Visual reality: a new insight.

[Dancing David]

I agree LifeGazer that the brain makes up reality for us, but we do use the two eyes, have you ever played with a stereo scope or a viewmaster.

I just contend that our brain makes up our reality from the information presented by the sense organs. And that our reality is dual dependant phenomena, on the brain and the sense organs.

Which lead in an earlier debate to a discussion of wether or not farts actualy exist.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

O.K everyone, time to bail out...

It just clicked with me, where this is going..

Our lifegazer is trying to understand why the illusion of the physical world we live in requires ( the illusion of ) two eyballs... ( instead of one )..

I fear the next question is going to invlove the number of gonads that we have..

Why do we need two ears, lifegazer?

 

[lifegazer]

You still don't quite grasp what is going on. The brain does not view a 2d plane, it is grasping the difference between two 2d planes.

Tell me Russ - what difference does having two eyes make to watching the TV? Assuming you have excellent vision in both eyes, why would it help you to observe your 2-dimensional TV pictures with two eyes, rather than one?
This is the crux of the matter Russ. Even if the brain had two ever-so-slightly different perspectives of a 2-d plane full of light, what difference would it make?

So the start of the process would look more like this:

(but of course, with a little less confusion, and without the crazy colors). From the congomeration of the two images, it can be determined fairly quickly the 3d shape of each object in the scene. Look at the D4. By seeing the 1 line up in both images, but the 3 is offset, you can determine that the triangle shape is slanted towards you.

I cannot see any of this. Sorry. And I'm not sure what you what message you want to convey anyway.

The vision we perceive is a lot more complex than just a 2d plane.

It's a 2-d light show, Russ. The rest is infered.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
The same principals apply to the brain's perspective of external reality (if one exists), whereby the brain sees a 2-d plane full of light that actually says nothing of depth or distance.

No, it does not. It sees two 2D planes. Snap out of it, man!

Oh, look, as I was posting:

Diogenes said:
Our lifegazer is trying to understand why the illusion of the physical world we live in requires ( the illusion of )two eyballs... ( instead of one )..

Why does it require eyeballs at all? Just project reality directly onto my brain and drop all these ridiculous senses! What a kludge.

~~ Paul

 

[RussDill]

We look at a TV screen and depth or distance is infered. There is no actual information on that screen to tell us that there is any actual depth or distance between the objects and ourselves.
We assume that there is because it appears as though there is, from the particular actions of the light upon the screen. That's why TV works. If it wasn't for the fact that our brain is the master of deducing distance from 2-dimensional interaction of light, TV would be a complete washout.
The same principals apply to the brain's perspective of external reality (if one exists), whereby the brain sees a 2-d plane full of light that actually says nothing of depth or distance. Regardless, because of the actions/motion/transformation of that light, depth or distance is deduced. Exactly as on TV.
The brain then goes on to construct the 3-d realm it has deduced for itself. Hence, the third dimension of space is not only the brain's deduction, but the brain's construct. The distances we see and measure between objects and ourselves are created by ourselves, in that they are created by our brains.

I think this is worth pursuing. I'm particularly struck by the realisation that two eyes are useless for a 2-dimensional plane of information. I think this is evidence to show that "two eyes" is itself part of the brain's construct of reality.
Rather... The Mind's.

I don't see how you go from our mind abstracting a concept, to insisting that because our mind abstracts it, it must not be real.

 

[Upchurch]

We look at a TV screen and depth or distance is infered. There is no actual information on that screen to tell us that there is any actual depth or distance between the objects and ourselves. {snip} If it wasn't for the fact that our brain is the master of deducing distance from 2-dimensional interaction of light, TV would be a complete washout.

Wow. It's like you completely forgot most if not all of this thread. Remember sterioscopic vision? How the brian uses two input sources to triangulate distance?

No one is fooled into thinking that the objects displayed on the TV screen projects backwards into the TV set. We accept the illusion of depth because we choose to let ourselves be fooled.

The same principals apply to the brain's perspective of external reality (if one exists), whereby the brain sees a 2-d plane full of light that actually says nothing of depth or distance. Regardless, because of the actions/motion/transformation of that light, depth or distance is deduced. Exactly as on TV.

Again, you are completely forgetting the most important component of our depth perception. Your analogy does not hold because our ability to approximately measure distance is not exactly like watching pictures on TV. You are leaving out our ability to triangulate.

The brain then goes on to construct the 3-d realm it has deduced for itself. Hence, the third dimension of space is not only the brain's deduction, but the brain's construct.

How do you derive your conclusion from the premise? If the 3D realm is the brain's construct, it does not deduce its existance because in creating something the brain would have direct knowledge of it. Likewise, f it deduces the 3D realm's existance, it did not construct it. Your argument both relies and denies on the different definitions of the 3D realm at the same time.

I think this is worth pursuing. I'm particularly struck by the realisation that two eyes are useless for a 2-dimensional plane of information.

Not useless, redundant. And two eyes are essential for reasonably accurate perception of a 3D space.

I think this is evidence to show that "two eyes" is itself part of the brain's construct of reality.
Rather... The Mind's.

Whatever. Your conclusion is in no way supported by your argument, which is in itself faulty.

 

[Mercutio]

We look at a TV screen and depth or distance is infered. There is no actual information on that screen to tell us that there is any actual depth or distance between the objects and ourselves.
fascinating supposition deleted for length
I think this is worth pursuing. I'm particularly struck by the realisation that two eyes are useless for a 2-dimensional plane of information. I think this is evidence to show that "two eyes" is itself part of the brain's construct of reality.
Rather... The Mind's.

You know who else found this worth pursuing? About a couple hundred psychologists and psychophysicists, neurologists and other assorted riff-raff. You have the opportunity to give yourself a running start on your navel-gazing, but reject it.

Diogenes, you are right. Time to bail.

Lifegazer, this is a fascinating area of research and theory. It is one of my areas of interest; I have served as a subject in some experiments on depth perception. I love this stuff. When you show me that you can give this area the respect it deserves, I'll be glad to come back and talk about this stuff with you. There are very few more fascinating topics, IMHO. I sincerely hope you take the opportunity to read that book (or books) that are so readily available. If you ever do...PM me, I'd be happy to add to another thread. But this one? Sorry, but if you can't respect your own curiosity enough to find out what the people who have dedicated their lives to this study have found out about it, then you really don't care about the questions you pretend to ask. And if you are asking just to generate discord....we have a word for that. So, show that you are not a troll, and we can have a great talk.

 

[lifegazer]

O.K everyone, time to bail out...

It just clicked with me, where this is going..

Our lifegazer is trying to understand why the illusion of the physical world we live in requires ( the illusion of ) two eyballs... ( instead of one )..

I fear the next question is going to invlove the number of gonads that we have..

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.
If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information. The distances and depth infered from a 2-dimensional "light show", do not benefit from having two eyes. Likewise, one good eye is sufficient to watch TV.

Why do we need two ears, lifegazer?

Sound is also a construct of the brain. But let's not over-complicate this issue. It's already complex enough.

 

[RussDill]

Tell me Russ - what difference does having two eyes make to watching the TV?

none. Same with looking at a painting.

Assuming you have excellent vision in both eyes, why would it help you to observe your 2-dimensional TV pictures with two eyes, rather than one?

It doesn't, and never was it said that it does.

This is the crux of the matter Russ. Even if the brain had two ever-so-slightly different perspectives of a 2-d plane full of light, what difference would it make?

TV is not reality. In reality, we are not viewing a 2d plane full of light.

I cannot see any of this. Sorry. And I'm not sure what you what message you want to convey anyway.

Can you tell me what part you don't understand? Being involved in 3d graphics for so long, as well being interesting in, and studying optics, I may have glazed over some complex concepts in just a few words.

It's a 2-d light show, Russ. The rest is infered.

Actually no, our 3d stereoscopic vision does a very good job of reassembling a 3d representation of objects. So good in fact, that when we need to build robots that interact with a 3d environment, we give them stereoscopic vision.

 

[Mercutio]

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.
If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information. The distances and depth infered from a 2-dimensional "light show", do not benefit from having two eyes. Likewise, one good eye is sufficient to watch TV.

Sound is also a construct of the brain. But let's not over-complicate this issue. It's already complex enough.

Ah, the triumph of reasoning over experience!

Oh, we probably get the added benefit, since two eyes would be superfluous, of disproving natural selection too!

 

[RussDill]

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.

Alright, you go ahead and argue against that...

If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information.

Whew, good thing we have brains that can see 3d information. Otherwise, I might have to poke out my other eye. Of similar note, is that 2d retinas limit us to seeing 3d information. If we evolved to witness a 4d world, we would probably have 2 retenas that cover a 3d volume. If we evolved to witness a 2d world, we would have two retinas that cover a 1d line. If we evolved to witness a 1d world, life would be really boring.

The distances and depth infered from a 2-dimensional "light show", do not benefit from having two eyes. Likewise, one good eye is sufficient to watch TV.

Good thing we live in a 3d world then, and not merely a 2d lightshow.

Sound is also a construct of the brain. But let's not over-complicate this issue. It's already complex enough.

Everything we perceive is the result of abstractions in the brain. However, that still says nothing as to the source of these stimuli and what they represent. You are somehow assuming that because we perceive abstractions of these stimuli that their source does not exist.

 

[Upchurch]

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.
If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information.

...er, right. So what you're saying is that the human mind can only picture 2 dimensional images, like a TV.

Well, I guess lifegazer has finally proven something: TV really does rot your brain.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm not sure what the problem is here with you guys. Let me try to summarize:-
(1) The brain sees a 2-dimensional light-show since light gives no real information of distance traversed. Agreed?
(2) The distances perceived are actually infered by the changing light. Distances appear to be real, just like TV. Agreed?
(3) Having two eyes would actually be useless to the brain's awareness of the original 2-d light-show. Likewise, having two eyes doesn't really benefit us when watching TV. Agreed?
(4) Therefore, having two eyes is part of the brain's construct of this abstract-reality, since two eyes are beneficial amongst a 3-dimensional realm.

I suggest that we only appear to have two eyes. They exist within the abstract construct of our Mind.

 

[RussDill]

OK, so the image doesn't show up, here is the image I attempted to refer to:

http://www.scottandmichelle.net/scott/myshots/images/index-04-6.html


(edited to add, do a full referesh to avoid image caching)

 

[RussDill]

I'm not sure what the problem is here with you guys. Let me try to summarize:-
(1) The brain sees a 2-dimensional light-show since light gives no real information of distance traversed. Agreed?

No, through the use of stereoscopic vision, the brain is able to create a 3d representation.

(2) The distances perceived are actually infered by the changing light. Distances appear to be real, just like TV. Agreed?

No, stereoscopic vision has nothing to do with changing light. Nor does stereoscopic vision have anything to do with TV

(3) Having two eyes would actually be useless to the brain's awareness of the original 2-d light-show. Likewise, having two eyes doesn't really benefit us when watching TV. Agreed?

Yes, it doesn't benefit us when watching TV, however, watching TV is not necesasry to our survival. Other activities, such as chipping out an arrowhead, would be next to impossible without 2 eyes.

(4) Therefore, having two eyes is part of the brain's construct of this abstract-reality, since two eyes are beneficial amongst a 3-dimensional realm.

Therefore, through your own ignorance, you have once again proven your philosophy to yourself, congratulations.

 

[lifegazer]

No, through the use of stereoscopic vision, the brain is able to create a 3d representation.

Stereoscopic vision is a feature of constructed reality. Same as "blurry vision". Tell me, what value does stereoscopic vision have upon the light of a TV screen? NONE.

The same principal applies to having two eyes and seeing an image of light which gives no information of distance traversed (by that light). In other words, stereoscopic vision is useless for discerning distances amongst a 2-dimensional image, whether TV or real.

No, stereoscopic vision has nothing to do with changing light. Nor does stereoscopic vision have anything to do with TV

The brain receives 2-dimensional information.

 

[RussDill]

Stereoscopic vision is a feature of constructed reality. Same as "blurry vision". Tell me, what value does stereoscopic vision have upon the light of a TV screen? NONE.

No one ever said it did, did they? A TV screen is monoscopic.

The same principal applies to having two eyes and seeing an image of light which gives no information of distance traversed (by that light).

No, it doesn't. Look at the image I provided the link for. All the information necessary to reconstruct a 3d representation of the environment is there in that image.

In other words, stereoscopic vision is useless for discerning distances amongst a 2-dimensional image, whether TV or real.

Well gee, duh, If we look at a drawing or a tv screen, it doesn't do us any good. But that isn't what stereoscopic vision is for. Stereoscopic vision is used to look at 3d objects and determine depth.

The brain receives 2-dimensional information.

Depending on how you look at things, it does receive two sets of 2d information, however, because the information comes from two sources, the differences between the two images contain 3d information. In that, the brain receives 3d information.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I hereby proclaim that Lifegazer has failed the Turing test.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

The brain receives 2-dimensional information.

Two sets of it. Slightly different. Which are interpreted, through experience, as three dimensional. Ever see a 3-d movie? It is projected on a 2-d screen...We can...excuse me...We do process 3-dimensional information.


Ever see those "magic eye" posters? ever wonder about them? You know why they work? They work because we actually do understand how we see in three dimensions.


Read the d@mned book, lifegazer, and just maybe you won't say as many truly stupid things.

 

[lifegazer]

...er, right. So what you're saying is that the human mind can only picture 2 dimensional images, like a TV.

Given that light says nothing of depth or distance (from the brain/mind that sees it), the answer to your question is "yes".

But the brain (if it actually exists) infers/deduces the existence of distance between light (sources)(things) by those similar principals which enable us to watch the TV.

"Distance" is the mind's own construct. I mean, even if there were such a thing as "distance between objects", the mind/brain is not privy to this real information. What we measure is given to us by our mind - not by "reality". The distances we perceive are not given to us by light itself.