Do you think you could write your own type of test for seeing that type of "glowing". Like what's the ideal environment and what should one look for?

The short answer is "not like that" and "depends on conditions".

Although I can perceive the snow simply by inclining my attention toward it, most of the time I have difficulty "watching" it because the eyes try to focus on and follow the lights. This doesn't work, I assume because visual snow is a fact of biology and not actually made of photons from the environment. In any case, the movement in the eyes seems to trigger some processing subroutine that renders the noise very briefly smooth and I cannot discern any patterns. I expect this effect is related to (saccadic masking)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking?wprov=sfla1], which renders us functionally blind for a few milliseconds every time the eye moves.

Under these conditions, and with eyes open, the snow overlay reminds me most of an old TV with the antenna just slightly out of alignment, or maybe a very slightly grainy photograph. If I were to try to simulate this mode on a graphic I would use HSV color space and add just a little random noise on the Value channel, perhaps with some very transparent noise "clouds" to imply local variations in density. (I'm at work now or I would just do so to make it more clear.)

With eyes closed, I see thousands of tiny blue-white blobs on a dark or red background, depending on ambient light levels.

If the mind is sufficiently concentrated that the eyes don't try to focus and follow, I often begin to experience (create?) patterns in the noise. When I was younger, the noise would produce random large blobs of higher density (still made of tiny blobs) that would continuously change position, shape, size, and to a small degree color. Since I began meditating, instead of the blobs I sometimes get a swirling blue pattern that reminds me of water going down a drain at the center of the field of vision.

As for any sort of patterned lines, I'm afraid I can only report strong afterimages from reading on lit screens for long stretches. Nothing like the diffraction-grating-looking awesomeness in that image.

Well having global set of rules is one feature of the context-blindness explanation for the kind of variation. One of the possible linkages is that appying this kind of universality to moral behaviour allows one to avoid being a hypocrite as you consistently and without fail apply the honed behaviour. In contrast a person with strong comparmentalization has trouble arriving at the generalization. You have "don't steal at shop", "don't steal from family", "don't steal from classmates" ie you accumulate contexts where the behaviour is appropriate/inappropriate. If you get caught stealing and it feels punishing you form an opinion that "I should not steal here" (a very context sensitive person could go "I should not steal at the north end of this store" separate from "I should not steal at the south end of this store") and do not form an opinion of "I should not steal". In away you have to solve the same appropriateness problem all over in a new context. It need not be that the contextes are not recognised but their role in cognition is not so pronounced.

What I was more getting at I guess iddn't write that explicitly is that context affects memory recall and attention too. That is when I try to see an object one doesn't pay attention to a narrow group fo neurons but a whole big data dump most of which is probably irrelevant to the task at hand. However what you don't recall can't be used in the end product of the mental processing. For example in programming it is usual to declare most variables private. But you could declare all variables public. If you do the program constructs can use each others functionality. At the most extreme you could have the program function as a holistic whole where classes refer to each other public variables willy nilly. However if you a have code where there are lots of private variables you can be sure that those variables are refererenced from a narrow range that having the one class definition open you are aware of all the code that could influence it. Trying to do otherwise would not make the program compile or would raise a segfault.

But in a world where there is no segfaults if higher abstraction level is interested in the details it can explicitly go look at them. That is if I call a function and I know that as a side-effect of that the objects internal variables have changed if I want I can go read those variables. [code] result=fruit_detectorIsApple(blob)

curiosity=fruit_detector.pearness [/code] If pearness was declared private this would not be permitted

In brains it could be that if each brain region has a separate memory store that only it has access that would lead to a type of encapsulation. In the reverse if all functionalities dump their data to a common information store then they can interfere/cooperate. At one extreme all data could be sent all the time to all functionalities but each functionality only really digests a small portion of it. But while the production is made seeking for a particular important pieces of data a lot of secondary data would be floating around too. Or in reverse a brain that gets easily confused by garbage data might limit by only transitting information really required for the operations. And this involves hiding/destroying data that doesn't directly answer questions it is asked. LIke in a math test you are supposed to show your midsteps but in this kind of arrangement the less steps revealed the better and preferably only the bottomline.

Well my point was that the experience isn't that your vision is replaced by another sensation. In the linked slatestarcodex there is a comparison picture. That kind of thing might suggest that the visual snow would appear the same as if there were mist or something. But it in fact superimposes or some relation which would only make sense in perceptual analysis. Like if you repeat the same word multiple times it can fail to seem like a word. But you are still aware of the all the phonemes/letters of the word. It would be weird if somebody could hear the word but could not hear the individual letters. And hearing the letters doesn't interfere with hearing the word. Saying that hearing single letters would be "hallucinating things that are not there" would be really backwards. So in vision when I can see the rawer visual data I am not seeing stuff that isn't there.

If you have a correctly working monitor and take it appart and study it's function it will stay as a functional monitor. If you wire it differntly then it might function differently but if you refrain from rewiring it stays correctly working. If you look inside and see how your visual cortex works you might change your opinion on your visual cortex but it is unlikely that it started to act up just because you looked into it (in the cognitive sense). On the opposite pole if you intentionally set out to imagine a picture of a apple if your visual cortex complies and provides a red apple picture that would be a hallucination. But if it shares what it already has anyway there is no fraudulent component. If it happens during normal operation it is not an artifact even if you were not aware of it's existence. There is some good quote that has parts to the effect of "People can handle the truth for they are already enduring it "