= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Outline of a lower bound for consciousness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (110)
I'm reading a review of studies using "inverting spectacles", which "invert" the visual field. Experimenters then see whether subjects report having the same subjective experience as originally after adapting to the inverting spectacles.
The problem is that I can't tell from the paper what inverting spectacles do! It's vital to know whether they invert the visual field around just 1 axis, or around 2 axis at the same time (which is what a lens or pinhole does). If it's around 2, then the effect is to rotate the visual field 180 degrees. This would not cause the wearer to experience a mirror-image world.
My friend says they're up/down reversing glasses unless otherwise specified, though left/right versions do exist. He hasn't heard of anyone doing experiments involving pinhole-type reversing glasses. He also says to tell you to google "Richard Held".
I know a retired neuroscientist who specialized in vision. I'll ask him about this when I see him - probably tomorrow.
My understanding is that it's only an upside-down inversion. I could only find two crappy links on the subject, though. 1 2
ETA: Page 4 of this paper refers to both horizontal and vertical inversion goggles.
Let us know if you come up with details on the spectacles. I've daydreamed about building a pair of these to try on myself, but the design I came up with is physically awkward and has a very narrow field of view. (I had in mind the mirror-image kind, not the rotation kind, but either would be interesting.)