Differ & Deviate Nuances — “Perceiving Radio” — A Novice Corollary
Third Incremental Edition. This essay is entirely a matter of opinion.
(All essays belonging to this Medium.com publication, while in Medium.com subscription-service ‘story’ form, are continually and regularly under fluid edit. This is the standard and routine for this Medium.com publication.)
Each reader is invited to perform an optional and voluntary “brain sight” experiment, at his or her leisure. Readers are the owners of full scientific sensory “gear,” in biological form, and are each thus more qualified to rigorously experiment in the sciences than many persons might themselves acknowledge, or acknowledge of others. That’s for all readers, regardless of age or education.
Scientific Method, to my opinion, hinges greatly on subjectivity, personal experience, and respect that it is always appropriate that doubt and uncertainty be honored as possible beyond current understanding, and that indeterminacy and uncertainty — or doubt, are fundamental and beautiful aspects of all observation and experiment. All observation and experiment, in many discussions on scientific method, are described as always somewhat deceptive.
That sounds odd. A thing is what it is; is it not? A fact is a fact; is it not? Actually, the principle is that no subjective observer can behold or know all of any fact, be it external or internal to that observer. Facts can be “known of” and “known about” but not fully known or experienced. Such astronomically grand scales of count of atoms and detail of precise geometric shape are baffling in how they exceed the observer’s regard, that being simpler and summarizing at best, always, even as compared to just the complexity and texture and amazingly huge (to the atomic scale) complexity and detail to a single pencil or eraser, that a child could use in early education. Also, another way of understanding this deceptive nature of all observation, is that for any one human to choose an angle and distance from which to view an object, there are a myriad ranges of those angles and distances to choose from, and no single version is the “correct” or “complete” view of any object.
Nearly every child and adult has excellent science gear available, namely the five senses of hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, and tasting, plus a sixth sense of balance and acceleration, a seventh sense of faint brain sight of infrared and radio frequencies, and an eighth sense of demeanor, style, and genuineness to the self, to others, and to aspects of surrounding environs. (Pain and gut senses I consider to be a part of the sense of touch.) For the latter three (3) senses mentioned, in my opinion: the senses of balance and lateral or longitudinal plus spinal accelerations differ from sense of touch, and also extend beyond just vestibular inner ear motion sensing; the sense of faint brain sight is the weakest sense we have; and the sense of demeanor, style, and genuineness we each possess is couched in words hugely applicable and covering every sense of self and others that sometimes is erroneously referred to as emotional capacity. Emotional capacity would better be termed sentiment suite (to include those sentiments less than higher intensity, and covering ethical and dedicated sentiments not often considered emotional) and demeanor, style, and genuineness assessments covers so very much in terms of cognitive self-sense and discerning sense of others’ behavior, as to be apt choices of wording.
As a fun exercise, now I hone the discussion into the proposal I make (not yet confirmed by peer review, but ready for each reader’s personal review at this point) that we humans and other animals can indeed see other than visible light, but that not being optical or retinal in nature, that being nebulous and imprecise though surprisingly accurate, and that not being much discerning of detail. It is a very faint and unnoticed sense. It can only be assessed by closing one’s eyes when surrounded by some radiation emitters, such as lamps, and using the closed eye brain center or midbrain to find an angle to the radiation source: the lamp or lamps.
Interestingly, though it might bring to wonder if lamps only emit visible light, actually to restrict the radiation to only visible light might very well be impossible (to any strict precise shelf cutoff) for any emitting device, and if roughly somewhat doable, still would involve tremendously expensive filtering and blocking features, made of hardware. The factor that restricts us to seeing only visible light is not the lamp(s), but it is how our human retinas — the first brain matter encountered behind those fishy eyeballs — convert only visible light into neuron-electric excitation potentials, termed brain “signal.”
Another interesting factor, is that we only see this visible light triggered “signal” of colors and shades in our brains, rather than truly experiencing sight of light itself. Yes, there is indirect sight of light, but that is a choice of terminology that is not really strict at all, for only signal within the self-brain can be sensed “directly.”
The safest and most enlightening way to perform this experiment is while sitting in a rotatable office chair, typically on four to six rolling casters. The experimenter could place the chair near enough to the center of a room, and clear of obstacles enough to rotate the seated knees all the way around 360° of angle, and with the room mostly dim in lighting, except with maybe one to three bright lamps illuminating the room and scene. The experimenter could rotate in the chair enough back and forth, or around more than once, while looking face down so as to ignore the variations in inner-brain red look to the scene. Then lifting the head to level-eyed (but with eyes still shut and closed) point a finger at the part of the scalp and skull the ray line to which is sensed as the part of the skull and scalp the red looking infrared and/or radio frequency energy is entering the human head, from a particular lamp of however many are noticed.
A starting issue to consider is the nature of the red looking scene. Sometimes this is referred to as the color of blood. This I believe is entirely incorrect. In my opinion, it feels red-like because it is made of infrared energy, similar to red, and because it is also made of longer wavelength, lower frequency radio energy, either in the band of infrared closest to radio communications, or possibly just barely into such bands, and out of the infrared band, depending on what aspect of the sense of brain-sight is noticed, and depending on the nature of the emitter. A quick look at one’s own wrists can illustrate that blue or cyan is the basis for blood coloration, when that blood is internal to a human body, regardless of arteries or veins, either way. The red and blue illustrations for anatomy charts are a great disservice, as those colors were chosen to be indicative of directionality, like traffic sign colors, and not true to nature, sadly. So we have red being closer to infrared, we have red not making sense for blood, and we have evidence of some brightness passing right through the skull and scalp and outer lobe gray matter to the seeing center midbrain (or mesencephalon), and with that energy somewhat absorbed by neurons in the midbrain view zone, to excite that red tinted look. The reason I do not believe, in my opinion, that it is the entire brain seeing the energies, is how when turning the chair slowly the aim stays centered and accurate, even though it goes through different scalp, skull, and even outer gray matter. In my opinion, the primary visual scene is in the midbrain, with depth perception arising from depth of anatomy, fore to aft, and with symbolic and perspective lobes acting peripheral to the midbrain and other middle brain organelles, adding great powers of discernment, discretization, context, meaning, motion sensing, and much more, which likely the midbrain alone could not do alone.
Again, in summary, I term this sense a seventh sense of “faint brain-sight of infrared and radio frequencies.” Also, in summary, I am pleased to present this doable experiment as a way to augment the reader’s already accomplished abilities at scientific method, just by being animal human and having all these biological senses experienced by now, and capable of very much more than many of us often consider. Given an understanding of how to use uncertainty and subjectivity, rather than fight them in favor of false determinism, false reductionism, and false and bogus claim of objectivity, then the reader is well equipped for more such experience.
Thank you for experimenting, and know that science does not ask anyone to trust it or follow it, with science instead supportive of all doubt and challenge to the contemporary norm or agreed upon standard. Science is not about sales and correctness. It is about debate, experience, and subjective humble indeterminacy, among other factors.