so

maybe you should take your own advice, who ever said human vision was 3D?

Everyone please look at this troll's post history. This dude is so pathetic he posted this link in here and then posted it in /r/conspiratard because he's desperate for fake internet points.

Shut up forever

Given how your quote has defined 3-dimensional vision, who's arguing we see in 3D like this?

[deleted]

No shit Sherlock.

When did you figure that out?

This is the dumbest theory I've ever heard.

Whoever this moron is, let me counter his idiotic theory with another theory.

Based on his theory, we see in two dimensions and see everything. But if I look at a large painting up close, I can only see what is in my field of vision, and not outside of that, so I may miss the corners of the large painting.

So based on that example, alone, his theory of having to see every side to be able to see 3D is absolutely and utterly retarded.

Based on his theory, we see in two dimensions and see everything.

No, that's not what I said at all. Human vision is produced by light from a 3D space projecting a 2D image into each of your eyes. The actual 3D space that light comes from is determined by the properties of the lenses in your eyes, and the configuration of objects inside the 3D space (i.e. your eyes do not receive light from behind opaque objects).

What do you mean by "see everything"?

But if I look at a large painting up close, I can only see what is in my field of vision, and not outside of that, so I may miss the corners of the large painting.

Yes, and? I never said your field of view is infinite, nor would it need to be infinite if your vision was fully 3D. The volume of 3D space which formed the 3D projection in your eyes/mind could still be limited in size. Even if you had fully 3D vision, it would still be possible for half of the painting to be outside your field of view. It just wouldn't be possible for the front of the painting to block vision of the back of the painting.

So based on that example, alone, his theory of having to see every side to be able to see 3D is absolutely and utterly retarded.

I think you're confused by my use of the word "dimension" (as is /u/skycentrism). When I say human vision is 2 dimensional, I don't mean that we can't perceive a 3 dimensional space. Obviously we can, with some limitations (i.e. opaque objects block sight of objects behind them, and the accuracy of your stereoscopic depth perception is diminished as objects get farther away). What I mean is that the images presented to your mind are 2 dimensional, and your mind uses perspective cues in the image, as well as stereopsis, to achieve the illusion of directly perceiving 3 dimensions. This is why we can view a stereoscopic 3D movie on a 2D surface, and successfully fool the brain into perceiving depth when there is actually no depth to the movie.

Now, I agree that stereoscopic vision makes human vision a little "more" than 2D, but it's fundamentally not the same thing as 3D vision. No matter how the brain processes the data, two 2D images do not contain enough information to build a complete 3D model of everything in your field of view. When you look at your car, your eyes do not receive enough data to build a 3D model of it, because your eyes cannot receive light from behind your car. Obviously your brain knows (roughly) what the full 3D shape of your car is, but it knows that because you've seen the back of your car before and remember its shape, not because that data is coming from your eyes at the time of viewing.

The reason any of this was relevant to the original discussion is because /u/skycentrism is trying to claim that because human vision is 3D, human vision should not suffer from any perspective distortion caused by mapping a 3D space onto a 2D plane. This would be true if human vision was fully 3D, as described in my post, but it's not true of stereoscopic vision. Incoming light from a 3D space needs to be mapped onto the plane of your retina by the lens in your eye before the images ever reach your brain for stereopsis processing. Your brain certainly does some processing which hides this perspective distortion from your conscious perception, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

This is trivially proven true by standing in the middle of a long road. If you look down the road, the two edges of the road will appear to meet at a vanishing point somewhere in the distance. Obviously, the edges of the road are actually parallel, and do not actually meet in the distance, so why don't they appear parallel in your vision?

That doesn't mean you aren't seeing in 3D, it means your perception of 3D is different than the third dimension itself. But it also doesn't mean you are seeing everything is super 2D.

But let me just say this, our perception of 2D and what it is, is different as well. That is my point.

That doesn't mean you aren't seeing in 3D, it means your perception of 3D is different than the third dimension itself.

Sure, and that was exactly my point. We perceive a 3D space, but our perception has perspective distortion that does not actually reflect the reality of the 3D space (for example, straight lines in reality may appear as arcs in our vision, and lines that are parallel in reality may appear to converge to a point in our vision). This would not be the case if light was not being mapped to a 2D plane at some point between your eye's lens and the image perceived by your mind.

But it also doesn't mean you are seeing everything is super 2D.

But let me just say this, our perception of 2D and what it is, is different as well. That is my point.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying?

Here's some related trivia in exchange for your time:

If you want to be technically correct, human vision is a mapping of 4 dimensions, not just 3. Light has a finite velocity, so time must be considered as one of the dimensions being mapped by your eyes. When an image is formed in your eye, objects in the background of the image are actually further back in time than objects in the foreground of the image.

To get an idea of the numbers involved, you can divide the distance to an object by the speed of light to find out how long ago in the past the light which formed the image of the object was emitted. For example, when you look at an object 100 meters away, you're actually seeing an image of light that was emitted 333.6 nanoseconds ago. When you look at an object 500 kilometers away, you're actually seeing an image of light that was emitted 1.67 milliseconds ago. When you look at the Moon, which is approximately 384,400 kilometers away, you're actually seeing an image of light that left the moon 1.28 seconds ago. When you look out at the stars on a clear night, the image of each star you see is actually from a different point in time, and with the naked eye you can see stars up to a distance of about 4000 light years (meaning the light reaching your eyes from that star was emitted 4000 years ago).

I find it rather awe inspiring, and humbling, to think that when I look up at the stars at night, I'm actually seeing a "slice" of space-time that spans a significantly longer time than my own life.

I stand by everything I said. A 2D projection of a 3D space is not the same thing as a 3D projection, even if you combine two 2D projections.

I find it rather telling that you'd rather summon a mockery brigade on my post than actually make a factual argument against it. People laughing at me doesn't hurt my feelings if they can't articulate why I'm wrong. Why won't you answer my very simple questions?

404 conspiracy not found