How many dimensions does the human eye see?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

In the case of something like a video filmed with a wide-angle lense, we could easily show that it's only an illusion of added 'dimensionality' because clearly the screen the video is displayed on is flat. However, in the case of the human eye we are the wide-angled lense. What leads you to believe that the image processing to our brain negates any true sense of angle?

The wide angle video is captured by a flat light sensitive surface in a camera (film or CCD or something). The eye surface is not flat, so the lens is focusing the image in a different way. That just means you need to be careful comparing the two.

Well, yeah, that's another way to show that a camera is not capturing true depth, which is why I said that our eyes are the wide-angled lense and not the camera itself.

The video basically takes what that flat surface recorded and reproduces it back onto a larger flat surface (a screen of some kind, which is physically flat). The brain doesn't do this since there is no screen, and thus no angle to have any true sense. You can't 'look at' the edges of your Cartesian theater, only at the middle and mentally consider the parts nearer the edge.

Well you can't focus on things in the corner of your eye, but it certainly seems like you can 'see' things in the corner of your eye. There are phenomena associated with exactly that, in fact. Just because it's blurry does not mean are eyes aren't technically observing it. The same thing could be said even if our sight is obstructed.

[Greta]

We may be perceiving extra dimensions but not interpreting them as such.

That's possible. What do you think they're being interpreted as?

My guess is that aspects of time and information flows are hidden by the the sensory limiting (filters) we evolved to survive.

[gaffo]

per your inquary

2.

on from the left eye and the other from the right.

[Noax]

Well, yeah, that's another way to show that a camera is not capturing true depth,

Neither regular camera nor the eye captures true depth. You perceive depth because of comparison of multiple images taken from different viewpoints, not from any information gathered from a single image. Cameras are no different in this respect.

which is why I said that our eyes are the wide-angled lense and not the camera itself.

The front of the eye is the wide angle lens, and the back is very much the camera itself. The rest is interpretation of the images taken by that camera.

Well you can't focus on things in the corner of your eye, but it certainly seems like you can 'see' things in the corner of your eye.

Actually I know little about how well I focus at the edges of my vision. I don't seem to need it there, but just need to detect motion.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Well, yeah, that's another way to show that a camera is not capturing true depth,

Neither regular camera nor the eye captures true depth. You perceive depth because of comparison of multiple images taken from different viewpoints, not from any information gathered from a single image. Cameras are no different in this respect.

When I said 'true depth' here, it should have been 'true rounded view'. In truth, this isn't a realm I'm very well educated in, so I'm not exactly sure about all of the terminologies to use.

The front of the eye is the wide angle lens, and the back is very much the camera itself. The rest is interpretation of the images taken by that camera.

I'm not sure that it actually is, though. Scientifically speaking, is it really comparable?

[-1-]

The front of the eye is the wide angle lens, and the back is very much the camera itself. The rest is interpretation of the images taken by that camera.

I'm not sure that it actually is, though. Scientifically speaking, is it really comparable?

Yah, actually, that's the case.

A single eyeball and the camera can measure distance and different distances with just one lens, by having things in-focus and out-of-focus. You know that things that are out-of-focus are at a differnt length away or distance away from the lens of the camera or of your eyeball, from the length or distance that things in focus are. But that is a rather poor instrument or process to measure distance.

Try this: have a hole poked in a large sheet of paper. Then pull the paper up to your nose, so that the paper's sheet is vertical and also parallel to your nose as it protrudes from your face. Close one eye, and thread a pencil through the hole. Make the hole about the same size as the pencil.

The brain does the calculation of measuring distances by comparing the two images (when you see with two eyes.) IN fact, they say the brain (not just human, but all animal) developed for this special reason. Because it was a survival advantage to know in three-D where the pray the animal eats will be in a few seconds, so the carnivore can attack it and eat it. In case of herbivores, they needed to know how far away is a safe distance for a carnivore to be so he or she won't attack.

[-1-]

We may be perceiving extra dimensions but not interpreting them as such.

I think this may be rather the other way around. Things from other dimensions may be observing us, and we don't know it.

[-1-]

The front of the eye is the wide angle lens, and the back is very much the camera itself. The rest is interpretation of the images taken by that camera.

I'm not sure that it actually is, though. Scientifically speaking, is it really comparable?

When they make three-d movies, or pics, that's exactly the theory they employ. They have two cameras some distance from each other that film the action simultaneously; when it's projected, the left eye receives the image from the left camera, and the right eye, from the right camera. Result? Three-d image.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

The front of the eye is the wide angle lens, and the back is very much the camera itself. The rest is interpretation of the images taken by that camera.

I'm not sure that it actually is, though. Scientifically speaking, is it really comparable?

Yah, actually, that's the case.

A single eyeball and the camera can measure distance and different distances with just one lens, by having things in-focus and out-of-focus. You know that things that are out-of-focus are at a differnt length away or distance away from the lens of the camera or of your eyeball, from the length or distance that things in focus are. But that is a rather poor instrument or process to measure distance.

...Apparently it's not, because you are now speaking about the whole eye and camera as though it's two comparable variables in their own right. Noax specifically differentiated the back of the eye from the front, because the latter is in fact capturing data on a non-euclidean surface.

Try this: have a hole poked in a large sheet of paper. Then pull the paper up to your nose, so that the paper's sheet is vertical and also parallel to your nose as it protrudes from your face. Close one eye, and thread a pencil through the hole. Make the hole about the same size as the pencil.

This isn't about having two eyes, or depth perception, even though I had called it that - my objection is specifically based around our 120 degree vision span. On paper, this makes it seem like our sight is not merely giving us a 2D interpretation of the world if its capable of a 3 dimensional angle.

[Noax]

When they make three-d movies, or pics, that's exactly the theory they employ. They have two cameras some distance from each other that film the action simultaneously; when it's projected, the left eye receives the image from the left camera, and the right eye, from the right camera. Result? Three-d image.

Doesn't much work with me, and thus I never pay to see the 3D movies. I pretty much ignore one eye unless it sees stuff the other doesn't. All my 3D comes from motion of the one eye, and I have no depth perception for objects that don't move across my field of view. That's just me, and it has to do with the fact that the images from my two eyes stopped lining up properly, so I just learned to ignore one.

I'm not sure that it actually is, though. Scientifically speaking, is it really comparable?

Yah, actually, that's the case.

A single eyeball and the camera can measure distance and different distances with just one lens, by having things in-focus and out-of-focus. You know that things that are out-of-focus are at a differnt length away or distance away from the lens of the camera or of your eyeball, from the length or distance that things in focus are. But that is a rather poor instrument or process to measure distance.

...Apparently it's not, because you are now speaking about the whole eye and camera as though it's two comparable variables in their own right. Noax specifically differentiated the back of the eye from the front, because the latter is in fact capturing data on a non-euclidean surface.

I should have said that the front is the lens, and the back is the part of the camera that captures the image, a digital camera more than a film one. Both together is 'the camera', so the entire eye is a camera, not just the back of it.
If a camera caught an image with a non-Euclidean CCD, then the image would not look correct unless projected onto a similar non-Euclidean screen. Either way, (normal or curved surface), there is only one correct place to view the screen, which is where the angle of the image capture is the same as the angle to the edges of the screen. Any other place distorts the image from if you had been at the same point of view.
No movie that I know is filmed at a fixed angle. They are all a mixture of wide and zoom shots, and thus there is no correct place to view any movie in the cinema.

[-1-]

I've heard this idea that while we are, of course, 3 dimensional beings and have a good grasp of its rules, we don't technically see in 3 dimensions because the illusion that we do can all be chalked to depth perception. I get that we aren't hyper-actively seeing inside of objects or objects when they go behind other objections. But to me, what doesn't add up, is on paper we aren't even seeing a completely flat image like I assume a 2 dimensional world would have to be. By that, I mean the human eye has a vision span of around 120 degrees. I realize this might be a very juvenile observation, but I was wondering what the response would be to this, maybe enlighten me a bit more on this idea. Am I incredibly wrong to think that our rounded view of things means we don't see in just 2 dimensions?

Each eye sees in two dimensions. The images seen by the two eyes are always different from each other. The brain computes the difference, and comes up with a somewhat accurate three-dimensional composite picture.

We see (directly see with each eye) two dimensions, but our perception, thanks to our internal computing device, is three-dimensional.

[gaffo]

yep.

aa i said months ago.

2 dimensions.

[TimeSeeker]

I've heard this idea that while we are, of course, 3 dimensional beings and have a good grasp of its rules, we don't technically see in 3 dimensions because the illusion that we do can all be chalked to depth perception. I get that we aren't hyper-actively seeing inside of objects or objects when they go behind other objections. But to me, what doesn't add up, is on paper we aren't even seeing a completely flat image like I assume a 2 dimensional world would have to be. By that, I mean the human eye has a vision span of around 120 degrees. I realize this might be a very juvenile observation, but I was wondering what the response would be to this, maybe enlighten me a bit more on this idea. Am I incredibly wrong to think that our rounded view of things means we don't see in just 2 dimensions?

Each eye sees in two dimensions. The images seen by the two eyes are always different from each other. The brain computes the difference, and comes up with a somewhat accurate three-dimensional composite picture.

We see (directly see with each eye) two dimensions, but our perception, thanks to our internal computing device, is three-dimensional.

The common name of this process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax