P3D Re: use of 'cyclopean'

[abram klooswyk <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>]

When Bruce (the innocent) Springsteen casually used the term
"cyclopean" he probably didn't suspect that the discussion on it
would survive the coming of year 2000 (not of the new millennium,
that is on jan 1, 2001) and even the P3d hibernation, which was
so hard to take.

Now I'm beginning to believe that Larry Berlin really thinks
that Cyclops really _exists_ , and it seems that he knows a lot
of cyclopean anatomy. :)
(Some quotes: >> 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.<<
>>A true cyclops ONLY has ONE monocular view to process mentally.<<

As most subscribers to the list will not have easy access to the
book "Foundations of Cyclopean Perception" by Bela Julesz
(Chicago and London 1971) it might be interesting to quote the
words which Julesz used to introduce "cyclopean" in a new
sense.

His preface starts with:
>>The mythical cyclops looked out on the world through a
single eye in the middle of his forehead. We too, in a
sense, perceive the world with a single eye in the middle
of the head. But our cyclopean eye sits not in the
forehead, but rather some distance be hind it in the areas
of the brain that are devoted to visual perception. One can
even specify a certain site in the visual system as being
the location of the cyclopean eye. For instance, we can
locate the cyclopean eye at a place where the views of the
two external eyes are combined.*) In this case, normally we
think of the information registered by the cyclopean eye
as very similar to that presented to our external eyes.
Accordingly, we assume that this cyclopean eye receives
little more information than each of the external eyes
alone obtains. All that is added, it would seem, is a some-
what richer impression of depth.
During the last decade, however, the cyclops within us has
begun to collaborate with the psychologist and the digital
computer. The result of this collaboration has been a
series of unexpected insights into the nature of visual
perception - enough, finally, to warrant being collected into
a book.
What is cyclopean perception? How did we succeed in
awakening the dormant cyclops? Rather than answer these
questions - the whole book is devoted to that task! - let me
offer an example. <<
[follows the first random dot stereogram of the book]

*) footnote [by Julesz]:
>> According to Hering (1879; 1964, p.,232) the term
"cyclopean eye" was originally coined by Helmholtz to denote
a hypothetical eye that was introduced by Hering in order to
explain identical binocular directions. This hypothetical eye
incorporates the two real eyes into a single entity (with two
overlapping retinae) and lies midway between the two real eyes.
It is literally the _center_ eye of the cyclops, and the
mythological allusion is very fitting since such an eye does
not exist.
I took the liberty of using "cyclopean" in a more abstract
and yet more concrete sense than is customary. While
Hering's cyclopean eye is still an external eye and merely
a geometrical concept, I use the same term to denote a
central processing stage inside the brain having a concrete
neuroanatomical existence. Although I will always use
cyclopean in this new way, in order to keep terminology
straight and stress physiological connotations, after the
Preface the term "cyclopean retina" will be adopted in
place of the "cyclopean eye." For further details see
chapter 1.  <<  (Julesz 1971)
=======
Peter Abrahams has quoted from the more recent autoritative
book "Binocular Vision and Stereopsis" by Ian P. Howard and
Brian J. Rogers (New York and Oxford 1995).

Tony Alderson wrote: (P3d 3667, 16 Jan 2000):
>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.

Tony essentially repeats what Julesz thirty year ago meant.
Larry, wake up! Cyclops don't exist! They are just imagined to
tease you :-)

Abram Klooswyk