Classic hallucinations explained as normal modes of a differential equation describing propagating excitations in the visual cortex. A couple of papers on the subject are linked here.
Blondlot's story is apparently most commonly described as a lesson in experimental design, because the N-Ray phenomenon fell apart in the face of a basic double-blind (well, let's say one-and-a-half, since Blondlot's assistant witnessed some manipulation of the apparatus) experiment, even though it was carried out without severe formality.
But I bring this up because Collins' book suggests that N-rays are an artifact of the cone/rod arrangement on the typical human retina, a compelling idea that I haven't seen on the web.
The N-Ray incident is famous in the annals of Science Gone Wrong, but I hadn't actually heard of anyone trying to figure out the neurophysiology of what was going on there.
Basically the cone/rod distribution over the retina isn't constant but, thanks to selection, has a ratio in the center of the retina, and hence your vision, that mixes color perception and magnitude perception. Around the edges, the ratio changes to favor magnitude perception, so you can detect movement in peripheral vision. One of the essentials of observing N-rays was to not quite look at them directly, and Collins or his source supposed that most likely, the same light might be perceived as brighter as it falls off-center in the eye. Innnnteresting.
Amateur astronomers use that trick to see barely visible objects such as comets with the unaided eye; faint-object perception is better with slightly averted vision than it is straight on, because there are fewer rods right in the fovea.
(Also, I think it's not so much color vs. magnitude perception as it is bright vs. faint light perception. The rods are monochrome sensors, but it's the cones that actually provide the brightness information in bright light; the rods are completely oversaturated under daylight conditions and don't do anything useful. There are people with a rare condition that makes their cones completely nonfunctional; they see in complete monochrome, unlike most color-blind people, and they also have to wear dark sunglasses during the day or they can't see at all.)
ADDS BOOK TO CART, not that I have any time even for HPSc-related reading right now. See also: DeFillipo, Paul. "Sisyphus and the Stranger." Asimov's. Oct/Nov 2004. 54-63., which jwgh was kind enough to send me.
Also I wonder if Blondlot influenced Bruno Latour's pre-actor-network-theory philosophy about equipment and artifacts and naming.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
To digress a step further...
Blondlot's story is apparently most commonly described as a lesson in experimental design, because the N-Ray phenomenon fell apart in the face of a basic double-blind (well, let's say one-and-a-half, since Blondlot's assistant witnessed some manipulation of the apparatus) experiment, even though it was carried out without severe formality.
But I bring this up because Collins' book suggests that N-rays are an artifact of the cone/rod arrangement on the typical human retina, a compelling idea that I haven't seen on the web.
Re: To digress a step further...
Re: To digress a step further...
Re: To digress a step further...
(Also, I think it's not so much color vs. magnitude perception as it is bright vs. faint light perception. The rods are monochrome sensors, but it's the cones that actually provide the brightness information in bright light; the rods are completely oversaturated under daylight conditions and don't do anything useful. There are people with a rare condition that makes their cones completely nonfunctional; they see in complete monochrome, unlike most color-blind people, and they also have to wear dark sunglasses during the day or they can't see at all.)
Re: To digress a step further...
Also I wonder if Blondlot influenced Bruno Latour's pre-actor-network-theory philosophy about equipment and artifacts and naming.