P3D Re: Lack of Understanding?

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry Berlin wrote:
...
>It's useful that various forms of flat thinking have brought us to
this
>point. It's a shame that the same flat thinking could cripple further
>advances... in many cases without our realizing it. Only an
accessible
>stereoscopic medium can facilitate changing the underlying thought
patterns
>on a large scale. That makes 3D a lot more than just frozen moments
in time.
>


Lots of food for thought, but I seem to have a touch of intellectual
indigestion.  The cause, I think, is that stereoscopic vision and 3D
are two entirely different things.  Stereoscopic vision is a useful
physiological function.  3D is a useful mathematical concept.  When I
compose a stereo photograph I do not think in terms of dimensions, I
think in terms of space.  The issue in this discussion is whether our
facility for stereoscopic vision - that of perceiving space - can aid,
or perhaps revolutionize, our thinking.  Now, scientists, especially
molecular biologists, routinely use stereoscopic vision to visualize
complicated structures.  I suppose seeing, manipulating and
"sculpting" a virtual stereoscopic object through a computer could be
a shortcut in the design of solid things.  And then, stereoscopic
vision can be a source of metaphor in the same way other physiological
functions, eating for example, provide a pool of useful analogy.  But
I just cannot imagine stereoscopic vision developing into a basic
intellectual tool.  I'll just enjoy its current manifestations, and
try to develop into a "gourmet" of stereoscopic experience.

For some reason, Iím getting very hungry.

Oleg Vorobyoff


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