Re: [photo-3d] Re: 3d vision again

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the 19th century, when inventors were experimenting with powered flight,
a common phrase of detractors was "If God had meant for man to fly, he would
have given him wings" (gender-specific speech was not considered politically
incorrect back then).

I suppose because we think that maybe something might not be possible, we
should not try.

Does this mean that a handicapped person should not be given a means to
overcome that handicap, even if it is only a partial, not total, correction?
I once knew a man with an artificial leg.   It was a marvelous prosthesis,
with movable joints that he could control with the nerves and muscles
remaining in his stump.  In fact, he controlled it so well that to all
outward appearances, he was able to walk "normally".   In fact, no one where
he worked was even aware of it until one warm summer day when he came to
work in shorts!   The very fact that he chose to wear shorts proved that he
was not self-conscious about his "disability" (is that even the correct term
in these circumstances?).  He was, however, conscious of the effect it had
on others, although everyone was careful not to mention anything relating to
this, averting their eyes.  Near the end of the day, he announced: "I can
sense that many of you are uncomfortable with my handicap.  I am not, so you
shouldn't be.".   In my opinion, he was neither disabled nor handicapped,
but rather in many ways healthier than most of us.  Should we deny a person
such a possibility (an artificial prosthesis) because we "know" that they
cannot grow another leg?

Yes, much of our capability for stereopsis is centered in the brain (as well
as a rather elaborate two-way feedback system between the eyes and different
parts of the brain (the signals from each eye run both parallel to the same
sides and also cross over to opposite sides of the visual cortex).   However
the number of cells involved in this process is humungous (I forget the
number).  Therefore, while not impossible, the probability of all of the
cells not functioning in a living person is unlikely.

People who have been born totally blind or totally deaf, have sometimes
regained their sight or hearing (in some cases partially, in a few cases
completely) later in life.

You seem to be frightened by the thought that an experiment such as the one
proposed might possibly injure a person, physically or emotionally.
Certainly, there is a risk.  There is a risk in everything we do in life.
The work of a writer was considered a very safe and sedentary occupation (as
in the satirical allusion, "the pen is mightier than the sword").  That was
before we knew about carpal tunnel syndrome.

However, as with most things in life, we find it advantageous to weigh the
potential risks with the potential rewards, minimizing the risks as much as
possible.

Based on Rogers' description, his daughter sounds like a very intelligent
person, with a healthy curiosity (curiosity is necessary for any scientific
or technical thought process).  As such, I believe that she would welcome
such an experiment.  This, however, should only be done if and when she has
been apprised of the reasons for doing it, and she is totally comfortable
with the idea.  She should understand that the outcome may or may not be
successful, and be prepared for either result.  Since either result will
tell her more about herself, she should welcome this knowledge in itself.

I, for example, am hard of hearing.  My hearing disability is not medically
or electronically correctable at this time (I am always hopeful for a
breakthrough.  Many medical conditions that were formerly thought to be
impossible to correct, are today correctable thanks to technology).

Anyway, if I were her, I would jump at the chance to do such a test,
regardless of how unlikely the possibilities of success were.

> "Monocular" persons don't often miss binocular vision in everyday life,
... <  How do you know?  I once knew a person who had a degenerative disease
in one eye.  What did he do?   He went to see as many 3-D movies as he could
while he still had some binocular vision.  Later, when he had totally lost
sight in that eye, he told me that he was so glad that he saw those films
while he could appreciate them, and that he would have pleasant memories of
them for the rest of his life.

What exactly is the "wobble" technique?  Is the experiment that was being
done at an Eastern U.S. college (I think it was North Carolina) some years
ago?

I like hearing from you.  You are obviously a free thinker, and are not
afraid to take an unconventional approach (such as the unleveled cameras).
Right or wrong, such experimentation should be encouraged.  Many great
discoveries have been made by people who did things counter to what the
consensus of the time would indicate.

JR


----- Original Message -----
From: "Abram Klooswyk" <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:07 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: 3d vision again


> John A. Rupkalvis wrote Oct 10, 2000:
> > (...) on further reflection, I don't think that to "try it
> > out regardless" is that bad an idea.
> > (...)
> > This advice should apply to all of us, even for learning to
> > freeview, or view with mirrors, or any other visual activity
> > for which we are not already accustomed.
>
> I fully agree on the freeview issue, but that is quite different
> from Rogers' daughters case, which presumably is not just a
> matter of being "accustomed".
> Learning to freeview is advised to people with proven
> stereopsis (we assume), but unfortunately people who have
> never had binocular vision from birth on will never learn it
> at an adult age.
>
> Gabriel Jacob Oct 10, 2000:
> >Actually, the moment you are born you don't see 3-D.
> >You don't even see 2-D very well either! Surprisingly,
> the brain is not hardwired at birth for (clear) vision.
>
> This is indeed the case, and "hardwired" is to be token
> more or less literally, for it has to do with axons
> growing out off nerve cells to reach other nerve cells,
> to form a network, far more complicated than the internet.
>
> In early life ( after birth) so called binocular cells are
> formed in the brain, this are the cells responsible for
> stereo vision.
> It has been demonstrated in kittens (and also in monkeys
> if memory serves) that these binocular cells are not
> formed when the young animals are deprived of binocular vision.
> After some time the hard wiring of the visual system is over,
> and then never any binocular cell will be formed anymore,
> even if both eyes individually work normal.
>
> The visual system of cats resembles that of humans
> enough to assume that the same holds for children.
> Encouraging training when anatomy rules out the possibility
> of success is a mistake, I believe. Especially when tests
> are available which can establish if there is any chance
> to be successful in trainings.
>
> "Monocular" persons don't often miss binocular vision in
> everyday life, and I would avoid any activity which would
> stress that they are (somewhat) handicapped.
>
> But again, for non-stereoviewing persons I would recommend
> the "wobble" technique, when you insist on showing something
> of a stereo effect.
>
> Abram Klooswyk
>
>
>
>
>