Does Binocular Vision Exist?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Does Binocular Vision Exist?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2008 10:31 pm
Two eyes ... facing front ... just enough space between them to afford depth perception ... but does depth perception via binocular vision really "exist"? ... let's try a reductive analysis ... take a single eye ... study the piss out of it ... can we find depth perception in a single eye? ... not a hint ... does that imply that depth perception and binocular vision do not exist? ... of course not! - how stupid would that be?!

Then why do we let such reductive arguments stand when it comes to life? ... to mind? ... to meaning?

Depth perception is not inherent to an eye ... it is an emergent property of the evolved organization of more than one eye into an overall visual system ... depth perception evolves within an utterly depth-perception-less universe ... is that not a precedent for the understanding of life? mind? meaning?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 09:32 am
@paulhanke,
Not sure I quite understand the conundrum here.

Vision is a complex neurologic process in which binocular vision (along with other cues) allows us to appreciate depth. This doesn't consist in the eyes alone, but also in the entire visual system.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:16 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Not sure I quite understand the conundrum here.


... obviously, I've yet again miserably failed to draw an analogy - the analogy here being that if we don't dismiss depth perception because we can't find it in a single eye, why do we dismiss meaning when we can't find it in a single atom ... perhaps if I go back to quoting those who state themselves much better than I, it will become more clear:

Quote:
There is always more left behind a decision to intellectually dissect something in a certain way. In a phrase, what one gets with dissection (whether it is physical or intellectual) is the loss of life.
Lawrence Hass
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:23 am
@paulhanke,
Paul,

I think this is not an issue of reduction or even one of meaning.

It's an issue of resolution.

Think of cartography. If you have a map of Manhattan that can resolve detail down to a square inch, then you will be able to see every manhole, every sewer grating, every person, every car, every pigeon, every rat, etc.

If you have a map that resolves detail down to 100 square feet, then you will no longer resolve people, rats, cars, but you'll resolve every building and every street.

If you have a map that resolves detail down to a square mile, then you'll see the rough outline of the island you'll see Central Park, but you won't resolve the buildings or bridges.

Does that mean that buildings don't exist if your resolution is a square mile? Or is it that you're looking in a way that cannot resolve individual buildings?

The same is true with atoms and vision. If my resolution is limited to the atom (but no larger), then I will not be able to resolve the phenomenon of molecules. If my resolution is limited to molecules, then I will not be able to resolve cells. If my resolution is limited to the individual function of monocular vision, then I will not be able to detect spatial depth perception which requires the examination of a binocular visual system.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:59 am
@Aedes,
... but isn't "pure" reductive thinking a way of thinking that seeks ever finer resolution, the assumption being that once you've found the finest possible resolution that you've also found the ultimate and complete "Theory of Everything"? - the fundamental reality from which everything else can be explained? ... physicists are increasingly incorporating emergent thinking into their cognitive toolboxes; as an engineer, I absolutely have to balance analysis and synthesis; so why does reduction remain such a strongly exclusive line of thinking in contemporary philosophy?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 01:30 pm
@paulhanke,
That's true only insofar as you can relate the ever-smaller findings to the superstructure you're interested in.

Carbon is the main atom in organic molecules. Pure carbon is also graphite. And pure carbon is also bucky balls. And pure carbon is also diamonds.

You can study carbon for what it is, and this will help you understand how it behaves in the context of 1) organic chemistry, 2) diamonds, 3) graphite, 4) bucky balls.

The trick is not to take your eye off the big picture.

With vision, we know that binocular vision and depth perception requires the input of TWO eyes into one visual cortex. That doesn't mean that studying the physiology of ONE eye negates the physiology of a TWO-eye visual system. It just fills out the missing details.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 01:48 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
That doesn't mean that studying the physiology of ONE eye negates the physiology of a TWO-eye visual system. It just fills out the missing details.


... exactly ... so why then is it often taken as a valid philosophical argument that since we cannot pinpoint anything in a single atom that we would call rudimentary mind or rudimentary meaning that such things a mind or meaning are not real? - cannot exist? ... that is, why is the (sub)atomic level of description so often given priority as "reality" over all other "illusory" levels of description?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 08:53 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;39589 wrote:
why then is it often taken as a valid philosophical argument that since we cannot pinpoint anything in a single atom that we would call rudimentary mind or rudimentary meaning that such things a mind or meaning are not real? - cannot exist?
Because the people who hold that argument as valid do not understand science.

A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is made out of peanut butter, jelly, and bread. The peanut butter, regarded in isolation, is no longer a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

I mean, that is what science is -- it's finding out the ingredients of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich is made out of. And once you discover peanut butter, you can learn that it's made out of oil, peanuts, and salt; and lo and behold the jelly is made out of fruit and sugar and pectin.

None of this negates the existence of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, just because you understand its constituent parts.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 10:20 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... so why does reduction remain such a strongly exclusive line of thinking in contemporary philosophy?


My thoughts exactly.

Thankfully, the scientific community has already jumped on the bandwagon of emergence and complexity. Its becoming more and more apparent that reductionism doesnt fully explain reality and this realization is the first step towards a more unified understanding of the cosmos and reality as a whole... not its parts. Wink
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 10:27 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;39638 wrote:
...a more unified understanding of the cosmos and reality as a whole... not its parts. Wink
What is there to unify if you don't know what the cosmos and reality are made out of? I mean you can't even speak of unification unless you have parts to unify... :listening:
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:08 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
What is there to unify if you don't know what the cosmos and reality are made out of? I mean you can't even speak of unification unless you have parts to unify... :listening:


When did I say that reductionism isnt useful and informative? oh, thats right I didnt...:sarcastic:

Keep trying though buddy...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:38 pm
@Kielicious,
You didn't say that; nor did you offer what better explains the cosmos and reality than science (including its reductionist method).
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 11:52 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
You didn't say that; nor did you offer what better explains the cosmos and reality than science (including its reductionist method).


I wasnt trying to. Science is the best method we have at understanding reality so far.

If you know a better method please let me know...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 12:31 am
@Kielicious,
:brickwall:

I don't. YOU are the one who talked about how getting beyond scientific reductionism was necessary to understand its totality. Seeing as the fundamental assumption of science is that reductionistic findings are generalizable, your statement seems to be more or less a rejection of science.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 12:39 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
:brickwall:

I don't. YOU are the one who talked about how getting beyond scientific reductionism was necessary to understand its totality. Seeing as the fundamental assumption of science is that reductionistic findings are generalizable, your statement seems to be more or less a rejection of science.



wow... you amaze me.

Kielicious wrote:
Thankfully, the scientific community has already jumped on the bandwagon of emergence and complexity.


Do I need to put the pieces together for you? because you seem very puzzled. LoL
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 08:58 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
Do I need to put the pieces together for you? because you seem very puzzled.
Well, it would help if you didn't type the opposite of what you mean and then wonder why you're being misunderstood. It would also help if you elaborated.

Quote:
Thankfully, the scientific community has already jumped on the bandwagon of emergence and complexity.
Quite a tongue in cheek compliment here, with your "thankfully" and "bandwagon".

But even the most cursory look at the history of science would show you that science has led this idea since its very conception.

Aristotle abstracted ideas about structure, function, form, and motion by studying animals and by studying heavenly bodies.

Newton abstracted and described gravity, the first known force of nature, by studying everything from falling objects to tides to planetary orbits.

All of the early medical researchers, most famously Harvey and Vesalius, revolutionized our general understanding of human physiology by doing dissections.

Linneus and Darwin established relationships between disparate species through reductionist research, thereby creating a system to understand the whole.

In other words, ALL of the great scientific breakthroughs, and the entirety of our scientific understanding of the physical world, comes because reductionistic findings were generalized.

So whose bandwagon, then, did science jump on? I mean it's the creationists and abortion opponents and christian scientists who have coopted reductionistic scientific language in order to increase the rhetorical power of their agendas. It's philosophy that in 2008 is clearly (and proudly) moving closer to cognitive science through empirical research rather than rational meditation.

In other words, everyone is jumping on science's reductionistic bandwagon -- not the other way around. And it's because that reductionism gives credibility to any explanation -- and science has known this all along.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 11:11 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
In other words, ALL of the great scientific breakthroughs, and the entirety of our scientific understanding of the physical world, comes because reductionistic findings were generalized.


... not to downplay reductionist findings, but one of the questions implied in this thread is whether or not the entirety of reductionist understanding can exhaust the entirety of understanding ... I think that all Kielicious was saying was that it cannot, and I think that from your peanut-butter sandwich example that you would agree (the complex organization "sandwich" is real and cannot be deduced from fundamental physics [while in no way violating fundamental physics] - therefore "sandwich" cannot be exhaustively understood in purely reductionist terms [in purely reductionist terms, "sandwich" is illusory]) ... so what's the disconnect here?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 01:00 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Well, it would help if you didn't type the opposite of what you mean and then wonder why you're being misunderstood. It would also help if you elaborated.


Why dont you just ask instead of assuming what I mean?

I take it youre still upset from the other thread, if so, I apologize for being so explicit. Although, I wasnt labeling you an idiot, I was saying the concept of solipsism and idealism is idiotic. Additionally, Im not even sure what your actual stance is on most of these topics because it seems like youre just trying to contrast with me as much as possible. So it would be beneficial if we just dropped this silliness altogether.

Science is starting to take different approaches to reality. Empirical investigation is identifying a part of reality that doesnt fully make sense, as of yet. The new fields of Emergence and Complexity show clearly that reductionism doesnt explain these phenomena. So a shift in understanding is at hand.... "I think the next century will be the century of complexity." ~Stephen Hawking
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 06:41 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;39704 wrote:
Why dont you just ask instead of assuming what I mean?
I did ask...

Quote:
I take it youre still upset from the other thread, if so
I don't even remember the other thread. I've been here a while, I've sparred with everyone, I don't let it carry over.

Quote:
Additionally, Im not even sure what your actual stance is on most of these topics
Why don't you just ask? Smile

Sometimes I have stances, but just saying my opinion doesn't really elicit much conversation. I find it more useful for us to question each other so that we (at least) get our terms straight and then can operate from common ground.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 08:15 pm
@Aedes,
So getting back on topic....

Reductionism fails. Very Happy
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Does Binocular Vision Exist?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 01:45:23