/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11148194]

How come when I close one eye it still seems like I see in 3D?

[Anonymous No.11148195]

>>11148194
dumb roastie poster

[Anonymous No.11148199]

Our minds are constantly tricking us.

[Anonymous No.11148203]

>>11148199
cute but untrue?

[Anonymous No.11148206]

>>11148194
Because even one eye is a perspective camera. Because of the lens.

[Anonymous No.11148320]

>>11148194
One eye here. A lot of what you notice is because you still have a memory of binocular vision. If you keep the eye closed for a couple weeks, things will get goofy. Like; I turned around and ducked to avoid hitting my head on al elevated train that was 25 feet in the air and 25 yards away. Shadow and light give good hints but unexpected things are a trick. I still mess up, putting a coffee cup halfway off the edge of the table or grabbing right next to a pencil.

[Anonymous No.11148325]

>>11148194
You didn't close your third eye.

[Anonymous No.11148328]

>>11148194
Because you are a stupid woman.

[Anonymous No.11148364]

>>11148320
Marty McFly ducking the 3D Jaws comes to mind

[Anonymous No.11148391]

>>11148364
I thought the train was a model. I was at the state fair and there was a bunch of dumb shit like that. Then, I saw tiny little people inside, waving and pointing at stuff. I was tripping balls in fascinated wonderment for a few seconds before I figured things out. Must've been what Gulliver felt like.

[Anonymous No.11148416]

>>11148194
You never actually see in 3D if you think about it. The actual sense data you receive is a 2D projection of the objects in your field of view onto your retinas. Compare how a game engine takes a modeled 3D world and projects it onto a 2D screen. The "3D feeling" is postprocessing by your brain to create a mental model of a 3D world. Having two eyes helps with the postprocessing, but things like shadows and movement speed can also work.

[Anonymous No.11148423]

>>11148416
>actually
But you pretty much do. Don't confuse the poor faggot. Having two peepers gives you the ability to measure with your mind. You don't "actually" even know where things are. That's just your eyes playing tricks on you.

[Anonymous No.11148479]

>>11148423
I don't think it's confusing. Your field of view is always 2D no matter how many eyes you have open. That's the simple answer to his original question.

The confusing part to me is trying to imagine what actual 3D vision would be. I think it might just be a meaningless concept in a 3D universe, but I can't quite formulate why.

[Anonymous No.11148510]

>>11148479
There is usually a 2d image that we primarily think of, but the brain is using spatial memory, visual memory of images from each eye to construct an understanding of 3d space, which is totally evident in depth perception and how indepth our spatial memory for any given situation is.

I think we really do have 3d vision, it's just hard to comprehend

[Anonymous No.11148532]

>>11148479
I see what you mean. I was thinking of what "seems" to OP and you are saying what "3D" IS. It would be true to say that baseball would be hard to play with one eye though.

[Anonymous No.11148622]

Parallax. Brain gets 3D info from the difference between successive frames from single eyes.

[Anonymous No.11148661]

>>11148195
Based thot patrol

[Anonymous No.11148692]

The brain uses raw 2D data to create a 3D world in your mind. It has many ways of processing data to infer 3D features. The parallax and angle of your eyes is just two. You can still get 3D info from focal points, familiarity of size of things, geometry, obfuscations, shadows, etc.

[Anonymous No.11148776]

>>11148510
I agree with your first paragraph, but I still want to argue that vision is definitely 2D. Imagine looking at any object, and picking some point on it (a "pixel" I suppose). You can say what color that pixel is, and you can also name the colors of the pixels above or below it, and to its left or right, and any combination thereof. That's 2D. But you definitely CAN'T name the color of the pixels in front of it or behind it, because they don't exist. The sense data doesn't exist, and it seems impossible to imagine how we would perceive that data if it did exist. That's why I think it's incorrect to say we have 3D vision.

[Anonymous No.11148801]

>>11148194
Isn't this the entirely flat breasted wonder woman?>>11148194

[Anonymous No.11148808]

>>11148391
Interesting. Thanks for sharing

[Anonymous No.11148813]

>>11148801
Her chest is all right. What really kills the mood is the masculine, sloping, Semitic forehead.

[Anonymous No.11148832]

>>11148194
This is possibly my favorite 4channel post ever.

[Anonymous No.11148836]

>>11148776
I just tried your example using one eye and found it to appear true. This realization is so profoundly depressing...

[Anonymous No.11148846]

>>11148813
Racism is bad.

[Anonymous No.11148977]

>>11148194
It works for anime too.
When I close one eye the brain is trying to extrapolate. It's not as good as 2 eyes but it's still somewhat accurate and even better when that what you watch is 2d in the first place. It works better in scenes with a lot of movement because the brain has more information about the space.

[Anonymous No.11149004]

>>11148622
This, move your head and one eye can do the job of two

[Anonymous No.11149022]

>>11148846
Sexism is bad, doesn't stop you from being attracted to men instead of women faggot

[Anonymous No.11149045]

>>11149004
That's not right.

[Anonymous No.11149059]

>>11148846

[Anonymous No.11149106]

>>11148203
t. Hasn't read Kant

[Anonymous No.11149211]

>>11148203
What part is untrue? Our brains are just coping mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.11149216]

>>11148194
You may be stereo blind

[Anonymous No.11149231]

she looks like Abella Danger

[Anonymous No.11149232]

>>11148194
>>11149216
Ooh. I was, years before I completely lost vision in one eye. Good point. OP, maybe you should ask for a 3D vision test next time you're at the eye doctor.

[Anonymous No.11149265]

>>11149231
>t. incorrigible cumbrain

[Anonymous No.11149296]

>>11148194
You use many sources to establish depth in your vision other than stereoscopic vision: Parallax for one, knowledge of what objects are like, occlusion, redness-blueness, perspective lines, size comparison, possibly others that I've missed.

[Anonymous No.11149298]

>>11149265
>t. low t onions

[Anonymous No.11149409]

>>11148194
You may have shitty 3d perception and you learned to compensate through other means.

[Anonymous No.11149423]

>>11148199
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is on the schizo spectrum.
>>11148416
>>11148479
>>11148776

No, creating 3d imake fro the two 2d images is a relatively straightforward process, it doesn't need anything to be made up. It is even used for measuring the distance towards nearby stars. It's mostly just pure math.

[Anonymous No.11149458]

>>11148194
I can't find any good pics of her despite her being a 9/10. How did you find that one?

[Anonymous No.11149576]

>>11149423
What the fuck is a "3D image"? I'm telling you, it's not a thing that exists. From any point on an image, you only have 2 degrees of freedom to move and visit adjacent data in the image, because an image is a projection of the 3D world onto a 2D surface. You're not creating a "3D image" by comparing two 2D images, you're creating a 3D mental model.

[Anonymous No.11149584]

>>11149458
There's nothing good about that pic. Her hair are generally nice.
In that pic her face is retarded, but you don't see that because - for once - she gets the most out of her non-existing tits by pushing them together.

[Immortlarp No.11149600]

>>11149576
Yes, you can:
* compare the two images; areas that are identical are at infinity/beyond your 3d resolution
*Start moving the images against each other. Watch where parts match, those are at a progressively closer distance as you move the images; the exact distance can be calculated as a function of the shift needed amd the distance between cameras.
* you have your 3d image. The only part that is not exact is compensating for parts that are not the same because of noise, reflections and such. (maybe there is a match exact way of dealing with that, but i have no idea)

[Immortlarp No.11149604]

>>11149576 #
Yes, you can:
* compare the two images; areas that are identical are at infinity/beyond your 3d resolution
*Start moving the images against each other. Watch where parts match, those are at a progressively closer distance as you move the images; the exact distance can be calculated as a function of the shift needed and the distance between cameras.
* you have your 3d image. The only part that is not exact is compensating for parts that are not the same because of noise, reflections and such. (maybe there is a math exact way of dealing with that, but i have no idea)

[Anonymous No.11149702]

>>11149576
You're appealing to the dictionary.

[Anonymous No.11149714]

>>11148479
3D vision would allow you to look at a cube from almost any angle and always see all six exterior faces and all six interior faces (if lit) or a black blot where darkened. Now apply this to everything. With 3D vision, you could peek inside everything as well as view all surfaces of 3D objects.

>>11148510
>I think we really do have 3d vision, it's just hard to comprehend
No, our vision is most assuredly 2D. Its why you can look at a square and see all sides as well as the interior and exterior simultaneously. 3D vision would allow the same with 3D objects.

[Anonymous No.11149722]

>>11149423
There are no 3D images. A 3D 'image' is a perfect hologram.

[Anonymous No.11149724]

>>11149604
This isn't a 3D 'image', it's a few 2D images providing slight perspective in a 3D environment.

[Anonymous No.11149804]

>>11149702
No, I'm saying that visual data has two dimensions. Everyone using phrases like "3D vision" or "3D images" is at best speaking lazily, and at worst mistaking third dimensional information as something that exists within vision itself instead of extrapolated by the brain using stereoscopy and hints within the 2D image. "3D vision" implies features as described by this anon >>11149714, and when you use that phrase to describe "2D vision plus inferences by a brain" you are incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11149816]

>>11149724
Not Anon but you are arguing semantics. How we see is what is commonly called "3D." It isn't like a mathematical 3D but, thats what we call the difference between those with binocular vision as opposed to monocular vision. I wonder what rabbit and housefly vision is called. I can't imagine flying around with compound vision. I guess rabbits see 2D in opposite directions. How do they figure shit out? I have read about what another says here, that two telescopes can be used to measure distance so, there is some functioning reality, to call it 3D. Even though it may not, technically, be so. It is all we have.

[Anonymous No.11149857]

>>11149804
>third dimensional information as something that exists within vision itself instead of extrapolated by the brain using stereoscopy
That's a ludicrous distinction because A). ordinary conversation on 3D imagery (whether visual or imagined) is plausible, and bringing up "but muh 2D" is stupid. B). The original suggestion (>>11148416) is ascribing "seeing" to simply "of the eyes" which is semantics.

Also, it's possible "visualizing" ~anything – within the body; what's at forefront .. There are more senses than each individually, and more awareness than the five. "You're a brainlet if you think less, because you're knowing of it but aren't aware."

[Anonymous No.11149883]

>>11149857
>ordinary conversation on 3D imagery (whether visual or imagined) is plausible
Are you talking about actual, mathematically 3-dimensional imagery, as described by >>11149714, or 2D imagery plus inferences? I legitimately can't tell, because you insist on applying the same label to both concepts and reject attempts to disambiguate as them as "semantics".

[Anonymous No.11149901]

The dictionary says that binocular vision is three dimensional vision so, let us use "stereoscopic" vision and we can speak without splitting hairs.

[Anonymous No.11149910]

>>11149883
Why is it so important to you.

[Anonymous No.11149914]

>>11148194

no you cant
now kys shizo

[Anonymous No.11149945]

>>11149910
I'm defending my posts from critique. Are you asking why people argue on the Internet?

[Anonymous No.11150068]

>>11149714
>>11149722
>>11149804
>>11149883
You're trying to make w ridiculous distinction here, juwt because the data needs processing d9esn't mean the information isn't actually obtained. By that definition, we coyldn't hear anything (because hearing requires ridiculously complex processing to actually work on a practically useful level) none of our cameras could shoot in color (as that requires processing to work) mri doesn't actually work (as that requires quite a lot of processing to actually work) basically none of radio based communication could ever work without processing that may exceed any of our senses as it reqires error correction to run reliably, and so on and so forth.

So, you're trying to male a relatively unimportant distinction between something measured directly, rather than being obtained from the raw data using math, while failing to make a far more importanti distinction between something requiring processing (meaning the information is obtained, despite not being obvious in the raw data) and guesswork (filling in the blanks based on past experience with slmething that is plausible, but not actually present in the data)

[Anonymous No.11150069]

>>11149945
You're defending an arbitrary, less relevant semantic than simply calling vision "3D", as apparently is also listed in the actual dictionary (>>11149901).

[Anonymous No.11150104]

>>11150069
>>11150068
You two likely have me confused with another anon, since you're talking about semantics, and I'm talking about 3D vision which, to my knowledge, no known creature possesses. As I have said before, 2D vision allows you to see ALL angles, exterior, interior and sides of ALL 2D objects that are smaller than your field of vision. If you look at any shape on a piece of paper, you may see all sides and angles of it simultaneously.
Actual 3D vision would allow the same for all 3D objects, you would focus on a box, for example, and you could see all sides of it at the same time, as well as what is inside and outside of it.

Additionally, in the same way that 3D objects cast 2D shadows that can be completely grasped by our 2D sight, a 4D object would cast a 3D light - a dark ghost with apparent volume and opacity.

>Extra (If something could see in all wavelengths of light from CMBR to regular frequencies, they would have enough data for 3D vision since all regular objects are transparent to them, and their brain could group proximity of things by their color).

[Anonymous No.11150122]

>>11150068
>juwt because the data needs processing d9esn't mean the information isn't actually obtained.
But it isn't obtained. You don't know what the inside or the back face of an object is by looking at it. You can see a 2D projection of 3 yellow faces of a cube, and infer that it's a yellow cube. But if the other faces are red, you lack that information in the 2D case but not the 3D case. There's no possible processing of the 2D projection that reveals the red faces.

>By that definition, we coyldn't hear anything etc etc etc
This doesn't follow. I'm not arguing that vision doesn't work because it gives only 2D data.


>>11150069
Now who's "appealing to the dictionary"? The dictionary is wrong. It's not arbitrary, it's derived from the well-known concept of a dimension, and vision uses two of them. It IS irrelevant in most contexts, but in the context of a thread that's literally about "seeing in 3D" it is 100% relevant to understand what concept is being referenced. Observe the constant need for re-clarifying by this anon >>11150104 because you insist on calling 2D vision 3D because "muh dictionary" and "muh common usage".

[Anonymous No.11150141]

>>11150122
>But it isn't obtained. You don't know what the inside or the back face of an object is by looking at it.
>>By that definition, we coyldn't hear anything etc etc etc
>This doesn't follow. I'm not arguing that vision doesn't work because it gives only 2D data.
That's not called "seeing"; it's called (localized) omniscience.


>Now who's "appealing to the dictionary"?
That's important if the argument has no other points, but you were also being called out for inferior definitions (utility; commonality; and reasonability).

[Anonymous No.11150274]

>>11150122
>about "seeing in 3D"
I don't know if it is. It is about OP not noticing a difference with one eye closed. We may have different ideas about "3D" and "see" but we can probably all agree on what a closed eye is. If one says that we do not see in 3D, "in 3D" can be discarded and "the same" may be a logical substitute.

[Anonymous No.11150353]

>>11150141
>That's not called "seeing"; it's called (localized) omniscience.
Now THIS is semantics. What I described is exactly what 3D vision would entail, as extrapolated from how our 2D vision works when applied to lesser dimensional worlds. When we look at a 2D world like Super Mario or 1D like a dashed line, we can see all edges/endpoints and the interior of objects simultaneously. I can agree to describe 3D vision as omniscience given that I think it's physically impossible from within the 3D world, but it would still be seeing.

[Anonymous No.11150560]

>>11150353
>When we look at a 2D world like Super Mario or 1D like a dashed line, we can see all edges/endpoints
That's because they're 2D.

>the interior of objects
Not unless it's specifically opened up to the player's perspective.

[Anonymous No.11150739]

>>11150104
The vision we have is 3d by all meaningful definition of the word, so stop being a retard.
>>11150122
The field and line of vision would be the limitswhether our vision is 3d or not.
>This doesn't follow. I'm not arguing that vision doesn't work because it gives only 2D data.
You (somebody) argued our 3d vision isn't real, because the 3d is the result of processing. I argued you would need to reject us having hearing, because our hearing relies very heavily on processing. So much that the inability to process it is a recognized disorder that (depending on its seveeity) makes its sufferers for all practical purposes deaf.

[Anonymous No.11150887]

>>11150739
I'm not arguing that "our 3d vision" isn't real, I'm arguing that it's 2D. And you AREN'T creating a third dimension via processing. You CAN'T traverse your visual field with more than 2 degrees of freedom no matter how hard you process it. You process a purely 2D image to map it onto a 3D mental model.

I still don't understand your analogy to sound. I agree that vision utilizes processing, just like sound, but this has no bearing on the dimensionality of the visual field, which is 2.

Whatever "meaningful definition of the word" 3D you have seems to exclude such uncontroversial features as "requiring 3 coordinates to specify a point" while also suggesting that a photograph or painting is 3D because a human brain can map it onto a 3D mental model.

[Anonymous No.11150921]

>>11148194
Because depth perception is a monocular cue. You only require one eye to comprehend depth.

[Anonymous No.11151049]

>>11148320
>>11150921

[Anonymous No.11151077]

>>11148416
>You never actually see in 3D if you think about it.
two fields of view is all that is required for stereoscopic vision you brainlet. humans see in true 3d. "3D" vision itself is literally processing two or more images each represented by 2d data. There is no *actual* 3d vision humans are missing out on.... we can see the width, depth, and height of objects. Hence we see in 3 dimensions...

[Anonymous No.11151436]

>>11150887
You can't seriously mean that, right?
1. You have two eyes, right? Each,of those alone providesma 2d picture.
2. the two eyes are at slightly different positions, so the two images are slightly different, right?
3. this difference between the two image contains information about the third dimension, so the two images can be combined to obtain a 3d model of the surrounding world.
>I still don't understand your analogy to sound.
Auditory perception requires heavy processing, so if you reject information obtained from processing as not real, you'd need to reject most of what you hear as not real as well.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/auditory-processing-disorder/
>such uncontroversial features as "requiring 3 coordinates to specify a point"
I don't. As I've said several times by now the third coordinate can be obtained from combining the images. You just keep on arguing on purpose by now.

[Anonymous No.11152147]

I guess that there are degrees of 3D vision or a "scale," none of which are absolutely 3D. An owl may see more 3D. A fish, less. This is why Asians run their shopping carts into everything.

[Anonymous No.11152195]

>>11148194
They're called monocular depth cues.
Size, shadow, movement, lighting

[Anonymous No.11152308]

>>11151436
>As I've said several times by now the third coordinate can be obtained from combining the images.
Look at anything and don't move your eyes. Pick a point. Pick a second point. How many numbers do you need to unambiguously describe the position of the second point relative to the first? Exactly 2. The fact that the object exists in 3D in reality, points on it in reality need 3 coordinates to specify, and that your brain guess what those coordinates are based on hints like differences in two 2D images, shadows, movement, etc, doesn't mean that your vision contains more than a projection of that object onto 2 dimensions.

>if you reject information obtained from processing as not real
Okay, I do reject this because it's indeed impossible to create new information via processing. All you can do is change it to a more useful form.
Comparing two 2D images does not give perfect information about a third dimension. It lets your brain make a guess, which is right so often that it's useful, but can be wrong. See 3D movies, or sidewalk art that appears 3D from one perspective and horribly distorted 2D from the opposite.
You admit that a single eye gives a 2D image. Yet if you close one eye, you will still see basically the same thing. That's because your brain uses a variety of hints to infer the 3D properties of objects. A second 2D image is another of those hints that lets you guess about the third dimension. It is not 3D vision.

>>11151077
>pic
wtf my eyes are perpendicular now
>There is no *actual* 3d vision humans are missing out on.... we can see the width, depth, and height of objects.
We CAN'T see depth of objects, we can infer it. Looking at objects in a 2D or 1D world, we can perceive them in their entirety, edges/endpoints and interior, because we have 2D vision. If we had 3D vision we would be able to see all faces and the interior of 3D objects, but we can't.

[Anonymous No.11152346]

>>11148194
I think its light and shadows and reversed raytracing... Its not hard to make it...

[Anonymous No.11152350]

>>11152346
focal point, is the key

[Anonymous No.11152381]

>>11152350
>"You really expected euclidean geometry happen in your brain when you close one eye?"

[Anonymous No.11152486]

I can't get enough of the posts in here.

[Anonymous No.11152655]

>>11152308
>Look at anything and don't move your eyes. Pick a point. Pick a second point. How many numbers do you need to unambiguously describe the position of the second point relative to the first? Exactly 2.
No, you need 3.
>Comparing two 2D images does not give perfect information about a third dimension.
Of course it isn't perfect, no information is. Even your 2D vision has finite resolution and quality. The point is it is not a guess, you can see how far things are without having to guess.
>See 3D movies
Yes. 3D movies. Think about it for a while. Why would people pay extra for 3D if it didn't work.
>sidewalk art that appears 3D from one perspective and horribly distorted 2D from the opposite.
That only works well on photos.
>Yet if you close one eye, you will still see basically the same thing.
Well I don't. You may have some problem with processing 3D vision. Apparently that is a real thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoblindness

[Anonymous No.11152830]

>>11152655
That dude should see a doctor.

[Anonymous No.11152873]

>>11152655
>No, you need 3.
This is just absurd. Has VR actually been impossible all along simply because it presents your eyes with colors in only a 2D grid?

>Yes. 3D movies. Think about it for a while.
This is a self own. You know that 3D movies are literal two dimensional images, right? And yet your brain uses details of that 2D imagery, specifically its differences in each eye, to infer the position of objects in the third dimension. Funny how that works. I guess our brain has evolved the ability to, as soon as you walk into IMAX, turn off its "real 3D" vision and start merely extrapolating from 2D images, and seamlessly switch back into real 3D once you look away from the screen.

>You may have some problem with processing 3D vision.
I do not have this condition. I have not denied that processing occurs to render a 3D mental model. And yet it's derived from 2D vision. Notice how basically everyone else in this thread agrees with OP's premise that you see basically the same thing after closing one eye, and provides examples of other ways your brain can infer 3D characteristics from 2D imagery.

>>11152830
And OP, right? And again, literally everyone else in the thread who responded to him with something other than "wtf, when I close an eye an entire dimension of my visual field instantly disappears!"

[Anonymous No.11153155]

>>11152873
>And OP, right?
I think so. I cheated the 3D vision test years ago, to get a job in inspection. I figured I just wasn't good at seeing the animals popping out. Ten years down the road, I completely lost vision in an eye that saw 20/20. A pituitary tumor grew into my optic nerve. A little more to the left, I'd be totally blind.

[Anonymous No.11153857]

>>11152655
So I've been thinking a but more and I you can disregard my other post >>11152873, which is going on some unnecessary tangents. The crux of the issue is your claim that you need 3 coordinates to express the location of objects in your visual field. So I have an example question. Assume that z in this coordinate system is distance from you, parallel to the ground. If there is an opaque object at say (10,10,3), could you also see what's at (10,10,4)? If you can, this is evidence for my growing suspicion that You are God Himself. But if instead you want to say something like "no, because it's blocked by the object at (10,10,3)", then I question whether the z coordinate is communicating anything at all. (10,10,2) must also be unseeable, because if something were there, it would be blocking the object at (10,10,3). And this is true for the entirety of your visual field: your vision stops at the first reflective surface, and sees nothing before or behind it, whatever its supposed depth. This makes the z coordinate meaningless across the visual field. 2 coordinates are sufficient to identify any point. This is what it means to be 2D. The only place that the "z coordinate" has meaning is a) in external reality, and b) as an inference in your mind. But not in your visual field. If you agree with this, then we're arguing about definitions.

[Anonymous No.11153926]

Bumping for the undecided winner.

[Anonymous No.11154525]

>>11153857
No, I am not a god. Close your left eye, extend your arm so that you hide something with your sticking thumb. Now close your right eye and open your left eye. Boom, you can see what you hidden with the thumb.

Really you just need to admit there is something wrong with the way your brain processes vision and see a doctor.

[Anonymous No.11155135]

>>11154525
>Now close your right eye and open your left eye.
This creates a different (and still 2D) field of view. You have sidestepped the whole question of "is there actually a meaningful z coordinate for points in your field of view".

>Really you just need to admit there is something wrong with the way your brain processes vision and see a doctor.
I promise my vision is fine. I can watch 3D movies fine, see "Magic Eye" images, etc, which is only possible with my brain doing the standard stereoscopic tricks. But again, they're tricks, inferring mental z coordinates (which are wrong in both of these cases btw) from a pair of 2D images.

[Anonymous No.11155258]

>>11148194
You don't actually "see" in 3d

Your brain takes in stereoscopic information about your environment and creates an imaginary world for you to exist and interact with. Your mind is tricking you. The world you think you are seeing with your eyes is just the most recent version of this imaginary world your mind creates.

You don't need to close JUST ONE eye. If you close both your eyes you can still see this imaginary 3d world but you have been conditioned to not accept it as reality so it seems "less real" when both eyes are shut.

[Anonymous No.11155261]

>>11148622
This. Any walking or movement with one eyes is just as good as having two while still.

[Anonymous No.11155269]

Eyes are both stereoscopic and able to focus. The machinery allows for the perception of depth by both the phase information between the two eyes, and the focus information of each eye.

[Anonymous No.11155452]

>>11155261
Okay. Will you sell me an eye? You think it is the same because 1: you already have a vision problem or 2: your brain is good at compensating with an eye colsed. Keep an eyepatch on for a four day weekend. You will have crippling headaches and run into walls and make a mess pouring drinks.

[Anonymous No.11155470]

>>11155135
>You have sidestepped the whole question of
I'm not sidestepping anything, I'm trying various approaches to explain to you this is not true and there si simply something wrong with your vision.
>I promise my vision is fine. I can watch 3D movies fine, see "Magic Eye" images, etc, which is only possible with my brain doing the standard stereoscopic tricks.
It is possible that your brain notices the difference enough to decipher the magic eyes images without being able to use it to actually use it to construct 3D vision. Because when you do have 3D vision, seeing with one eye just isn't the same. Yes, I know a box is a box, but it looks flat, and more complex shapes (like branches on a tree) are impossible to observe with only one eye.
>>11155261
I think I would trip over something very soon if I had to use only one eye.

[Anonymous No.11155507]

>>11155135
>I can watch 3D movies fine, see "Magic Eye" i
Those were my famous last words. Try an amsler grid? Idk how you can self test for 3D but you should ask doctor because they don't do unless job requirements.

[Anonymous No.11155807]

>>11148195
Those are men right?

[Anonymous No.11156046]

>>11155470
You are sidestepping. These apporaches are wordplay based on blurring the distinction between 3D vision and 2D vision plus inferences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
>In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.
Does your visual field contain any points that are differentiated solely by their z coordinate? Yes or no.

[Anonymous No.11156056]

>>11148195
based. sexual distractions lead to ruin.

[Anonymous No.11156122]

>>11156046
3D as having 3 dimensions, not two. I'm not sidesteping anything, you're a fucking retard who has broken vision, you learned to compensate for it quite well with as you call it "inferences" and you are unwilling to admit your vision may be lacking in some way and others can see the third dimension directly without having to guess at how far anything is.

[Anonymous No.11156148]

>>11156122
>3D as having 3 dimensions
No shit, 3D means 3D, and I have helpfully posted a link that describes what exactly a "dimension" is, so we can distinguish between two and three of them.

You are still refusing to answer my question. I will pose it one more time in case you missed it.
>Does your visual field contain any points that are differentiated solely by their z coordinate? Yes or no.

[Anonymous No.11156844]

>>11148194
because we still process other depth cues (e.g., shadows)

[Anonymous No.11157092]

>>11156148
Yes, when an object is sufficiently small or thin, ti may not completely obscure what is behind it. But that is completely irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the two images contain information about the 3D shapes of objects. Of course you can only see the sides facing you, but you can see them in 3D in all the reasonable definitions of the word.
It is also how we know how far stars are. We took images sufficiently far a part and used the differences between them to CALCULATE how far stars are. You get this? This is how we learned some stars are closer and some are further away, that is, the information is actually present in those images, it isn't made up by the brain based on clues.

[Anonymous No.11157211]

>>11157092
correction, when an object is sufficiently small or thin, it ceases to be 3D.

[Anonymous No.11157283]

>>11149106
How? The thing in itself is infinitely removed from the subject in transcendental idealism. What that image says is more compatible with naive realism or the standard scientific materialism which is current dogma. If you said "the observation of an object, and its subject are fundamentally inseparable" I could get on board, but the actual image is incorrect, and not very kantian.

[Anonymous No.11157314]

>>11148194
Your body is in constant motion including the micromovements that constantly go on with your eye that can give your brain a little bit of depth information, but it is severely limited and you usually have more problems tracking motion or reading moving fine print such as subtitles because of the parallax effect.

>>11148416
If you think about it, your eyes are not flat, so they are not receiving flat 2D information, there is actually a lot that goes in your brain to rotate and flatten your view to the illusion of an upright flat 2D visual space, but lots of types of vision problems happen precisely because the eye or the brain doesn't correct for various inconsistencies you get from a convex lens.

[Anonymous No.11157927]

>>11157314
You seem to be using 2D and flat as synonyms, but they aren't. Consider a sphere: it's 3D, but its surface is 2D. 2 coordinates are sufficient to label any point on its surface. Light is reflected off the surfaces of 3D objects, surfaces which are themselves 2D, before hitting the 2D surfaces of your lenses, giving each eye 2D data. And honestly I don't think my field of view actually is flat, it's just 2D.

>>11157092
>the two images contain information about the 3D shapes of objects
Each image contains purely 2D information. Your brain, armed with assumptions about what causes the differences between the two images, calculates z coordinates for each point in your field of view which are correct well over 99% of the time. When faced with "adversarial input" like a 3D movie, these calculations produce output that is predictably and substantially wrong. This should be enough to dispel the notion that "z" data exists within vision itself: the errors are too large and systematic to result from noisy measurement, and also demonstrate that there isn't an unambiguous solution for z information from a pair of 2D images. Your vision contains 2D data, your brain contains assumptions about the universe, the latter acts on the former to calculate z coordinates for your 3D mental model.

>you can see them in 3D in all the reasonable definitions of the word.
My definition of 3D is simply the mathematical one. Yours is the colloquial one. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I think it's most "reasonable" while discussing Science & Math on a Science & Math board to speak precisely using terms from Science & Math.

[Anonymous No.11158200]

>>11157927
>Your brain, armed with assumptions

No. As I tried to explain several times, those calculations are exact. As I wrote, we learned through the exact same way that stars are at different distances from Earth, instead of being a "firmament" as previously believed. They are not assumptions and your vision is broken, which you are completely unwilling to admit. Movies are not errors, there are ways to send two different images into your eyes, which is why you need glasses that separate the two mixed images in order to see the 3D.

>My definition of 3D is simply the mathematical one. Yours is the colloquial one.

No it isn't. It's exactly as mathematical as it can be. It's fucking 3D and you are not even retarded but mentally ill at this point. Go see an eye doctor and don't reply anymore.

[Anonymous No.11158302]

I'd give my left eye to have my right eye back.

[Anonymous No.11158590]

>>11158200
>those calculations are exact.
Sure, the calculations are exact, to the extent that biology does exact calculations. But the choice of calculation to be performed IS the assumption in your brain.

>we learned through the exact same way that stars are at different distances from Earth, instead of being a "firmament" as previously believed
>We perceive stars as points of light in a 2D field.
>Armed with incorrect assumptions, we believed all stars to be equidistant from the Earth as part of a firmament.
>But by applying more accurate assumptions about the nature of the universe, we can calculate a more accurate measure of their distance.
How is this helping your argument that the information is contained in the data itself? There are infinitely many possible calculations you could perform on a pair of 2D images. Your brain, like astronomers, uses one that is most likely to give accurate results about how far away objects are.

>your vision is broken
Your ad hominems are tiresome and the nature of my own vision is irrelevant. All possible photons entering all possible eyes have been reflected off of 2D surfaces and aren't carrying any sort of information from behind or in front of those surfaces. There is no possible eye that can rip nonexistent 3rd dimensional information out of light. The possibility of calculations on data doesn't change the dimension of that data.

>It's exactly as mathematical as it can be.
Once again:
>In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.
You have already conceded (I think, your wording was still evasive) that within the visual field, this number is 2. Mathematically speaking, 3 does not equal 2.

>Go see an eye doctor
Should I tell him I'm concerned my vision is malfunctioning because I can't see through walls?

[Anonymous No.11158621]

>>11158590
>>Go see an eye doctor
>Should I tell him I'm concerned my vision is malfunctioning because I can't see through walls?
I recant. Go se a shrink instead.

[Anonymous No.11158630]

>>11158621
I mean, you're the one claiming to be able to see more than just the 2D surfaces of objects. Actually, maybe the CIA would be most interested in your ESP.

[Anonymous No.11158636]

>>11158630
You are fucking insane. Get help!

[Anonymous No.11159043]

>>11148199
pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.11159192]

>>11158630
See a doctor bro.

[Anonymous No.11159206]

It's because knowledge informs your vision and unless someone takes you to a brand new location both your eyes haven't processed before then you will have an idea of what it ought to look like.

[Anonymous No.11159223]

>>11159206
This has truth.

[Anonymous No.11161063]

>>11159192
Unfortunately a doctor can't change the nature of light.

[Anonymous No.11161212]

>>11161063
He could change the nature of your vision, but you are apparently perfectly fine with that. Have you tried painting? It seems that disproportionally many great painters had the same disorder, it may give you an advantage by knowing isntantly how the image of something should look flat, as well as possibly make you far more aware of all the shading details, etc.

[Anonymous No.11161248]

>>11161063
He could change the nature of your vision, but you are apparently perfectly fine with that. Have you tried painting? It seems that disproportionally many painters have the same disorder, it may give you an advantage by knowing isntantly how the image of something should look flat, as well as possibly make you far more aware of all the shading details, etc.

[Anonymous No.11162856]

>>11157927
You need four values to describe any point in your field of vision: Hue, Saturation (those two are identical if you are colorblind), lightness, and z, with z being depth. Making your vision 3D, in the mathematical sense.

[Anonymous No.11163038]

>>11148199
fuck off Manzotti

[Anonymous No.11163379]

>>11162856
No. There are no points in your vision with the same x, y position but different z or those other values. 2 is the minimum number of coordinates to specify a point.

[Anonymous No.11163398]

>>11148194
When you close one eye, your perspective slightly shifts. The same part of your brain that compensates for that difference in perspective, then compares your one-eye closed vision to normal two eyed vision

[Anonymous No.11163407]

>>11163379
Yes. For each of the x,y coordinates, you need those values (H,S,L,z) otherwise your description of what you see is incomplete.

[Anonymous No.11163429]

>>11163407
In other words, before it comes to making assumptions and creative interpretations, the first part you can see as one whole image, pick any point in the x,y coordinates and you will get a point which has distinct hue, saturation, lightness and depth. When you are colorblind, saturation will depend strictly on the hue, when you are stereoblind, the z will be missing. But otherwise, this is correct.

[Anonymous No.11163462]

>>11163407
That's not what dimension means. (x,y) identifies the location of every point. From a given point, you can't move along the "hue axis" to find adjacent points while keeping (x,y) constant.

[Anonymous No.11163473]

>>11163429
And that may not even be true because of transparency, reflections etc. when you can indeed see multiple things at different depths.
>>11163462
Honestly stop being a retard.

[Anonymous No.11163523]

>>11163473
If you take an (x,y) plane, and your prealgebra teacher tells you to color in some pretty shapes at specified coordinates for practice addressing a 2D space, the space has not become 3D because you can now describe the color of any shape at a given point. Does this example help? (I'm assuming you are 18+ and have therefore passed prealgebra.)

[Anonymous No.11163672]

>>11163523

You also have the Z coordinate for each point, wich you conveniently missed. Are these graphs not 3D? https://www.google.com/search?q=3D+graph

[Anonymous No.11163694]

>>11163672
The implied z coordinate of a point in your visual field is dependent on its (x,y) location. From a point in your visual field, you can only move in the x and y directions. (x,y) is sufficient to unambiguously identify any point in your visual field, whatever its other properties. How many ways do I need to say this?

[Anonymous No.11163862]

I have an ophthalmologist friend. She is also a teacher and Asian. Would You guys stop being cats and dogs if I ask? I try to not ask doctor friends stuff because it is taking advantage.
Why no doctors here? Oh, you ran them off because they are imbeciles.

[Anonymous No.11163949]

>>11163862
Most of the doctors I've met are idiots.

[Anonymous No.11163963]

>>11163862
You could, but there's really no expert knowledge that helps here. If you can read and understand the Wikipedia article "Dimension" it's quite clear that the visual field is a 2D space.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult for everyone to grasp. I'm guessing if I said "the surface of a sphere is a 2D space, but given a point on its surface you can calculate a dependent z coordinate relative to the 3D space which contains the sphere" there would be less resistance. But apply it to a slightly more complicated 2D space and suddenly it's "but muh depth perception", "but muh two eyes", "but the dictionary", "bro you're just blind".

[Anonymous No.11164068]

>>11163963
>why this is so difficult
I don't think it is. Some are saying "sunrise." An inaccurate description of commonly observed phenomenon. And others are saying they don't see it rise. We are seeing the same thing.
>>11163949
Yeah, she's fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.11164095]

>>11164068
Yes, the thread could have ended 5 days ago with this wise anon >>11149816 saying that human vision is commonly called 3D, but isn't 3D in the mathematical sense. But then this retard >>11158200 showed up making the linked claims that vision is 3D in an "exactly mathematical" sense and that 3rd dimensional information exists within vision itself without requiring any assumptions, which are both incorrect in substance and not just in semantics.

[Anonymous No.11164177]

>>11164068
>Yeah, she's fucking dumb.
You mean she didn't give you the answer you wanted and refuted your faggoty austism, got it.

[Anonymous No.11164192]

>>11164177
I haven't asked. I wouldn't mind whatever answer. She is dumb for private reasons.