Exploring The Human Conscious Light Screen

[uwot]

I would say also: Funny thing the Conscious Mind.

And I would agree.

[commonsense]

Do you actually sense that the Conscious Light Noise that you see with your eyes closed is a long distance away from you?

That would be the first time anyone has reported that. In any case yes it is a fascinating problem.

Synesthesia, although rare, has occurred already.

[SteveKlinko]

Do you actually sense that the Conscious Light Noise that you see with your eyes closed is a long distance away from you?

That would be the first time anyone has reported that. In any case yes it is a fascinating problem.

Synesthesia, although rare, has occurred already.

Synesthesia is when two different Sense Perceptions are mixed up, like in Seeing Sound or Hearing Light. How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?.

[commonsense]

Do you actually sense that the Conscious Light Noise that you see with your eyes closed is a long distance away from you?

That would be the first time anyone has reported that. In any case yes it is a fascinating problem.

Synesthesia, although rare, has occurred already.

Synesthesia is when two different Sense Perceptions are mixed up, like in Seeing Sound or Hearing Light. How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?.

I thought that if sound is detected by the eyes, it is a case of synesthesia even if vision also takes place in the eyes. My mistake.

[Skepdick]

Synesthesia, although rare, has occurred already.

Synesthesia is when two different Sense Perceptions are mixed up, like in Seeing Sound or Hearing Light. How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?.

I thought that if sound is detected by the eyes, it is a case of synesthesia even if vision also takes place in the eyes. My mistake.

Semantics. Both sound and light are waves.

Some light waves are detected by sight (visible spectrum), some light waves are detected by touch (infrared spectrum).

Using technology we can remap any wave into the visible spectrum such that it can be perceived by sight.

[uwot]

Both sound and light are waves.

Well, sound waves are mechanical and require a material medium. In spite of Einstein's special theory of relativity and it's rejection of the luminiferous aether, the jury is still out on whether light requires a medium.

Some light waves are detected by sight (visible spectrum), some light waves are detected by touch (infrared spectrum).

Using technology we can remap any wave into the visible spectrum such that it can be perceived by sight.

If by "remap" you mean convert, then yeah, but to my knowledge, you can't squeeze or stretch sound waves and make them light waves.

[SteveKlinko]

Synesthesia, although rare, has occurred already.

Synesthesia is when two different Sense Perceptions are mixed up, like in Seeing Sound or Hearing Light. How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?.

I thought that if sound is detected by the eyes, it is a case of synesthesia even if vision also takes place in the eyes. My mistake.

Sound cannot be detected by the eyes. But Light that is detected by the Eyes can produce an Experience of Sound. Light cannot be detected by the Ears. But Sound that is detected by the Ears can produce a Light Experience.

[commonsense]

Synesthesia is when two different Sense Perceptions are mixed up, like in Seeing Sound or Hearing Light. How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?.

I thought that if sound is detected by the eyes, it is a case of synesthesia even if vision also takes place in the eyes. My mistake.

Sound cannot be detected by the eyes. But Light that is detected by the Eyes can produce an Experience of Sound. Light cannot be detected by the Ears. But Sound that is detected by the Ears can produce a Light Experience.

Thanks for this info!

[Skepdick]

Well, sound waves are mechanical and require a material medium. In spite of Einstein's special theory of relativity and it's rejection of the luminiferous aether, the jury is still out on whether light requires a medium.

Perhaps the jury is out into how to objectively categorise stuff into "mediums" and "non-mediums"?

Einstein rejected the concept of an ether and replaced it with the concept of space. At the other end of the spectrum - quantum fields.

Different language - same implication.

Is space a medium? Are quantum fields mediums? Do holes exist? Flip a coin.

If by "remap" you mean convert, then yeah, but to my knowledge, you can't squeeze or stretch sound waves and make them light waves.

You can convert the energy from the one into the energy of the other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

From the purview of information theory (which is isomorphic to energy via Landauers's principle) you could say that converting one kind of wave into another is equivalent to encoding/decoding/transcoding.

Is all signal processing. Translation from one language into another.

[uwot]

Well, sound waves are mechanical and require a material medium. In spite of Einstein's special theory of relativity and it's rejection of the luminiferous aether, the jury is still out on whether light requires a medium.

Perhaps the jury is out into how to objectively categorise stuff into "mediums" and "non-mediums"?

Well, there's always those that can't tell the difference.

Einstein rejected the concept of an ether and replaced it with the concept of space.

Not really. He discarded a static luminiferous aether for the context of special relativity, and introduced the concept of spacetime, which he sometimes called a relativistic aether in the context of general relativity.

At the other end of the spectrum - quantum fields.

In Einstein's heyday, the only forces known to science were gravity and electromagnetism. As far as Einstein understood at the time, fundamental particles were just condensations in the electromagnetic field.

Different language - same implication.

Is space a medium? Are quantum fields mediums? Do holes exist? Flip a coin.

Yes. Yes and without committing myself to any semantic jiggery-pokery, yes.

If by "remap" you mean convert, then yeah, but to my knowledge, you can't squeeze or stretch sound waves and make them light waves.

You can convert the energy from the one into the energy of the other:

Fine; so you mean convert.

Is all signal processing. Translation from one language into another.

Sure. What's new?

[Skepdick]

Well, there's always those that can't tell the difference.

Probably because the difference is conceptual, not demonstrable? A distinction without a difference, if you will.

Not really. He discarded a static luminiferous aether for the context of special relativity, and introduced the concept of spacetime, which he sometimes called a relativistic aether in the context of general relativity.

Potato, potatoh.

for X in {static luminiferous aether; spacetime, relativistic aether} (in any and all context): is X a medium or not?

Yes. Yes and without committing myself to any semantic jiggery-pokery, yes.

You seem to have made up your mind even if the jury hasn't. Did you flip a coin like the rest of us, or do you have a better method?

Sure. What's new?

I didn't realise neomania was your infliction...

[uwot]

Well, there's always those that can't tell the difference.

Probably because the difference is conceptual, not demonstrable? A distinction without a difference, if you will.

Nah, it's demonstrable. That's what particle accelerators do.

Not really. He discarded a static luminiferous aether for the context of special relativity, and introduced the concept of spacetime, which he sometimes called a relativistic aether in the context of general relativity.

Potato, potatoh.

for X in {static luminiferous aether; spacetime, relativistic aether} (in any and all context): is X a medium or not?

No. Maybe. Maybe.

Yes. Yes and without committing myself to any semantic jiggery-pokery, yes.

You seem to have made up your mind even if the jury hasn't. Did you flip a coin like the rest of us, or do you have a better method?

Evidence.

Sure. What's new?

I didn't realise neomania was your infliction...

I presume you mean affliction, or at least what I mean by affliction, but how you use words is entirely up to you. But there ya go again; do you really believe that I am inflicted/afflicted by neomania? I already admitted to some old fashioned ideas.

[Skepdick]

Nah, it's demonstrable. That's what particle accelerators do.
....
No. Maybe. Maybe.
....
Evidence.

If "that's what particle accelerators do", then what kind of evidence from particle accelerators will turn your "maybe" into "yes"?

do you really believe that I am inflicted/afflicted by neomania? I already admitted to some old fashioned ideas.

Old-fashioned folk can't pursue novelty? You asked "What's new?". Your question caused uncertainty in my mind: why do you expect novelty?

And if you don't expect novelty, why ask the question?

[uwot]

Nah, it's demonstrable. That's what particle accelerators do.
....
No. Maybe. Maybe.
....
Evidence.

If "that's what particle accelerators do", then what kind of evidence from particle accelerators will turn your "maybe" into "yes"?

Well, the Higgs Boson is the most recent example, but pretty much any fundamental particle you care to shake a stick at. Although yup, I concede, there are alternative interpretations - that's underdeterminism for you.

do you really believe that I am inflicted/afflicted by neomania? I already admitted to some old fashioned ideas.

Old-fashioned folk can't pursue novelty? You asked "What's new?". Your question caused uncertainty in my mind: why do you expect novelty?

And if you don't expect novelty, why ask the question?

To be frank Skepdick, I don't expect novelty from you.

[Skepdick]

Well, the Higgs Boson is the most recent example, but pretty much any fundamental particle you care to shake a stick at. Although yup, I concede, there are alternative interpretations - that's underdeterminism for you.

OK, so lets avoid the talk of "interpretations" then... I grant you ontological carte blanche. Put on your "direct realism" hat. What evidence would sway your "maybe" into a "yes"? What evidence would convince you that spacetime is a medium?

If you can't answer that, I am simply going to point out that you are still stuck with a two-valued (Boolean) semantic.

Your "No" means "No". But your "Maybe" is my "Yes". You are playing the very "semantic jiggery-pokery" you are trying to avoid

To be frank Skepdick, I don't expect novelty from you.

That's a 2nd datapoint now causing me to question the intent behind your question... If you don't expect novelty from me, why ask "What's new?"