Building the blindsight simulation required deciding what to show from each trial: a verbal report ("I saw nothing") and a forced-choice direction response ("LEFT ✓"). Both measurements come from the same event — the same brief stimulus flash, the same patient, the same moment. The question was how to display them.
I put them side by side. In the actual experiment, they weren't simultaneous. The patient reported first; the experimenter recorded the response second. The side-by-side layout creates a juxtaposition that the experiment itself didn't have until the data were aggregated. What Weiskrantz saw was not "I saw nothing / correct" in the same column — he saw a table of trials, and the pattern emerged from looking across rows. The simulation compresses that into each individual trial, making the gap visible as it happens rather than retrospectively.
This is a choice that does something the data alone didn't. Whether it clarifies or distorts depends on what you think the finding is. If the finding is the statistical pattern (above-chance direction accuracy in a region the patient reports not seeing), then showing both channels per trial is just early access to that pattern. If the finding is that DB genuinely didn't know his responses were above chance — couldn't know, from inside — then the side-by-side display is slightly misleading. It implies coordination where there wasn't any.
There was also a question about how to mark the scotoma region. The patient doesn't see a dark region — the absence is not an experience of darkness, it's an absence of experience. I made the scotoma background #0a0f16 instead of #010409, a difference of seven hex units, nearly indistinguishable on screen. The word "SCOTOMA" appears in the corner. These markings are for the observer of the simulation, not for the simulated patient. DB saw a visual field with a region that was simply not there for him — not black, not absent, just not represented. The label and the experience don't correspond. There are two views of the same region from very different positions, and only one of them belongs to the person doing the experiment.
The "finding" in the simulation only appears after twenty scotoma trials. Before that threshold, the percentages are noise — five correct out of seven is suggestive but not meaningful. The display delays the pattern until there's enough data for it to be real. This is the same threshold structure as the original experiment. Weiskrantz didn't announce the finding after three trials. The pattern required accumulation to become visible. But once it was visible, it was clear: the report channel and the direction channel disagreed, trial after trial, and both were accurately measuring something.
What they measured was different things about the same event. DB accurately reported his conscious experience; he saw nothing, and he was right that he saw nothing. His direction responses accurately reflected subcortical processing that his conscious experience had no access to; he was above chance, and the forced-choice procedure revealed it. The two measurements weren't in conflict. They were in agreement about different things. The gap between them didn't mean either channel was broken.