P3D Re: use of 'cyclopean'

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 
> From: 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. 

****  Stereoscopic AND binocular vision are TRULY miraculous processes,
neither of which is remotely possible to a Cyclops creature. Period.
Your evocation experience is solely derived from acquaintance with the
misuse of the term, and NO other property of the word itself or it's
true meaning. Thus saying you think it's evocative of, is merely a
trained response, not an educated one nor a knowledgeable one.


> Peter made an
> effort to cite definitions of the term; in my opinion, it has to do with
> the dimensional construct in the mind, 

****  But that's exactly the whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A *dimensional construct* in the mind of creatures with two eyes, NOT
even theoretically possible in creatures with only ONE EYE.  

> 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?

******  Every creature combines a totality of perception into one
seemingly whole perception. Yet not all of those senses are vision
related senses. The precise fusion of binocular vision does NOT exist in
a Cyclops because of a lack of binocular vision. This is quite simple
and shouldn't be nearly so hard for you to grasp.

A Dolphin with sonar perception develops a very detailed depth
containing perception from it's sonar equipment, WHICH BTW does NOT take
place from a single organ of perception!!!!! Instead it has a very
complex system of receiving mechanisms built into their jaw bones and
skull, including a harmonic distribution of teeth, which being objects,
resonates with incoming signals, enabling them to differetiate the
direction and distance of these bounced signals. Therefore a Dolphin's
depth perception could not possibly be correlated to a Cyclops
perception where multiple sources of input are completely absent.

Gosh, the more you guys try to support this crazy usage, the worse the
examples become. Why don't you simply read plain english and get the
point? 

Sure, every creature including a Cyclops would fuse perception. A
Cyclops would even have a sort of depth perception. However, the
identifying feature of the ONE single eye, however fused with the rest
of a Cyclops perceptions WOULD NOT POSSIBLY CONTAIN the neuron pathways
or ANY other aspect of binocular vision or of stereoscopic vision. 

A Cyclops has by definition, agreed to by even the persons who misuse
the term cyclopean, a MONOSCOPIC vision system. One eye. If myth had
placed that eye on the shoulder or the center of the chest, or the belly
button, instead of the center of the forehead, they wouldn't have tried
to apply the situation to binocular vision in the first place. Though an
absurd example, it nevertheless illustrates the fragility of the
connection.

> 
> 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.

****  Now I know you know better than what you state above! You've been
subscribed to P3D for quite awhile. Not to mention being quite
experienced in the many facets of stereoscopic vision. 

I'm not offended by a mythical creature at all. The point isn't really
about the creature, but about the mistaken attribution of it's
non-existent mental fusion process to the very real and modern times
topic of stereoscopic perception in binocular creatures.

We know from our current state of scientific knowledge, that the brain
of any creature develops along with all of whatever senses the creature
has innately. We know what happens to the ability to see in stereo if a
person is born with one eye damaged or not functioning. We don't need to
assign imaginary traits to a Cyclops to support a lame terminology
usage! 

I didn't say anywhere that a Cyclops might not perceive depth. Merely
that we know from lots of current scientific knowledge that a Cyclops
most definitely would NOT have the precise fusion process which combines
vision from two eyes, because it doesn't have the two eyes to fuse. How
much simpler can this be stated?

Sure a Cyclops would have depth perception. So do you if you close one
eye. It's not about depth perception, it's about the impossibility of
mental processes that ONLY are present with two eyes. That's the whole
and quite simple point.


> 
> 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.

*****  Again my point is made by those seeking for some reason to
discredit obvious and logical statements. The key here is the word
*analogy*. There IS NO analogy of any sort between mental processes in a
two eye'd creature and mental processes in a one eye'd creature, other
than analogies having nothing to do with vision at all. Why then use a
term that fails to be an analogy?


> 
> 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
> 

****  What? Are you one of a dozen or so exclusive members of the group
of stereoscopic visioned humans with binocular vision? Do you really
think that confining discussion of such a commonly held human
characteristic should be cloaked behind illogical and mysteriously
opposite associations? Why not stipulate that P3D only communicate in
latin? That would keep those without a reason to discuss stereo from
communicating or learning our -secrets-!!!  ;-)

No one is -constantly trying to overturn definitions-. No one is -making
up our own vocabularies- except the entire human race is doing so
collectively. There is pleny of compelling reason to abandon a usage
that is not only possibly confusing but diametrically opposite in
meaning! The dictates of scientific communication compels accurate
terminology, and often it has had to overturn or re-explain old usages
that were off the mark. Why should modern stereoscopic terminology be
any different? Are we the last generation to use both eyes and enjoy or
talk about our experience? How absurd.
-- 
Larry Berlin

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