P3D Re: use of 'cyclopean'

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 
> From: abram klooswyk <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>
> ..............
> 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.<<

****  There have been extensive discussions on this group in the past
few years relating to the various mechanisms by which our brain
functions in relation to stereoscopic vision. It was very clear in those
discussions that this synthesis of vision we almost take for granted is
very much dependent on early brain development. If such development
doesn't take place by some very early age, it can't take place at all,
according to information someone on this list supplied.

The implication of all that information speaks for itself in regards to
the potential anatomy and function of a cyclopean creature. All anyone
has to do is look at the facts, and the realization that the term
'cyclopean' is grossly missaplied is almost self evident.

> 
> 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.

****  Despite his valuable contribution to scholarly works about
stereoscopy, his information was NOT the source of my learning about a
vision function that exists within my own being. Perhaps that is why the
general case for stereo phenomena is far more important to me than some
ill-thought out example used by Bela Julesz. That later encounters with
his material agreed with my own developed realizations about stereo
vision, other than terminology, merely confirms that my observations and
learning processes were on target. It also proves that -anybody- could
do the same thing for themselves, if they were motivated to observe and
study it for themselves. It's not necessary to read his book or any book
to obtain a complete knowledge about a skill most are born with.


> 
> 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.*) 

****  We now know that this is not true. There is not -one single place-
at which the views are combined. It is now known that there is precise
locational registration between the retina of each eye which forms part
of the process, and that the signals carried by the nerves interact at
thousands of locations before reaching the visual cortex, with the
signals being crossed over and passed through several networks involving
both hemispheres of the brain. The signals are processed in networks of
neurons that develop very early in life. The brain is a difference
machine. Everything it perceives is comparison and relativity. Just so
with this synthesis of vision. A very complex cycle of pattern
recognition, comparative triangulation, identifying information
discrepancies, color, light, shading and many subtleties, etc...

While some primary locations may be identified, the knowledge that now
exists points to vision as being a very wholistic sort of thing
involving many regions of the brain as well as the eyes and the optic
nerves.

We can time the signal processing time of the brain, and in fact
variations in vision processing time forms the basis of one stereo
viewing method. A dark lens placed in front of one eye causes the
complex vision system to give precedence to the brighter view, which is
then perceived consciously a moment sooner than the equivalent signal in
the darkened eye. For side to side motion, this generates an illusion of
stereoscopic disparity.

This effect by itself helps to illustrate that there isn't just one spot
where the signals tie together. It doesn't work that way, though it
makes for an easier description to pretend it does. 

This information is perhaps far newer than Bela's book, so I can't
expect him to have taken it into account. His work was very good
considering he didn't have such information to work from.



> ...............(Bela's notes).....
> 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. ........ For further details see
> chapter 1.  <<  (Julesz 1971)
> =======

****  Cursory examination of even his own theories, applied to a
mythical one eye'd beast, reveals that without two eyes, Cyclops would
not have this central processing stage at all. Any author is allowed to
take liberties with the words they use, and we usually just request to
understand the context. Bela provided context and explanation. It wasn't
his purpose to examine Cyclops, but to express this synthesis process.
Consequently he used a term that doesn't stand up to scrutiny on it's
own. 


> .........
> >term is about the MIND, not the SENSE ORGANS.

****  My point too! Only a binocular being's mind can possibly have such
a capability. It's all part of the same vision system. Two eyes, optic
nerves, and a brain that has always processed signals from two eyes.
That's the formula. It's sense organs AND mind. Without the entire
package, it doesn't work the same at all.


> 
> 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
> 

****  Well, to sum it all up, it's just an interesting topic for
discussion. I didn't invent the misappropriated term and wasn't the
first to notice it doesn't fit. I appreciate all who contributed a
comment or quote, pro or con. The bottom line is, I will understand you
however you use it. The facts speak for themselves, and the closer one
looks at this term, the stronger the logic against using it. Beyond that
it's all words. Let's quit talking and look at some stereo pictures for
awhile!  :-)
-- 
Larry Berlin

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