physiology$ Helmholtz-s
research$ in CJller-s and Cagns-s la#s and later in his own la#s in /onn and +,nigs#erg$ is in con(ict
with the doctrine of specifc sense energies (see 9tis 2==7$ 1291D=)% Helmholtz proposes a 8sign<
theory$ according to which sensations sym#olize their stimli$ #t are not direct copies of those
stimli% 1hile CJller e&plains the correspondence #etween sensation and o#2ect #y means of an
innate confgration of sense nerves$ Helmholtz arges that we constrct that correspondence #y
means of a series of learned$ 8nconscios inferences%<
An his sign theory of perception as e&pressed in his early career (184818@8)$ Helmholtz arges that
the mind ma0es a series of mental ad2stments$ 8nconscios inferences$< to constrct a coherent
pictre of its e&periences% Helmholtz arges that spatial position$ often sed as a criterion to
individate o#2ects$ is an interpretation of or sensations$ and not their immediate reslt% ?gain$
stereoscopic vision shows that what may appear$ to s$ as a single image is in fact two images
resolved into one% 6erspective can distort size$ as when one pts a fnger in front of the moon%
Helmholtz #elieves that we learn how to interpret spatial concepts throgh e&perience$ which means
that he has what he calls an empirical theory of spatial perception% )his theory coe&ists$ in
Helmholtz-s epistemology$ with his a#ove commitment to the sign theory$ according to which spatial
properties are only properties of representations% Helmholtz-s invention of the ophthalmoscope in
184=1841 contri#ted to his nderstanding of the physiology of perception (3chett 1999H for images
of the original Helmholtz ophthalmoscope see Ge 3chweinitz and Eandall 1899$ 172I)%
6hilosophically$ Helmholtz-s epistemology commits him to the view that representations arise in a
physical process$ #t are signs and not copies of their o#2ects%
Helmholtz was inspired #y the theory of Hermann *otze (18171881) in his e&planation of these
phenomena% ;or *otze$ Helmholtz o#serves$ 8to the sensations from spatially distinct nerve endings
correspond varios determinate Local+eichen Lliterally! place signsM$ whose spatial meaning is
learned< (Helmholtz 19@8 L18@9M$ 47)% Cy varios sensations of my fnger are originally nrelated$ #t
A can relate them to each other #y means of the concept 8my fnger$< which serves as a
mentalLocal+eichen that contains the data of all the sensations% )he space of perception is a
generalLocal+eichen that relates all possi#le sensations to each other% )he seflness of *otze-s
theory is that all psychological sensations are mapped directly onto mental concepts$ and even space
#ecomes a tool for constrcting an interpretation of senseBdata$ a0in to a langage%
?ccording to Helmholtz-s e&planations of the physiology of perception$ the 'alities of sensations
8#elong only to or nervos system$< and we ac'ire or 0nowledge of spatial ordering throgh
perceiving an nchanging se'ence of sense impressions of the same o#2ect!
It is easy to see that by moving our -ngers over an ob.ect/ !e can learn the se0uences in !hich
impressions of it present themselves and that these se0uences are unchanging/ regardless !hich
-nger !e use1 It is thus that our kno!ledge of the spatial arrangement of ob.ects is attained1
Judgments concerning their si+e result from observations of the congruence of our hand !ith parts
or points of an ob.ect2s surface/ or from the congruence of the retina !ith parts or points of the
retinal image1 & strange conse0uence/ characteristic of the ideas in the minds of individuals !ith
at least some e3perience/ follo!s from the fact that the perceived spatial ordering of things
originates in the se0uences in !hich the 0ualities of sensations are presented by our moving
sense organs4 the ob.ects in the space around us appear to possess the 0ualities of our
sensations1 $hey appear to be red or green/ cold or !arm/ to have an odour or a taste/ and so on1
5et these 0ualities of sensations belong only to our nervous system and do not e3tend at all into
the space around us1 Even !hen !e kno! this/ ho!ever/ the illusion does not cease/ for it is the
primary and fundamental truth1 $he illusion is 0uite simply the sensations !hich are given to us in
spatial order to begin !ith 6Helmholt+ 7897 :7;9;</ =9>?9@1
?s a concrete e&ample of a 2dgment of relative spatial position$ Helmholtz gives the case of
someone grasping a pen in her fngers% 3he cannot infer directly from the sensation of the pen that it
is in one place$ #ecase each fnger feels only the position of the pen relative to the fnger itself% 3he
wold have e&actly the same sensations if her fngers were toching two or three diIerent pens$
separated in space% )he #elief that the pen is in one place only is #ased on her 0nowledge that his
fngers are close enogh together that only one pen will ft #etween them% ?s Helmholtz remar0s$
*hen t!o diAerent parts of the skin are touched at the same time/ t!o diAerent sensitive nerves
are e3cited/ but the local separation bet!een these t!o nerves is not a suBcient ground for our
recognition of the t!o parts !hich have been touched as distinct/ and for the conception of t!o
diAerent e3ternal ob.ects !hich follo!s1 Indeed/ this conception !ill vary according to
circumstances1 If !e touch the table !ith t!o -ngers/ and feel under each a grain of sand/ !e
suppose that there are t!o separate grains of sandC but if !e place t!o -ngers one against the
other/ and a grain of sand bet!een them/ !e may have the same sensations of touch in the same
t!o nerves as before/ and yet/ under these circumstances/ !e suppose that there is only a single
grain1 In this case/ our consciousness of the position of the -ngers has obviously an inDuence
upon the result at !hich the mind arrivesE *hat/ then/ is it !hich comes to help the anatomical
distinction in locality bet!een the diAerent sensitive nerves/ and/ in cases like those I have
mentioned/ produces the notion of separation in spaceF 6Helmholt+ 788G :7;>;</ 79G?>@
Helmholtz arges that perceived properties sch as separation in space are wellBfonded inferences
from two sorces of 0nowledge! or e&perience$ and the properties of or sense organs% ;or
Helmholtz$ 0nowledge of the way or physiology wor0s in perception is essential to any
epistemological accont of spatial properties% Helmholtz arges that the more we 0now a#ot the
physiology of perception$ the more accrate or inferences a#ot or e&perience will #e% An the case
of a person grasping a pen or toching a grain of sand$ Helmholtz arges that we #ecome aware that
the o#2ect toched is a single o#2ect #y stdying the position of or sense organs! the nerve endings
in or fngers$ in this case% 9r awareness of distinction of spatial position$ necessary for depth
perception and perception of distance$ is learned and not innate% *enoir (2==@) is a rich history of
Helmholtz-s in(ences on this score$ inclding 5ohann Her#art$ 1ilhelm 1ndt$ :arl ;riedrich .ass$
and an analysis of Helmholtz-s theory of perception as 8operationalizing< the +antian view%
An Helmholtz-s early wor0$ and in some later essays$ perceptal space is a mental generalization of
or orientation with respect to o#2ects in space% 1e learn the general properties of space #y
discovering what spatial properties do not change when o#2ects move$ and when we move relative to
the o#2ects% )he insight that the spatially relevant properties of o#2ects are the properties that remain
invariant when o#2ects change position$ or when we change position relative to the o#2ects$ is
fndamental to Helmholtz-s later wor0 on topology%
An the third part of Helmholtz-s Handbook of Physiological Optics$ Helmholtz draws a distinction
#etween nativism and empiricism in the physiology of perception% An drawing p the Handbook$
Helmholtz-s 8tas0 was to srvey the feld of physiological optics for the prpose of writing a wor0 that
wold appear as volme nine of +arsten-s EncyklopHdie der Physik% )he format of the +arsten series
dictated that Helmholtz provide a thorogh review of #oth past and present wor0$ a tas0 he
performed diligently% 1ishing to provide a systematic theoretical framewor0 for his srvey of the feld$
Helmholtz divided the ma2or theoretical positions with respect to spatial perception into two grops$
which he characterized with the ad2ectives empiristisch and nativistisch< (Hatfeld 1991$ 274274% A
follow Hatfeld in translating the term 8empirisms< as 8empirism%<)% )rner (199D) has arged that
Helmholtz-s empirism was pragmaticBthat Helmholtz adopted an empirist stance to meet the
challenges of 8imposing order on a chaotic new feld of investigation< and of defending his stance in
his lifelong de#ate with "wald Hering ()rner 199D$144)%
3ignifcant 'estions in the empirism nativism de#ate inclde how to e&plain perception of depth
and relief ()rner 199D$ 14@)% )he 8pro2ection< theory e&plained relief perception #y claiming that the
mind interprets visal ces to constrct a com#ined$ relief pictre ot of two (at pictres provided #y
the eyes ()rner 199D$ 148)% /y 18@7$ when Helmholtz p#lished his Handbook of Physiological
Optics$ Helmholtz had developed his 8sign< theory$ according to which the #rain-s constrction of
phenomena sch as depth and separation in space is learned% )his accont #roght Helmholtz into
con(ict with Hering%
,ativism :Hering2s account< is the vie! that at birth 6or sometime thereafter/ depending upon the
ontogenetic timetable@ the organism/ upon visual stimulation/ !ill e3perience a spatially
organi+ed array of colored areas1 $he key notion is that the disposition to have spatially organi+ed
visual e3perience is inborn and does not depend upon a process of learning1 & nativist need not
assert that an innately endo!ed organism !ill be visually competent at birth/ for the visual
system might become functional only after a further period of maturation1 Empirism :Helmholt+2s
account< is the vie! that at least some of the spatial organi+ation found in the visual e3perience
of the adult is the result of learningC it asserts that some or all of the ability to perceive a spatially
organi+ed visual !orld is ac0uired 6Hat-eld 7887/ I9>@1
)he de#ate #etween Helmholtz and Hering focsed on several specifc cases$ in particlar$ how to
accont for the soBcalled 8horopter< pro#lem% )he horopter is the set of points that the eye perceives
as e'idistant from the perceiving s#2ect when the eye is focsing on a single point% )he eye
perceives points on the horopter as if they were lying on a straight line at a f&ed distance from the
eye% However$ in reality the horopter line is a crve$ that is$ in reality the points are not e'ally
distant from the eye%
1hen loo0ing at a single o#2ect$ some points on the o#2ect stimlate #oth eyes$ #t some points
stimlate only the right or the left eye% )he #rain resolves these common and distinct stimli into a
single image (Hershenson 1999$ 29D=)% )he fact that the #rain mst resolve two distinct images into
one acconts for the horopter eIect% 1hen the eyes are focsing on a single point$ the left and the
right eyes give diIerent inpts to the #rain a#ot o#2ects to the left or right of the point of focs% )he
#rain corrects for the diIerent inpts coming from the left and the right eyes #y representing them as
e'ally distant from the eyes as the o#2ect of focs%
Hering and Helmholtz disagree$ not a#ot the empirical reslts or the concept of the horopter itself$
#t a#ot how to e&plain the #rain-s resoltion of two images into one% Helmholtz arges that the
#rain ad2sts the retinal images #y a process of 8nconscios inferences%< Helmholtz contends that a
child-s #rain learns to respond to stimli as the child develops$ and that the #rain nconsciosly
ad2sts itself to prodce a coherent e&perience N for instance$ to resolve retinal disparities%
Hering arges that the a#ility to e&perience o#2ects as a single$ spatially ordered image is a
disposition in#orn in hman children$ and not ac'ired% 1hile children may not #e #orn with the
a#ility to resolve two images into one$ Hering claims that the a#ility develops when a child grows to
matrity$ and is not learned% Hering arges that depth perception and stereoscopic vision are inherent
physical a#ilities$ li0e rnning or even #reathing$ which can #e honed #t are not learned wholesale
from e&perience% An fact$ to Hering$ the ad2stments the #rain and eyes ma0e to diIerent inpts are
atomatic and involntary$ li0e a heart#eat% Helmholtz contends that depth perception and
stereoscopic vision re'ire reciprocal ad2stment to o#2ects and ths are s0ills that mst #e learned
throgh e&perience$ li0e shaving in front of a mirror (an e&ample he ta0es from CJller$ see 9tis 2==7$
129)% 1hen shaving in front of a mirror$ one mst learn to distingish right from left in the mirror$ and
to trn the right or left side of one-s face to the mirror correctly$ even thogh the apparent motion in
the mirror is the opposite of the felt motion in one-s #ody% Helmholtz arges that the a#ility to shave
in front of a mirror cannot #e innate$ #ecase it re'ires learned ad2stments to the properties of
one-s environment$ that re(ections in a mirror are inverted$ for instance%
9tis (2==7) and )rner (199D) arge that the most signifcant diIerence #etween Hering and
Helmholtz is not in their distinct e&planations of the empirical evidence% Eather$ the diIerence is in
the epistemological conse'ences of their higherBorder commitments% Af Helmholtz is right$ then or
access to o#2ective properties is not direct$ #t constrcted% An his early 8sign< theory$ Helmholtz
arges that perceptions of o#2ects are not impressions li0e the imprint of a 0ey on wa&$ #t are
sym#ols or signs of their o#2ects$ as a name is a sym#ol of a person% ;or Helmholtz$ the degree of
resem#lance #etween perception and o#2ect may #e as remote as the degree of resem#lance
#etween a written name and the physical person to whom the name refers (Helmholtz 1882$ 2!@=8$
Helmholtz 19=D$ 1!41IH cited in 3chiemann 1998$ 2@)% Hering o#2ects strenosly to these
epistemological conse'ences of Helmholtz-s sign theory$ and arges that we have direct access to
real o#2ects in perception%
)here is signifcant de#ate over the 'estion of how far Helmholtz-s theory was in(enced #y
+antianism% Gavid .alaty$ Oicholas 6astore$ and Gavid *eary have arged that Helmholtz was +antian
in his approach (.alaty 1971$ 149@@H 6astore 1978$ D447@H and *eary 1982$ D@H cited in Hatfeld
1991$ D24)% ?s Cichael Heidel#erger has o#served recently$ the OeoB+antian ?lois Eiehl refers to +ant
as a 8man of the physiologists$< and Eiehl refers to Helmholtz-s 8+antian nderstanding of sensory
perception$< althogh Heidel#erger himself may not read Helmholtz as a +antian (Eiehl 187@$ v and 4H
Heidel#erger 2==7$ D=)% .ary Hatfeld and "dwin /oring have arged that Helmholtz-s empiricism
otweighs his +antianism% /oring-s classic history of psychology inagrated the contemporary
reading of Helmholtz as an empiricist or empirist (/oring 1942$ chapter 14)% Hatfeld arges that$
while Helmholtz maintained some +antian doctrines for a time$ his matre view departs from
+antianism (Hatfeld 1991$ D24D2@)$ and *enoir concrs (2==@$ 2==2=4)% An a 1918 article$ the
Car#rg OeoB+antian "rnst :assirer spports this mi&ed reading of Helmholtz% ?ccording to :assirer$
althogh Helmholtz-s view was 8lin0ed deli#erately to +ant$< and Helmholtz was very in(ential in the
origins of OeoB+antianism$ Helmholtz made the a priori dependent on the reslts of natral science$ a
signifcant departre from +antianism (:assirer 2==4 L1918M$ 9@)%
E";"E"O:"! http!PPplato%stanford%edPentriesPhermannBhelmholtzPQ"pi