Re: Sex and 3d

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997
>From: P3D Dr. George A. Themelis writes:
>(regarding importance of stereopsis)
>............... 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.

****  I have to raise several points. For me I notice and use stereopsis and
triangulation at significant distances. Yes it's all augmented with motion
parallax and relative sizes.


>...................
>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.

******   So what is the actual condition we are discussing here? A person
with two good eyes but no ability to process stereopsis information is
usually someone for whom both eyes won't be seeing the same information for
some reason. It won't be gelling as a combined stereo scene in their mental
processing. If it did, they would have stereoscopic vision. This wouldn't be
a situation with a *lazy* eye, because if one eye is just lazy, the
stereopsis is present as a subliminal influence. If the eyes don't point in
the same direction or work together, I have to think that's pretty close to
having a patch over one eye. The stability you speak of by using two eyes in
a binocular microscope for improved concentartion and observation is part of
your function of stereoscopic vision. Both eyes lock onto common
information. Even though it's not stereo, there is a commonality about it
and more specifically your mind is melding the two. A person without
stereoscopic perception would not have that experience.

Maybe you could approximate the experience by using the Freeviewer's
assistant and adjusting it so it does not point to a common area. Perhpas
just off to the side of a common area. You will not be able to gain stereo
perception but will be seeing meaningful information with both eyes. Try
walking around a familiar place under these conditions. A person without
stereopsis awareness has no sense of the strangeness of their experience, so
discount the dizzy effect you feel, and try not to let your eyes strain for
that familiar-to-you stereo lock. It requires the mind to choose one eye or
the other for primary judgments and specifically NOT combine the input since
it's just confusing. This may be very difficult to a normal visioned person.
It's much easier to cover one eye and get used to the 50% light input level.
Then there is no choice but to depend on one eye.  If you close one eye,
what is seen with the other is combined with blackness in the mind in the
same way you process your stereo vision.

>..................But is it missed for a 
>person who was born without it?  Isn't (it) 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)

******  If one is born into such a condition, it's lack would seem as
natural as drinking water. Other factors would be used for the same basic
mental computations. If they truly have good eyesight and it's somewhat
coordinated together, then I have to question whether stereopsis awareness
is really absent! 

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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