Re: David's last post / message...

Past confusion, for me at least, has related to the difference between these two statements:
"this would have been to give us a form of spatiality in sensation itself" and;
"we wanted to understand the genesis of the experience of space and especially of the depth."

The distinction matches my current
understanding of our experiment though: Our experiment is not focussed upon spatialization as a whole, but attempts to investigate one possible attribute of the experience of spatalizing.

The on/off photocell-finger apparatus does seem to generate the sensation of object-detection, in terms of some 'thing' existing outside of one's self. In the Lenay documents I've seen, this supported their investigation into distance or depth sensing (ie: distal and tactile relationship). The distance between the subject and the detected object was a factor that was measured and tested. This does not appear, however, to be apart of our process.

So, for myself, the query seems still to be... What is the specific attribute (or isolated aspect) of spatialization that we are investigating?

Of course, the whole of oneself is nonetheless involved no matter if blindfolded or not, whether wearing the vibrating prosthetic or not. So
how do we separate the visitor's experience related to the object-detection from the whole of their spatializing experience? How do we go about understanding the influence of object-detection specifically?

This is why I presented the question of 'which comes first': Is the 'subject' otherwise orienting themselves, finding 'ground', or spatializing prior to a focus upon the detection-sensation? Or does this detection assist them in that process, as if to provide an 'anchor' of sorts? How are the distinguishing features of one or another aspect of this experience to be found or revealed through our investigation process? Is it as simple as us keeping such questions in mind, while developing the overall protocol?

In regard to the device: To be honest... I'm not entirely enthusiastic about upstarting a new process of designing, building, and testing if we are still intending to host the formal trials by mid-May. I'm totally open to whatever the group consensus is in context with a lengthier time-line though.

x patricia