P3D Re: use of 'cyclopean'

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Folks,
I didn't consider that taking the time to dig up all these references
was worthwhile. They are merely symptoms of the issue, not the
resolution of the issue. But now that you've dug them up...


> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 
> From: Peter Abrahams <telscope@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ...........
> 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.

****  The logic was missed in the original usage, but was OK (clearly
associated) within it's own context. Correcting general usage doesn't
miss the logic at all, it defines logical. As to futility, to quote a
famous modern fictional character... *resistance is futile*.

> First: the use of cyclopean in this sense is very well established in
> vision literature.  It is not the only term used, but it is widely used.

****  No matter how widely used, it doesn't remove the -nonsensical-
aspects.


> Second: there is a limited logic here.  When you perceive two images (cross
> eyed, for example), you are not using binocular vision.  

**** Now that's nonsensical to the MAX!!! Illogical as well!!! It would
be impossible to view crossed or parallel with only one eye!

What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is the vision of one eye
seeing?


> When you perceive
> one image with two eyes, you are using binocular vision.  It's like the
> inaccurate movies that show a view through a binocular as through two
> tubes; when in fact when you use a binocular, you see one image.  Certainly
> the single image from two eyes contains depth information that is not
> present in a monocular view.

*****  ANYTIME you use two functioning eyes you are using binocular
vision, whether or not there is anything stereoscopic to look at. The
movie effect you mention is more accurate than you allow. Despite the
fact that looking through binoculars provides ONE view (via binocular
processes NOT cyclopean ones), the effect is as if you had two tubes
side by side framing the single fused vision. So the movie
representation is really very accurate. I certainly don't see a single
circle around the binocular view when using binoculars.

Even people with poor two-eyed eyesight and a lack of ability to see in
stereo, still have two eyes AND a brain capable of extracting a single
sense of vision whether by exclusion or choice of one eye over the
other. This is impossible for a Cyclops. A cyclops can ONLY look through
one side of a binocular device (it could be illustrated with a single
circle around the view) and there is NO vision fusing at all, only total
sensory fusion.

> ........
> Binocular vision is a hugely complex phenomenon, and I think it likely that
> 'cyclopean' can contain some precision of meaning to knowledgeable readers.

****  The -most knowledgeable- readers will use Cyclopean to refer to
what it truly means. That which is NOT binocular and is NOT stereoscopic
and that which is NOT any part of those processes. Those who parrot
other's mistaken usage are merely parroting, and failing to do their own
thinking or speaking.

>  For example, is it properly used to refer to a mental image, and not a
> function of the eye?  Is it properly used to refer to a single image
> without depth information?  It at least seems to be used to refer to neural
> processes.

*****  Again, the point. It mistakenly ascribes a specific mental
process to a creature that by it's genetic (if it had any) pattern would
be totally impossible. It doesn't have binocular anything, let alone the
mental processes essentially integral to stereoscopic AND binocular
vision. Even the fusion of using two eyes to view ordinary 2D pictures
is an impossibility to a cyclops because it ONLY has one eye. How
ridiculous then to apply the term to binocular anything with or without
stereo vision. It completely misses the point in an opposite and
contrary sort of way.

The continued use of this term on the -excuse- that well respected
people use it, is itself a nonsensical supposition. There are hundreds
of examples in probably most languages by which incorrect word usage
gets a start, and becomes continued indefinitely (usually because no one
takes the time to examine the situation, or like you assumes pointing it
out is futile). One of the major efforts of science has been to locate
and correct such misusages so that following generations will have a
more coherent knowledge base for continued scientific discoveries.

Despite the fact that some *knowledgeable people* use the term without
confusion, it creates a clearly mistaken meaning structure that won't be
visible to those who are less knowledgable. It then tends to blind them
to the realities in the situation, getting in the way of clear
understanding for people far removed from the knowledgable crowd.

There are problems enough with teaching people about their own vision
process without misnaming critical aspects of it too. Or is this
evidence of a *conspiracy of misinformation*?  ;-)

> 
> I cannot give an authoritative answer to the exact meaning of the term, but

***  'Cyclopean' means *of or pertaining to the nature of a Cyclops.* A
one eyed beast in mythology.

> I can cite a couple of usages from Howard & Rogers, Binocular Vision and
> Stereopsis.

****  Worthless because it's quoting from that specific crowd to whom
the term has had it's meaning twisted. Their usage proves only what they
have read in the past. Their repetition of it doesn't justify nor
clarify continued usage in the same vein.


> p151, "shapes visible only after monocular images are combined are
> cyclopean images." (example, random dot stereograms).  

*****  It seems absurd to use this quote to support the use of the word
Cyclopean!  A true cyclops ONLY has ONE monocular view to process
mentally. The effect being described can ONLY happen to a creature with
two functional eyes and a brain capable of joining the two images. A
completely and utterly impossible thing for a Cyclops. Therefore it
isn't remotely a cyclopean thing.

> p591, "what location
> in the head serves as the origin....... such directional judgements.....are
> referred to a point midway between the eyes....the cyclopean eye".  p587,

*****  Used in this context, it's a third eye, not a single ONLY eye. A
very very important distinction.


> some effects of binocular vision can arise when the two stimuli are
> combined in the same eye.  p585, a cube can be visualized when half the
> lines are shown to one eye & half to the other.  

****  Another absurd example!!!!  Don't these folks read their own
writing? They start with *two stimuli are combined in the same eye*,
then it goes on to stipulate that they arrive in separate eyes! That is
NOT two stimuli combining in one eye! They need an editor to proof read
their scripts. It doesn't combine in one eye, and not even in the eyes
themselves. It combines in the brain, and ONLY in a brain familiar from
birth with processing two input images as one view of the surroundings. 


> p589, motion in depth is
> complex & involves more than simple fusion, for example there are motion
> aftereffects after prolonged viewing.  
> You might reply, all this goes far beyond stereo vision; and this is true
> but these effects are an important part of our stereo vision.

****  Yes, it's true that motion plays an important part of the vision
process. Even a cyclops will have all the depth cues except for
stereoscopic or binocular related ones. I doubt a Cyclops would be
clumsy or walk into walls and trees unless drunk. Even two eye'd folks
do that. Maybe a Cyclops would actually fare better while drunk, not
having to distinguish between two fuzzy views. Why then use the term
specifically for what a cyclops WON'T have? That's not what the word
'cyclopean' means. The ONLY appropriate use of the term cyclopean
associated with binocular vision would be in humor and joking or for
intentionally misleading purposes. 

Opposite meanings are often used to refer to something, but not used as
THE defining term.

> 
> p6, Galen (129-201 AD) "believed that the meeting of the optic nerves in
> the chiasma united impressions from the two eyes into a single
> experience......this idea gave rise to the notion of a cyclopean eye
> located at the chiasma......idea not overthrown until the seventeenth
> century.  

****  This is a prime example from history as to WHY we should NOT use
the term for the real thing, now that we understand it far better than
then, even if it's not completely understood yet.


> .........
> p3, "The term 'cyclopean' is difficult to define because different authors
> have used it in different ways.....the term is used to describe a birth
> defect in which there is only one central eye {this might be a problem here
> at p3d, maybe we should open argument by declaring our arsenal of
> eyes}.......

*****  Most words are used in a variety of ways by different authors.
Why should that cloud the actual meaning? The word itself, and it's
function in the English language is well defined without any cloudiness.
The ambiguity arises solely from misuse of the term, not from correct
usage. This is another argument supporting NOT using Cyclopean for
referring to any portion of the binocular vision processes.


> Julesz, the term seems to have the same connotation as 'central
> processing' as opposed to 'retinal processing'......We use the term...to
> refer to a stimulus formed centrally but not on either retina -- it can be
> said to bypass the retinas....beyond the primary visual cortex......infer
> that a process is cortical"

****  I have no problem with the process he is describing here. He did
take significant steps along the understanding pathway for which I'm
grateful. The problem is only with the use of a term for a process that
is decidedly -anything but cyclopean-. A cyclops would not have the
developed cortical neurons with which to combine what's not there nor
ever has been for that particular creature. Creatures with two eyes, DO
have this process. 

Yes, there is a combining of the two stimuli, in much the same way we
combine ALL our senses into each moment of time, all the time. The
isolation of vision from other senses is completely artificial. When you
see the world in stereo-binocular vision, you also hear it, feel it,
taste it, etc, AS IF IT WAS ONE IMPRESSION. (-Where- does THAT take
place?!!! ;-) Yes our vision, which IS binocular, does happen outside
the eyes themselves and likely takes place at many (millions of) nerve
points between the eyes and various regions of the brain. Great. That's
what we were born with. It's not remotely cyclopean. Thank God.

Larry Berlin

3D Webscapes
lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://3dzine.simplenet.com
*-) ---> :-) ---> 8-) ---> 8-O