Dear All,

Following Kepler's discovery of the retinal image, the consensus scientific evidence indicated that there is no representation in the retinal image of the third dimension as such. Nothing, for example, in the retinal image and visual images reflects absolute distance by growing bigger or smaller in the way that the actual distance may increase or decrease. Vision is like smell. There are no inherent distance qualities to our visual sensations that match or are simlar to our ideas of spatial distance.

On the face of it, this just seems to be wrong. Vision seems very different from smell; there appears to be something inherently spatial to our visual sensations. So how can early modern philosophers deny the (seemingly) obvious facts of our experience and maintain that our visual sensations are really flat, rather than voluminous or three-dimensional? I'd like to hear what others think.

Best,
Michael11

the retinal image is flat. imagine just a really realistic painting going to your V1. The dorsal visual stream can interpret the 3D image based on the relative sizes and locations (e.g. one object is in front of the other). This is your brain's interpretation of the painting. That also means you can make an object see 3D when its not. The dorsal stream just does the best it can.

QUOTE(Palaver87 @ Mar 08, 2008, 08:06 AM)

the retinal image is flat. imagine just a really realistic painting going to your V1. The dorsal visual stream can interpret the 3D image based on the relative sizes and locations (e.g. one object is in front of the other). This is your brain's interpretation of the painting. That also means you can make an object see 3D when its not. The dorsal stream just does the best it can.

I'm a bit out of touch with V1 and V2 (and the various streams that have been and are being discovered) at the moment (must get back into it- discussed it with Stephen Kosslyn quite a few years ago re "body image"). However, isn't there sort of simultaneous encoding of the relative depth and movement cues of objects into neural "images" at several locations that trigger off implicit sorts of probabilistic matching for the various combos in iconic and longer term memories or something, so that you COULD say there is something like a 3-D representation?? All that "distributed processing" stuff seems to suggest that additional dimensions may be perceived neurally somehow... Recommend some catch-up reading for me, please.[font=Times New Roman][size=4]