Summary of text [comment] page 88

[Maybe I should have said, in the last blog, the following:

The image of a mirror of the world_3H radically grounds the images of both the thought experiment_3H and the light source_3H.

I like the words radical and grounds.

“Radical” derives from the word root. “Grounds” reminds me of soil.]

[Both the ‘thought experiment_3H’ and the ‘nature and source of light_3H’ could be called the ‘mirror of the world_3H’.

The image of a mirror neatly captures both ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’‘ and ‘the experiment where, with a light source, ‘I see something’‘.]

[For the single actuality:

(1) My heart₂ combines my choice_2V and something situating the potential in me_2H.

(2) What I see₂ combines my attention_2V and my sight situating my potential_2H.]

[For the horizontal axis:

(1) Thought experiment_3H( my heart₂( potential in me_1H))

Compares to:

(2) Nature and source of light_3H( what I see_2H (potential in me_1H))]

[For the vertical axis:

(1) I, seat of choice_3V( my heart₂( something that I may choose_1V))

Compares to:

(2) I, seat of sight_3V( what I see_2V( potential of (some)thing scattering photons_1V))]

Summary of text [comment] page 88

[Let me place (1) the thought experiment and (2) the physical analogy side by side.]

[Perhaps, for the intersection, the scenario should be:

With a light source, I see something.

I realize that I am seeing. Seeing is not part of some ongoing operation. There are two drivers, my neurophysiological potential and the potential of whatever is specular scattering light.]

Summary of text [comment] page 88

[Perhaps, for the interscope, the scenario should be:

With a light source, I attend to something.

I do not really realize that I am seeing. Seeing is just part of the ongoing operation. My attention acts as a driver.]