The light is in our eyes...

No, you can't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's your brain fooling you again. You could deduce it, for example, with binoculars and a ship with a tall mast. As the ship sails toward you, you would see the mast revealing more and more of itself (due to the curvature of the Earth).

The curve isn't enough to see from ground level, or from the mountains.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We don't see it with both eyes open generally because the blind spot is at a different location in each eye (it comes into a different part of each eye). With (for example) the left eye open and trying to look at the tip of your right pointer finger you can make that finger tip disappear at the blind spot but the brain will still "manufacture" a background rather than just a dark spot.

People sometimes (while driving) look both ways before pulling out into an intersection and still get hit by a car coming from the right (for instance) that was in the blind spot the moment the driver looked toward the right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep. That is what I was saying.

Another thing. Even if the brain manufactured stuff for blind spots, then it is still presenting an accurate picture. Otherwise when we moved our head side-to-side to get a slightly different view of an object, the location of the blind spot shifts, and what we were looking at (though the blind spot) doesn't change materially (not withstanding your good point about looking from the corner of eyes).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The brain isn't putting an apple tree into a scene without an apple tree. It's not trying to fool you. It just isn't "accurate" in the sense that a photograph would be and that's simply because we aren't a camera.

We evolved with great pattern recognition abilities. The down side is that often we see patterns or things that aren't there. Our brain is trying to help us survive. It basically fills in a blank spot with a similar pattern to what is just to one side of that blank spot or based on what our experience would indicate should be there.

I pointed this out above (I think) and that is that we only see in detail what is right in front of us and yet we have the sense that we are seeing everything in the room in great detail. Right now, if you are in a brightly lit room, looking at a computer monitor you see this text in great detail.

You feel like you see everything in the room that you are in, in great detail but you don't actually. Whatever is now to your left and right isn't sharp at all. When you turn your head to look at it, it will be sharp. When you turn your head back again, it won't be.

We only see sharply using the cones (vs rods) and they are clustered in the center of our eyes.

 

A good exercise in what our brain tries to do to help us is to start to paint a portrait. Initially the head just looks like an oval with some dots for eyes, and the suggestion of a line for the nose and mouth.

At a certain point, well before the facial portrait is finished, it suddenly looks like a face and it kind of pops out at you. This is the point that the brain figures out that this is a face.

It's the same with putting the finishing touches on this facial portrait. It now looks like a human face but it doesn't seem to be in 3 dimensions (because it's not)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you put a small white dot on the tip of the nose or about the eyeball it can suddenly now appear to have 3 dimensions since that white dot would represent the way light reflects on a curved object.

Your brain knows that and tries to help you out. What you see may not be "accurate" but in many cases that's good. Your brain can try to help you visualize something to be more life like than it actually is.

 

No problem

I was just thinking

I don't remember the name of the semi doco video from The Moody Institute, there were a few of them shown on the Registered Nurse training course, but it MIGHT just available on YouTube

All the videos had a religious tint

From memory leaning towards ID but so long ago I really was not into that aspect of my life

I'm still not that deep into it but forums like this keep my 3 neurones busy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Observation by any means is not possible without an essential quality of duality. There is the event being observed, and the individual(s) or instrumentation observing it.

It is the same with relativity. It is the same for quantum mechanics, with certain restrictions placed on whether whatever event you are observing is an event involving the transfer of bound energy traveling <c, or unbound energy traveling at v=c, or whether it is considered a particle or a wave, something moving or something local with a fixed position near something with enough inertia to make a relative position locally meaningful. All of these conditions of relative motion, position, and/or relative scale possess duality in terms of what is observed and whatever is observing it. If Schröedinger's cat is still alive, it is an observer, whether or not its wave function has collapsed or not. If it is dead, and was not asleep during the gas release event, it saw it coming and was unable to escape because of the inertia of the box or covered cage it was in. You can always autopsy its lungs afterward. A dead cat's lung is as good a deceased observer/feline instrumentation as any. Good example of a poor forensic example. He must have hated cats or something.

It is the same as the difference between Newtonian mechanics and a study of uniform circular rotation. An observer of any of these must HAVE inertia and BE local, if only to their own inertial mass. Observation requires enough inertia of the observer in order to be able to CHOOSE a direction in which to observe something else. A gyroscope can choose a direction. So can an atom. So can the electrons in the reflective surface of a plane mirror or a still pond. Schroedinger's cat couldn't, because it was bound locally in the box with the gas cylinder. Too much inertia can be lethal. Everyone bound to this single habitable planet within light years of another knows this. Observe it for yourselves, while you still can.

You have my permission to use any or all of this for any purpose without referencing it to me, as long as you reference sciforums as a source, QQ. I don't think you will find it collected like this in any other post or anything like it observed or written anywhere else.

 

Here's a visual example. All 6 images are a model of a sphere on a plane, but with various visual clues added. First, just the colors. Then we add a highlight. Then a shadow, followed by shading. We give the plane a pattern to show perspective. And lastly we add radiosity( the tendency for objects to take on light from surrounding objects.) We start we with no clues as to the 3 dimensional nature of the objects, and end with an obvious sense of 3 dimensions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. If you are standing on a sphere of sufficient size, the horizon is, actually, a straight line to a fair degree of accuracy.

Not exactly a scholarly article, but this suggests you've have to be at 35,000 feet to observe a curved horizon.
https://www.howitworksdaily.com/10-incredible-space-robots/
Other articles suggest similar altitudes.

 

I saw the documentary in 8th grade physical science class as I recall.

 

Yes. If we could be on a sphere exactly like Earth but small enough, we could see the curve much easier. That is, unless we are also reduced in size.

<>

 

True. If we were on a tiny Earth, our own height (relative to the Earth) would serve as altitude, allowing us to see the curvature from a lofty position.

 

flip

 

The thing is..you don't get ''whiteout'' because for that particular image plus surrounding room there are not enough photons entering your eyes at the same time. Even if you were at that even, there's not enough photons entering your eye fast enough that your brain couldn't cope with the processing. I'm not saying the brain is processing every signal ,but it is processing enough to give what seems like a smooth continuous moving picture with out'' white out''.

Are you seeing the vacant distance/space? Take away all the objects/markers and take a picture of vacant space. What would it look like?
Look at a photo of someone, say your avatar, it's flat on card or your screen. That flat avatar has no real physical depth/distance, yet my brain is telling me there is distance there, because my brain usually associates dimensional depth to heads, and heads have backgrounds. With your image you have buildings and markers.
Remember my...Show a baby a photo of parallel train rails meeting in the distance, would the baby know that point is in the distance,let alone what the whole picture was about.

 

There is ample evidence that tells us that we are very capable of self deception**. That we can look at a 2 dimensional image for example and imagine it in 3 dimensions, but is there any evidence to tell us that we are capable of reconstructing our entire visual field of view on the fly constantly whilst eyes open in a way that requires little to no deliberate effort?

That is to say, that seeing as we do in itself does not alone support the notion that it is all happening inside our heads...

There is no evidence that I know of that can support such an absurd proposition. The sheer processing and processing time required to perform such a miraculous feat is staggering and given the infinite nature of what is being suggested impossible IMO.

Science is granting a mental capacity to the human brain that defies rational understanding. We must indeed be God like... subsequently one could conclude that the current light effect models employed by science lead to paranormal conclusions.

• Uniformity of reconstruction by billions of individual brains. - Impossible to the degree found.
• Infinite spacial (depth) resolution reconstructed from light data entering the eyes? - Also impossible.

Is there scientific support for this amazing capacity?

None that I know of....(other than it must be because light theory is held so strongly) However one model's apparent success does not necessarily remove the requirement of employing the scientific method for another. ( depth of field, vision and even consciousness)

**eg

• Watch a movie and believe it to be real.
• Play a video game and listen to your heart rate.

 

you are talking about an illusion with in an illusion ( 2 dimensional images being interpreted as 3dimensional)
Apply the same question to the material world around you. Would your solution be any different?

 

Shite! This thread still kicking along and seems no closer to satisfying QQ than at the start. Words like 'self deception' are misplaced and 'false perception' or 'reinterpretation' are more apt and less morally loaded. As for our 'God like' mental capabilities, it seems some experts more or less concur:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...rain-30-times-faster-than-best-supercomputers
Couple that to the fact the brain doesn't process absolutely every input with perfect fidelity nor does it need to, and methinks your perpetual bafflement is misplaced QQ. Go back to #2 - check out that link I gave, and actually read the bloody thing!! Carefully.

 

Double shite! I think you need to read your own links a bit more thoroughly.

The article you link to talks about the speed of info transfer being estimated at 30 times faster. It does not delve into the actual speed of processing that data. If we had to wait for a (variable) moment to reconstruct our visual field we would experience a lag.
Do you experience a lag in reconstructing your visual field as you move your line of sight left to right for example? ( I am not talking about comprehension but more about what it is you are attempting to comprehend)


It fails to address my point, except in support of it by default, which is the reconstruction of depth of field to an infinite resolution. ( do you see pixels in the real? - Nope!)

How long would it take a super computer to reconstruct our field of view to the infinite resolution observed? ( no pixels)

"A typical TEPS benchmark requires computers to simulate a graph and search through it. That’s not possible with the brain,"

given the phenomenal ability our brains are deemed to have, performing the above would be trivial. As stated the brain can't do it.. so go ahead... prove my point.

There are at least two points of contention mentioned in my previous post:

and all you can imply is that you are currently happy with the idea that we do indeed appear to have god like reconstructive abilities. Apart from being obviously and absurdly impossible it is also incredibly inefficient.

 

I suggest you reread your wiki link and ask yourself:
"What is missing?" (excuse the pun.... missing.. vacant space, void, emptiness

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

What? We don't have infinite resolution!

There is a minimum angle of resolution that we can see. Pixels are irrelevant.

Eagles have a resolving power 4 to 8 times times greater than humans. It is estimated that an eagle can resolve a rabbit at 2 miles distance. We cannot.

If it helps to think of it in terms of pixels, visual acuity is essentially proportional the number of receptors per square area in our retina.