Re: Sex and 3d

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[Note: I had to change the subject line because I am sure no one
is reading the "Driving and 3d" thread any more... :-) :-) :-)]

John Roberts writes:

>Your line of reasoning appears to include a strong implicit assumption
>that quality of visual information for a driver is judged by a Boolean
>criterion - that either "there is sufficient visual information for
>driving" or "there is not sufficient visual information for driving".

I am sure that Driving License authorities use similar "Boolean
logic" to decide whether they will issue a driving license or not.
They have to draw the line somewhere...

>Of your multiple recent posts on this subject, all that I have read
>appear to support this viewpoint.
 
Apparently, I have not been able to express my thoughts clearly.

For me the argument is not if there is sufficient information or not
but whether the stereopsis information is important or not, or, 
better, how important is it?  I tend to believe that, during driving, 
it is not very important, based on the fact that most objects that 
demand our attention in our visual field (cars, etc.) are far away and 
in constant motion.

>My mother recently scratched her eye and had to wear an eyepatch for a
>few days. It was not a permanent situation, but considerably longer than
>a few seconds of covering one eye. She was sufficiently concerned over the
>reduced ability to perceive depth (not just reduction of field of view)
>that she arranged to have someone else drive for her during that time.

Again, for me, not using one eye is much more than losing stereopsis.
If I close one eye and try and drive, I am lost.  But also, if I force
myself to close one eye while I use an ordinary (non-stereoscopic)
binocular microscope I am also lost.  I lose my ability to concentrate
and I am not as observant as when using both eyes.  Yet, what I see
has no depth.  I am sure I could train myself to work only with one 
eye (as many amateur astronomers do) but it will take a long time.

>In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the contention that for a driver,
>the lack of stereopsis would not be missed.

And I do not disagree with you.  I am sure it will be missed, especially
if that person had it, used it, and lost it.  But is it missed for a 
person who was born without it?  Isn't interesting that most people born 
with this deficiency, but with otherwise good vision in both eyes, are 
not even aware of this?  (this is my understanding, please correct me if 
I am wrong)

George Themelis


------------------------------