>>11151436>As I've said several times by now the third coordinate can be obtained from combining the images.Look at anything and don't move your eyes. Pick a point. Pick a second point. How many numbers do you need to unambiguously describe the position of the second point relative to the first? Exactly 2. The fact that the object exists in 3D in reality, points on it in reality need 3 coordinates to specify, and that your brain guess what those coordinates are based on hints like differences in two 2D images, shadows, movement, etc, doesn't mean that your vision contains more than a projection of that object onto 2 dimensions.
>if you reject information obtained from processing as not realOkay, I do reject this because it's indeed impossible to create new information via processing. All you can do is change it to a more useful form.
Comparing two 2D images does not give perfect information about a third dimension. It lets your brain make a guess, which is right so often that it's useful, but can be wrong. See 3D movies, or sidewalk art that appears 3D from one perspective and horribly distorted 2D from the opposite.
You admit that a single eye gives a 2D image. Yet if you close one eye, you will still see basically the same thing. That's because your brain uses a variety of hints to infer the 3D properties of objects. A second 2D image is another of those hints that lets you guess about the third dimension. It is not 3D vision.
>>11151077>picwtf my eyes are perpendicular now
>There is no *actual* 3d vision humans are missing out on.... we can see the width, depth, and height of objects.We CAN'T see depth of objects, we can infer it. Looking at objects in a 2D or 1D world, we can perceive them in their entirety, edges/endpoints and interior, because we have 2D vision. If we had 3D vision we would be able to see all faces and the interior of 3D objects, but we can't.
