How many dimensions does the human eye see?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

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?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Three-dimensional space is the best model we have of the universe.

PhilX

[wtf]

Three-dimensional space is the best model we have of the universe.

Did you miss the Einsteinian revolution?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Three-dimensional space is the best model we have of the universe.

Did you miss the Einsteinian revolution?

Did you miss I said space, not space and time? (we can't see time)

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Three-dimensional space is the best model we have of the universe.

Thanks for your barely relevant contribution.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Three-dimensional space is the best model we have of the universe.

Thanks for your barely relevant contribution.

Thanks for your barely relevant observation. The universe isn't made up of dimensions. That's an assumption made by physicists and mathematicians. So the eye doesn't see dimensions.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Let me add this to the discussion. A completely blind person doesn't see dimensions. A color-blind person doesn't see colors, only grays. Are you suggesting some people can only see two dimensions while others see three dimensions? (never saw discussion on this point)

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

BTW I've already put in a thread on what you've brought up here. You can look up a magic cube and see Wikipedia's representation of a magic cube. Now this might blow your mind. Consider you're in a virtual reality room that can try to extend the cube up into the next dimension. I don't believe it can go that far, but I think it can make a 3.5 dimensional object (what you brought up might be considered to be a 2.5 dimensional object).

PhilX

[Greta]

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

[Philosophy Explorer]

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

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

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Three-dimensional space is the best model we have of the universe.

Thanks for your barely relevant contribution.

Thanks for your barely relevant observation. The universe isn't made up of dimensions. That's an assumption made by physicists and mathematicians. So the eye doesn't see dimensions.

Telling me that the universe is 3-dimensional does not help to answer the question of how many dimensions we see. You understand that? What you just told me is the most milquetoast, self-evidential response you could have given me for the topic. You might as well have told me that the grass is green, or said to me, 'Hey, sir sister, be sure not to eat your own shit, okay buddy? Eating your own shit is bad.'

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

BTW I've already put in a thread on what you've brought up here. You can look up a magic cube and see Wikipedia's representation of a magic cube. Now this might blow your mind. Consider you're in a virtual reality room that can try to extend the cube up into the next dimension. I don't believe it can go that far, but I think it can make a 3.5 dimensional object (what you brought up might be considered to be a 2.5 dimensional object).

PhilX

I'm not looking for a visual representation for what a fourth or fifth dimensional object would appear as to us - I've seen those videos. I'm asking someone to flesh out the position that we only see in 2-dimensions.

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

Well that seems to be what's going on with the 3rd dimension. We're detecting it like it's another dimension, but it's an illusion that's apparently all chalked up to depth perception.

[Noax]

I'm asking someone to flesh out the position that we only see in 2-dimensions.

OK, the light-sensitive surface of an eyeball is functionally a two-dimensional non-Euclidean surface. The fact that it is non-Euclidean doesn't make that non-2D.

That is a physical description of our field of vision. How your brain interprets that field to you (as one field, not two separate pictures for instance) is all image processing and has no particular dimensionality to it.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I'm asking someone to flesh out the position that we only see in 2-dimensions.

OK, the light-sensitive surface of an eyeball is functionally a two-dimensional non-Euclidean surface. The fact that it is non-Euclidean doesn't make that non-2D.

That is a physical description of our field of vision. How your brain interprets that field to you (as one field, not two separate pictures for instance) is all image processing and has no particular dimensionality to it.

Hmmm... I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure how we would show that it is.

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?

[Noax]

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.

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.

Not sure if any of this is that which you are seeking. I don't think there is a concept of a better 'true senses of angle'. The field of vision is normally pretty fixed, and you are used to it, and you notice anomalies in angles only if the field changes, like when you get new glasses with a different prescription, or get a new eyeball screwed in. People fall after getting new glasses because they've not adjusted and they judge the angles wrong. Funny that I don't notice the difference between glasses on and off. I guess I'm used to both sets of angles and adjust instantly, despite one of them being vastly out of focus. I probably spend more time these days with glasses off, as I am now.