The area of consciousness studies suffers from clarity of definition
   which is a major constraint on research outside the mainstream
   narratives. A good example is the widespread dismissal of Jaynes', "The
   origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind", mostly
   due to reviewers failing to even read in detail this work and
   understand how he defines a particular aspect of consciousness.

   On Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:52 PM Douglas Lucas <[1]dal@riseup.net> wrote:

     Hey cypherpunks / nerdcoin hoarders,
     On 5/12/19 6:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
     > If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in
     order
     > to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of
     light
     > then?  Is there real physics to optics?  How can light know what
     > direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
     Tangent, but there's a somewhat similar question in philosophy of
     mind.
     People sometimes imagine human consciousness to be a kind of
     "theater"[1]: all the sensory input is arriving from behind the
     curtain
     (optic nerves etc. transmitting inbound info), then that traveling
     sensory input crosses some sort of finish line, and then is
     presented,
     entirely bundled up together (audio, video, etc.), on some some of
     inner
     theater, to some inner self, who then makes a rational decision
     about
     the display on the theater, and consequently sends output ("strike
     keyboard with finger") to the body, etc., until new sensory input
     arrives on the internal movie screen, triggering more decisions from
     the
     inner self/captain of the ship/homonculus...
     An interesting complication to the above is, like the different
     colors
     of light going through the prism at minutely different speeds,
     thereby
     introducing confusing complexity to a model generally taken as
     straightforward, well, the sensory input traveling through the body,
     the
     brain neurons, etc., do not always perform properly, do not all
     operate
     at the same speed, etc. So there's lag among these different
     inbound,
     command, and outbound signals, and perhaps the theater is
     dishonestly
     representing the various confusing input as straightforwardly bound
     together. Maybe one optic nerve is slightly longer than the other
     due to
     some congenital reason. So on and so forth.
     I'm not sure what the implications of the above would be for, e.g.,
     neuro-surgeons performing operations, athletes trying to master
     their
     mind-bodies, Libet and free will[2], etc. Sometimes I think the
     above is
     just well-off people with copious spare time flapping their jaws --
     elementary school lunch table shit ("How do I know you see green
     when I
     see green?") just with bigger words and longer sentences, while
     everyone
     else suffers, does the jaw-flappers' unpaid domestic labor,
     disappears
     into ICE prisons, etc., their views and insights on the above never
     recorded to history.
     Doug
     [1] [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
     [2]
     [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libe
     t%27s_experiments

References

   1. mailto:dal@riseup.net
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet's_experiments