The article states: Seeing the world not as things, but as a spiders web of interconnecting luminosity and contrast changed my relationship with the world for the better.
Luminance (Luminosity) is a measure of the total radiant energy from a body. It has nothing to do with what a human perceives but rather describes the total radiant energy, such as watts/second of a source (the surface of a radiating object like a display). If the luminance of a viewed light source is increased 10 times, viewers do not judge that the brightness has increased 10 times. This isn't a new reality.
Bottom line:
Luminance - measured amount of light (only property that can be measured, candelas per square meter)
Brightness - perceived amount of light (from self-luminous things)
Lightness - perceived reflectance of a surface
Interesting take.
I can’t speak for the author, but people generally aware of the attributive language of physicalized events are happy to ALSO use words interchangeably as both accurately descriptive and also poetic devices, if they “feel” right. Especially when writing about that subjective thing called experience- which while a conglomerate of the senses - is also beyond tethering to simply mechanistic conventions.
The “luminosity” of “life” as an experience - organic, or indeed even the activity of consciousness and its interplay with both the material and “etheric” (as we can see in consciousness/awareness and the meaning sets thus generated), seems an apt word.
Before writing “word salad Josh!” ... read it again and feel free to ask questions.
Also ... aren’t the images AWESOME?