P3D Re: use of 'cyclopean'

[Tony Alderson <aifxtony@xxxxxxx>]

Peter Abrahams wrote:
> We've had some discussion on whether referring to binocular vision as
> 'cyclopean' is misleading, and there are certainly points to be made there.
>  But I think that for this email list, or individuals who participate in
> it, to declare this association to be invalid or nonsensical, is a futile
> exercise and also misses a certain logic.
> First: the use of cyclopean in this sense is very well established in
> vision literature.  

This was an interesting post, I agree with most of what Peter has to
say.

Personally, I like the term "cyclopean image"; I think it is quite
evocative of the miraculous process of depth perception. Peter made an
effort to cite definitions of the term; in my opinion, it has to do with
the dimensional construct in the mind, the binocular source is
irrelevant. Imagine a creature that "sees" in depth via sonar; would it
not also have a mental "Cyclopean image", albeit not quite like ours?

Furthermore, there is no reason to be offended by the monocularism of
the Cyclops: he is a mythical creature, we can endow him with any
attributes we choose. Why assume he does not see in 3D, just because he
has only one eye? All portrayals I'm aware of show no impairment in
depth perception. (for example, see "The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad") It
is easy to postulate mechanisms to make this possible; in any case, the
term is about the MIND, not the SENSE ORGANS.

It is quite common, when a new principle is discovered, to borrow old
concepts and terms to describe the new idea by analogy. I consider
"cyclopean" to be entirely understandable in this way. Besides, the only
people that have any use for the term are already quite advanced in
their understanding of stereopsis, so there is no meaningful threat of
confusion.

We can't overturn definitions constantly; and if we all make up our own
vocabularies to suit our personal tastes, we won't be able to
communicate at all. There is no compelling reason to abandon "cyclopean"
in this context; it is well established and well understood, and most of
us have no problem with it.

Tony Alderson