Imagine you are taking this photo. After you do it, you look to the landscape. How would you see it if we saw in 3D?
>>7653502
You do see in 3d. You have two inputs, one from each eye. The brain isn't a rasterizer, it doesn't blend into a flat image. All the preprocessing it does includes that depth information that's an inherent consequence of binocular vision.
Is anyone else having trouble with these picture captchas? Do I really have to give it the right answer 3-10 times every single post?
>>7653517
You do not see in 3d.
>>7653527
stop b& a knob n proov it m8
I don't understand what you're asking. Can you rephrase it in a way that isn't dumb?
>>7653502
BUT THEN WHO WAS PHONE?!
>>7653567
Provide a well reasoned explanation, or substantial argument, for your belief that I don't see in 3d.
>>7653527
You do, if you're not a pirate.
>>7653502
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?
>>7653502
I'm probably the only one ITT who understands what OP means; we only see in 2D as we can only see entire polygons (we can't see both inside and outside a cube at once). So I think OP wants to know what the photo would look like from a 4D point of view.
Still retarded.
>>7653652
There is no difference to what you see reading this and what you see on tv - until something moves in your field of vision irl giving 'depth' to your 'perspective'.
