This image is not dissimilar to our vision; the 3 dimensional contours of her sexy belly are represented in this picture (and in our vision!) as a different shade across a 2 dimensional plane - this picture, and our vision, is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional world
Which is to say we see in 2D
prove me wrong or confirm I'm right
Dimensions are a social construct.
Pleb.
>>7858740
serious answers pls
in all my time on the internet, I've never convinced anyone of this
>>7858748
>in all my time on the internet, I've never convinced anyone of this
What, that pictures are 2D?
Are you retarded OP?
>>7858761
are you fucking illiterate
>>7858734
v stupid
>>7858748
Eeeeh. What you see is just an image created by your brain anyways right? I don't know anything about this but intuitively I think each eye bring in a 2d image and both together allow the brain to give a perception of depth in your vision.
>>7858767
how so
>>7858775
this is something that is pretty basic and largely intuitive. I'm telling you that your vision is 2 dimensional
I'm aware of the popularly believed, unsubstantiated theory that involves the magic of our brain converting what we know to be a 2 dimensional image into 3 and which disregards the fact that our vision is about the same when we close an eye
>>7858734
>sexy
OP, as long as you have two eyes you see in 3D unless you're looking at a 2image.
we see two 2D images from different perspectives resulting in a 3 dimensional illusion.
while were at it: free will is an illusion as well.
>>7858797
I want you to actually prove that to yourself, because you can't
what happens when a 2D image looks exactly like a '3D' image, is it 3D?
>2 eyes
and when I close an eye?
>>7858806
people keep regurgitating this
I'm saying it's wrong, and the theory itself was randomly invented, unsubstantiated and disproven by anyone who closes an eye
>>7858788
What would true 3d vision be then in your opinion? Obviously the light collected at only one point can only make up a 2d image. But we have two eyes for a reason. So we have 2 images that allow us to basically tell the distance between us and something else, which is pretty much all 3d vision is.
>>7858810
if you would be able to see in three dimensions, you could see the back of a bottle at the same time as you perceive the front of it
>>7858809
You really think you can tell the distance of something to you with equal precision, no matter if you use one or two eyes?
>>7858810
I wouldn't begin to know what 3D vision would look like
you can equally tell the distance between things in a 2D photograph, having 2 images increases depth perception in the same way better shading can in a drawing but it in no way breaks the 2D barrier
Imagine a 2D man living on a sheet of paper - a circle represents the top if his head
he can only see a line. 1 dimension
equally we can only see in 2
>>7858814
stop
>>7858814
This actually makes a lot of sense, thank you.
>>7858819
you can increase depth perception on a camera, but it doesn't make it 3D
2 images just increases depth perception and spatial awareness
the surface of our retinas are 2D, the theory of our brain converting that into 3 is unnecessary and, like I said before, disproven by closing an eye - we perceive depth as varying shades and size in a 2D image
>>7858734
Yes, your computer's screen is flat. OMG are you retarded?
>>7858734
Our eyes function like a camera, projecting a 3d world onto a 2d image. Our eyes are very much like a 2d ccd array. We don't have a 3d matrix of photo-receptors, only a 2d matrix so we get an image projection of what's in front of us.
>>7858807
The point is that because your eyes are offset then when you are looking at a physical 3D object, each eye will get a slightly different image. To see this, hold your thumb up in between your face and your computer screen. Next close your left eye and note the position of the thumb relative the screen, then open your left eye and close your right eye and repeat the process. Unless you've slammed your thumb up onto the screen like a retard then you should see that each of your eyes sees your thumb in a different position relative to the screen. This effect is called parallax.
Your brain then tries to make sense of the two different images and the way it does this is by constructing a 3D mental image where your thumb is in front of the screen.
Your depth perception is shit if you only have one eye. 2D images that look 3D use optical illusions to give your brain cues that the image is actually 3D.
These effects are far more effective in 2D video than they are in real life because there's no real depth perception.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwaFkeaA0Lo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIvD-_ITco8
>>7858734
In what world is that a sexy belly?
>>7858734
Fat bellies are not sexy. There I disproved it.
Wow, she went from a 9 to a 6 at the drop of her pants.
>>7858734
>598x565
anyone?
also
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereopsis
le sage.
>>7858734
The eye is roughly spherical. Spheres are a 3D shape. Seeing happens with eyes.
>boom
>>7858920
so you're agreeing with me?
>>7858967
I wonder if you realize that you're missing a fundamental point, it's really kind of making me angry
close an eye. are you now seeing in '2D', yes or no?
>>7858977
>>7858981
>>7858983
I'd beat that up desu
I feel like me and her are looksmatchted, except I'm not fat
though I would not have the confidence to talk to her
>>7859334
I don't think there's any need to say depth perception when we perceive depth simply as varying color and size
>>7859281
>horizontal disparity
inconsequential because it's also called retinal disparity but do you see the idiocy of these people?
>the disparity exists regardless of whether or not it's horizontal - lay sideways
I got this from reddit
someone confirm this?
I feel like he's seen one of my older e-arguments
see:
>>7858823
>yelled when I saw the guy hadn't posted on reddit in 2 years and my neighbors turned their music down
now I feel bad
>>7860507
>I don't think there's any need to say depth perception when we perceive depth simply as varying color and size
Not really. Our brain uses the triangulation of both eyes as well as the focus of each eye (in addition to subconscious guesses based on scene layout) to give a sensation of how far something it. It's "enhanced" 2D.
Closing one eye is the same as two eyes minus the triangulation. You still get the focus and subconscious guesses to perceive some depth. Still "enhanced" 2D, but less effective.
>>7860616
This is correct.
Op, close one eye/wear an eye patch, and try shooting hoops or catching a throw.
That's 2d vision for you, it will look exactly the same, but it's not.
>>7861397
It's 2D with diminished depth perception. Two eyes is still 2D.
>>7858734
>we see in 2D
Ok, time for actual proof since no one else will do it.
Now then, assume a perfect cube. If we look at this from a 2-dimensional perspective, what is the maximum number of faces that we can see at one time? The answer is 3. You can never see 4 faces of a cube at one time from a 2-dimensional perspective. Now then OP, I want you to find a six sided die, or other small cube around 2 cm at the edge. You can craft a shitty one out of paper, I don't care. Now place one of it's edges horizontally against the bridge of your nose, move it about 3cm away from your face and look at it. How many faces do you see? If at any point you can turn the die and say "I see four faces," you do not have exclusively 2-dimensional vision.
>>7861440
Eh, that's pretty much saying pic related is a 3d image. I guess it comes down to semantics. One you get more than one 2d image, you could say it has entered the 3rd dimension. But its not full 3d vision the way we have full 2d vision.
>>7861471
Once* not one.
>>7861440
This isn't news. Our depth perception comes from two 2D images.
>>7861471
Ok new plan. You can see how far the cube is between your left and right eyes, yes? This is the x coordinate of the cube. (1st dimension) You can also see how much higher or lower the cube is than your eyes are on your face, yes? (2nd dimension) And you can tell how far the cube is away from your face, yes? (3rd dimension)
You are objectively seeing three dimensions. If you still want to argue that you can only see two dimensions, you need to define what the fuck you mean by 3d and 2d.
>>7858734
Sure.
Also a 4th dimensional being would 'see' in 3 dimensions. Like they 'see' every side of an object at once.
Also they cast 3d shadows. Like in Neon Genesis Evangelion.
>>7861518
Like I said, it's semantics. I was considering full 3d vision the way we experience 2d vision, as in seeing all orientations at once with no way to obstruct our view.
You could also say any depth perception at all counts as seeing in 3d, since it adds the depth dimension to length and width.
>>7861557
Btw I'm the guy who considers human vision "enhanced 2d," or 2d with depth perception. Yes we experience the third dimension, but do not have full 3d vision according to my definitions.
>>7858788
>our vision is about the same when we close an eye
No it's fucking not.
I think there's something wrong with your brain :(
>>7861557
>You could also say any depth perception at all counts as seeing in 3d
Yes, that's literally what the expression "3D" means when applied to human vision.
>>7861568
When you close one eye, are you suddenly unable to determine real life from a photograph? Your lens focus goes a long way in depth perception. Two eyes are even better.
>>7861557
>I was considering full 3d vision the way we experience 2d vision, as in seeing all orientations at once with no way to obstruct our view.
By that definition we don't see in 2d either
>>7861570
I wasn't really talking about that sort of 3d cuz I am on /sci/ and not /tv/ and OP was talking about dimensional planes and dimensional worlds and stuff. The way our eyes work is 2d, because they are projecting on a flat surface. If our eyes worked in 3d in that same context, we would be 4th dimensional beings.
>>7861579
Explain
Lets simplify this argument.
For a 2d actor that lives on a 2d plane with one eye, it can only see one dimension - width (the other dimension is depth). With two eyes, our 2d actor can now see both an objects width and depth because it can create a 2d image from two 1d images. However, the 2d actor can only know the shape of a 2d object by viewing all sides of it, in other words, it has to obtain a 1d inage of all sides in order to build the 2d image.
However, as a 3d being with 2d vision, we can see the whole 2d shape for what it is without seeing every face individually.
We do the same for 3d with 2d vision.
You only believe you are seeing 3d from your brain knowing what things should look like. For example, seeing a 3d cube from an isometric view would tell you it is a 3d cube because your brain extrapolates old knowledge to new experiences but if it was then revealed to be an actual 2d picture of a 3d cube you would have been tricked.
>>7861326
I push a little hard in my arguments to prove my points, but I don't disagree
it feels good to know that others have thought this, if a little anti climactic
>>7861397
>>7861439
spatial awareness obviously plays just as much a part as well
>>7861440
different colors on a 2dimensional plane desu
it could just as easily be a very clear picture as the other guy alluded to
>>7861518
for the same reason that a picture of that image would still be 2D
>different shadings and size
>>7861568
I used to call it 'hi def 2D' - it's the upper echelon of 2D, in the same way a detailed drawing is at a higher level than a stick figure and a picture is at a higher level than both
>>7861604
let me cut you off in the beginning - I'm saying the notion of our brains, or the 2D man's brain, inputting two images of one dimension and outputting the image in the next is a fairytale
save me from posting a typical drawing of an eye - the radius of vision is larger than the eye itself; the 2D man will still see a line even if he closes an eye
as an endnote because it seems the thread is at a close, imagine the 2D man lives on a floating sphere - he can travel around all he wants, it's impossible for him to leave the sphere because he isn't 3dimensional (though he very much exists in the 3rd dimension without knowing it)
in that same way, I think that's how our universe is infinite to us as 3dimensional beings. something something blackholes
>>7858734
I think I dig your idea, but say it again more easy I suck at all the math
>>7861604
And if I have a 2 dimensional object that is larger than my field of vision, I can't see the entire picture at once. Does this mean I have 1 Dimensional vision? You're redefining what 3 Dimensional means by arbitrary standards so that you can make a lol2deep statement that means less than nothing. Stop smoking pot and get a job.
Each eye sees a slightly different image, then the images are interspersed so that the right side of the visual field is sent to the left half of V1 area in the occipital lobe and the left side is sent to right half of V1. The visual cortex merges the images to form a single 3D image.
>>7858734
Sure. Lower dimensional operations can give information about higher dimensional objects. It's like Divergence Theorem or Stokes' Theorem. So a 2D image of a 3D object can carry some information about the 3rd dimension of the object.
This really isn't anything new. It is possible to make a holographic picture, that is capture and reproduce a 3D object using 2D film. I tried to do it once and failed, but I am assured that it is possible.
>>7858734
She looks so much like a pornstar that I know
>>7858734
>the 3 dimensional contours of her sexy belly are represented in this picture (and in our vision!) as a different shade across a 2 dimensional plane - this picture, and our vision, is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional world
This is wrong. Looking at the right photo, I have no idea if her belly sticks out in front of the underwear of if it's the underwear's shape. I can assume using previous experience which one is correct but I would have to be there on the scene or see a 3D image to be sure if the belly is on top or the panties.
>fat chick
tl;dr
>>7858734
Confirm right. Everything we see is 2D. Watch a 3D movie, freeze it, and the 3D image projects into the room. But it is only a 2D representation.
I am still wrestling with the possibility our reality is layered 2D, with our motion through those layers giving a 3D 'impression'. (Difficult for me, i am not a scientist). If, our universe is a hologram, or, our universe is spread thinly on the event horizon of a singularity then the 2D visual effect is confirmed. Wish i knew people working in that field.
>>7862310
lol not quite
>>7862451
I'm saying our we see in 2D regardless of what we're looking at
>>7862455
which
>>7862464
it applies to seeing her in person as well
think of it as a better picture.. because in a better you'd equally be less confused
>>7862553
not sure your reasoning with the last one
I can feel my arm is 3 dimensional
there is the fact that planets only appear to orbit but are actually moving in a line - but that doesn't really apply
>>7858734
I like her.
Yes we see in 2D bu our brain sums up to create 3D
>>7858734
This isn't a groundbreaking idea.
>age 5
>realize drawing a picture can sometimes look 3d
>vision is just pictures that always look 3d
>pictures are 2d
>vision is 2d
Where have you been?
![photo[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/5VCB6Ft.png "photo[1].png")
>>7863506
> which pornstar
gabriella paltrova
>>7858734
You're right: A while ago some super-black material was discovered. As it reflects almost no light, we're not able to see any contours, so that everything (e.g. clothes) made in this color/material seems weirdly 2dimensional to the eye
You can't measure the picture in three dimensions, you could measure a woman. The real world is in 3D, images are 2D
>>7858734
Honestly OP i'm going to have to comfirm you're right. We have 2D vision to assess where objects are in 3D space.
>>7858814
Reinforces OP observation. Good shit.
>>7858823
Now i'm kind of interested in what seeing in 3D is really like. and if anyone "Believes" in 10 Ds if you can only see in the previous D of the one you're in (i.e. flat lander can only see a line)
...Now that i kind of think about it technically since we 2 eyes we see 2 different 2D pictures, so in theory we would see above 2D but under 3D?
>>7865067
Samefagging and editing my own post. Forgive me for stating what everyone already has i posted before i read all others.
Maybe you could be a 3 dimensional creature and see in 3d if you had enough eyes in the right places (which would naturally be improbably).
You could also "see" in 3D with echolocation if the conditions were right i suppose
>>7858788
We obviously percieve depth, proof: basketball players
>>7858734
>>7858734
For a single eye, vision through that eye is the projection of 3d space onto a 2d basis. However, we have two eyes, so our vision is two 2d bases, and because the bases are different, our brain can combine the two 2d images into a perception of three dimensions. Basic optics would confirm that two eyes can give a three dimensional view of a system.
> the fact that our vision is about the same when we close an eye
you obviously can see with both your eyes. I am mostly blind in one eye; ican tell light from dark but the only vision i have comes from one eye. Try living a day with an eyepatch on one eye. You will be exasperated within a few hours. Reaching for a cup of coffee, catching a ball, anything requiring visual depth perception becomes near impossible. My brain has adapted somewhat to seeing things without depth, so I have to think more about how close things are than the normal person. This would mean that with a sophisticated brain, the difference between the capabilities of one eye vs two is blurred. With two eyes, the brain takes in two 2d vectors and processes them into 3d, with one eye the brain takes one 2d vector and makes a similar 3d image with parallax from multiple positions.
That doesnt detract from how the raw information we take in is 2d by nature. Our brain allows us to 'see' in 3d though the images we process are 2d. Does this mean our vision is two dimensional? Not at all. Our consciousness occurs through our brain's processing of information, not in the information itself.
>>7860507
'920 > is explaining visual cellular structures. In each eye. Poster is not agreeing with you. Nor disagreeing, I think.
'967 > What point is poster missing? (And be aware that your insistence may be making others angry. Just sayin') I close an eye - yes that is 2D. I open it again - 3D.
'334 > If we can see depth as 'varying color and size', then isn't that 'depth perception'? That is, the perception of distance from us to the observed object, aided by the separate POVs of binocular vision. Is there a definitional issue here? What is your definition of depth perception?
And on related note, if we can accurately throw a ball to drop in a cup with both eyes open, but do so less well with one eye open, then is that not evidence of a depth perception?
>>7860520
The disparity in whatever rotation you wish is only relevant when distinguishing objects from their background/foreground. That it exists in the axis of the line between the two fovea is evidence of our evolution in a (mostly) planar world, maybe?
>>7861471
And what is "full 2D vision"? We see small patches of the scene as our eyes hop around, focussing on details all over the place (saccades iirc). So we never 'see' the 2D scene at once.
>>7858809
>what is visual memory
Just closing an eye isn't sufficient. Walk around with one eye closed in an environment you've never been exposed to, then open the second eye.
>>7866692
Our field of vision is a 2d projection of a 3d world. Peripheral vision counts, but our brains purposely ignore those details because it would distract us.
>>7861575
>When you close one eye, are you suddenly unable to determine real life from a photograph? Your lens focus goes a long way in depth perception. Two eyes are even better.
Are you baiting?
>>7867100
Close one eye, hold your hand in from of you. Change your focus from your hand to the background, and back again. Notice the blur, feel your eye working. That's your eye physically focusing. Your brain has a sense of the focal point.
>>7858814
What is depth perception?
>>7863506
>it applies to seeing her in person as well
>think of it as a better picture.. because in a better you'd equally be less confused
It doesn't, seeing her in person I would see a 3D object rather than a 2D photo and I would know exactly whether her underwear or belly was closer to me. No such information on 2D photo.
>>7858734
I would, would you?
