Field of view

@saiboimushi,

I would think so. Our eyes are a receptor with definitive limitations. Our eyes are a physical portion of our body and part of our senses. So the boundaries of our physical eye would be limited by the physical world which is limited by our perception of such.

The limited field is correctly termed limited because it has boundaries. Going beyond our eyes, we as humans also have boundaries and these boundaries are ones that we place on ourselves and not controlled by anything outside of ourselves. These boundaries or ceilings are also directly related to our perceptions.

Interesting thought. Maybe someone can take this to another level as I know very little about the eyes themselves.

1 Reply

@Justin,

Hey, Justin. Yeah, I'm tempted to agree with you. But what's weird is that my eyes can't see the boundary--you know what I mean? Unless I look up and catch a glimpse of the edge of my brow, or look crosseyed and catch a glimpse of the edge of my nose, I don't see an edge or boundary to my vision. Of course, even then i do not really see the boundary of my vision--all i really see is the boundary between my nose (which appears as a black blob) and the other objects that it is obscuring.

So it would seem that, in order for me to perceive the real boundary of my vision, I would have to have another set of eyes, which could behold everything that my first pair of eyes is seeing, and more.

But the real boundary of my vision--is that a part of my vision itself? You would think that I would be able to see the boundary if it was a part of my vision. But obviously, it is logically and physically impossible for me to see the boundary unless I have another pair of eyes.

There must be a logical way of expressing this problem, instead of a naive appeal to human vision.

My underlying reason for bringing this up, has to do with infinity and knowledge. If infinity is not finite, then it should have no boundary. But how would we *know* that something is infinity? If we use the criterion that infinity has no limit, we subject ourselves to the possibility of error, since certain finite things--like vision--are finite and yet do not have perceptible boundaries.

If we borrowed a second set of eyes, we would perhaps know that an image in question is really infinite. But now I sound even crazier than usual lol

Back to the drawing board.

1 Reply

@saiboimushi,

Either the limit of a thing is a part of the thing itself or it is not--or it is both.

If it is a part of the thing, then the thing includes it, making it no longer a limit, but rather that part of the thing which immediately precedes its limit. I.e., if I could see the limit of my vision, then it would no longer be the limit. (Of course, this begs the whole question of what a limit really is; but maybe that's the point of this little paradox.)
If it is not part of the thing, then the thing does not have a limit, making it infinity.
If it is both part of the thing and not part of the thing, then it is a contradiction, and hence a non-entity--unless one assumes that all things are really One thing, an infinity. Or that contradictions have an entity, which may ultimately be the same assumption!

****************

That's an attempt at "formalizing" the dilemma. The notion of an asymptote might be useful here, since we could theorize that a "finite" object always approaches its limit asymptotically. The calculus might show how it actually does reach its limit--but I suck at math lol. Too bad Zeno isn't still around to troll philosophy forums. And Newton.

Oh yeah, and I guess our EXPERIENCE might also show us that finite objects reach their limits! So where am I going wrong, because I must be, right?

1 Reply

@saiboimushi,

Water in a glass. The glass is its limit, and yet the glass is not a part of it. So an apparent limit is actually an entity that impedes or circumscribes another entity. In other words, there are no limits per se; there are only points of contact between entities.

Two entities pressed against each other. What exists between them? I.e., what inhabits the space between them? If nothing inhabits this space, then some quality intrinsic to each entity must prevent them from becoming one entity--must distinguish them.

Entity A has quality X and entity B has quality Y. These qualities are differences in essence--hence ent. A has a different essence than ent. B. But what is essence and what is difference?

Haha, it never ends, does it?

0 Replies

@saiboimushi,

That's quite a chaotic train of thought, Saibo.

I think that our eyes are simply the tools we use, and what our minds choose to do with the information is where the boundary is...not in the physical nature of the eyes.
If we had that physical boundary as some people do, then we would have tunnel vision. It's a hindrance.
By blocking that boundary, we can free up time and space for our minds to be used in other ways instead of trying to recalibrate how close the floor is every time we stand up.

1 Reply

@Aristoddler,

Please forgive me if I use these forums as a space to wade through the chaos of my thoughts. Out of this primordial soup might arise something coherent, organic, or even alive. That's the hope that I maintain in the face of an overwhelming probability of failure.

Btw, I like your point that the boundary is what we do with our perceptions.

0 Replies

@saiboimushi,

Why do we need to be able to see the boundry. The boundry is but an illusion.

If we are looking at the horizon over the ocean, can you tell me where sky stops and sea begins? There seems to be a boundry there, but there really is not.

Also, our mind does a lot of "fixing" what we "see". For example, I once heard that we are color blind in our pereforial vision and that our mind constructs color in the pereforial field of view based on what it knows of the objects in it.

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

If we are looking at the horizon over the ocean, can you tell me where sky stops and sea begins? There seems to be a boundry there, but there really is not.

I think that's where I'm at right now: there is no limit per se. Just the sea and the sky. But what keeps them apart?

0 Replies

@saiboimushi,

There are measurable visual fields that you can test medically. There are also medical conditions that limit field of view. Your field of high acuity vision is considerably narrower than your total field of view, because your fovea is a small part of your retina.

Different animals have different FOV. And in photography there are different strategies with lens choice, print size, and viewing distance that create a natural-feeling FOV (i.e. viewing distance = focal length x enlargement factor).

No metaphysics necessary here. FOV is biologically / optically delimited.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Yeah .... but .... what separates the sea and the sky? lol

... I'm going to get struck by lightning at some point. Especially out here in Oklahoma, where arguably nothing stands between earth and sky. Zeus will shout, "Stop asking questions," and then pummel me with a bolt out of the blue.

0 Replies

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

I wasn't sure where to put this thread. My question is simple, though. If our eyes give us a limited field of vision, then does this limited field have a boundary?

Hmm. I was just thinking that this might be a paradox. But first tell me what you guys think.

saiboimushi,

Our senses enable us to experience the world, but as well as being enablers our senses are also our limitations. Perhaps there are as many colours as there are frequences of light, not having the equipment to perceive those said frequences is a limitation, is a boundary, the boundary is innate.

1 Reply

@boagie,

I like how the meaning of boundary is shifting from the physical and quanitative to the epistemological and qualitative.

0 Replies

@saiboimushi,

The questions in this thread, like what constitutes our field of view and what is the horizon, are so concrete to me that I don't really understand how it can propagate any philosophy other than semantics.

Here is our field of view. Both the left and right eyes have fields of view that cross the midline. The right occipital lobe receives input about the field of view left of midline from both eyes; and vice versa. The image circle projected by the lens and the extent of the retina are what determine the field of view. The fovea, which has our highest acuity vision, has a much smaller arc length, and therefore a smaller field of view. Knocking off part of the thalamus or optic radiations (the nerve bundles heading back to the occipital lobe) can affect field of view. A big occipital stroke can cause tunnel vision, i.e. you lose much of your peripheral FOV.

http://upload.pbase.com/image/95523370.jpg

The horizon is the horizon. There's not much more to say than that. If you've ever studied perspective drawing you'd know that the location of the horizon depends on the viewer's point of view.

Where does the ocean end and sky begin? Where the water ends and the air begins. Maybe you can't see it through the haze in the distance, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/95518871.jpg

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Thanks for your perspective, Aedes; I really appreciate it, since I know nothing of medicine or physiology. My discourse on the eyes was intended to function more as a metaphor or (scientifically speaking) an analogy for a deeper problem--a metaphysical problem. If the FOV dilemma can be resolved using the findings of medical science, this does not necessary mean that its metaphysical analogue is succeptible of a medical-type solution--though it may be. (The FOV analogy also worked as a heuristic device, enabling me to discover a formalized means of expressing the problem; so in that respect at least, if for no other reason, it was effective.)

But let me return to my last question, leaving behind the analogue of vision: if two entities have nothing between them (i.e., if they are absolutely contiguous without even an infinitesimally small interstice, or limit, interposed between them), then what prevents them from becoming One entity, from ceasing to maintain their separate essences? If it is those qualities which are intrinsic to each of them--i.e., entity A has quality X while entity B has quality Y--then what are qualities? I articulated this question (and the questions leading up to it) much more clearly on the previous page.

If I can come up with an hypothesis, I'll post it on this thread.

1 Reply

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

Thanks for your perspective, Aedes; I really appreciate it, since I know nothing of medicine or physiology. My discourse on the eyes was intended to function more as a metaphor or (scientifically speaking) an analogy for a deeper problem--a metaphysical problem. If the FOV dilemma can be resolved using the findings of medical science, this does not necessary mean that its metaphysical analogue is succeptible of a medical-type solution--though it may be. (The FOV analogy also worked as a heuristic device, enabling me to discover a formalized means of expressing the problem; so in that respect at least, if for no other reason, it was effective.)

But let me return to my last question, leaving behind the analogue of vision: if two entities have nothing between them (i.e., if they are absolutely contiguous without even an infinitesimally small interstice, or limit, interposed between them), then what prevents them from becoming One entity, from ceasing to maintain their separate essences? If it is those qualities which are intrinsic to each of them--i.e., entity A has quality X while entity B has quality Y--then what are qualities? I articulated this question (and the questions leading up to it) much more clearly on the previous page.

If I can come up with an hypothesis, I'll post it on this thread.

saiboimushi, Smile

:)What a delightful speculation!! Perhaps what should be asked is, what is it about this circumstance which leads me to believe that they are not one entity, is not the world an open system. Is it not a matter of convince to throw a circle around a section of reality in order to appease our limited mentality-systems within systems within systems ect..,. I shall be most interested if you come up with a workable hypothesis. Perhaps the problem it is not so much a matter of their qualities, but that they are deemed separate rather than part of one totality, belonging to, a common context. Is not that which belongs to a given context, of necessity, part of said context---a fish out of water is food/is dead.

0 Replies

@saiboimushi,

I think that this is merely a function of resolution. A forest has trees, trees have cells, cells have molecules, molecules have atoms. We cognitively organize things so that they become accessible, meaningful, and useful concepts. We are able to describe specific things qualitatively, and we can therein abstract the concept of a forest and how it differs from the concept of a tree.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I think that this is merely a function of resolution. A forest has trees, trees have cells, cells have molecules, molecules have atoms. We cognitively organize things so that they become accessible, meaningful, and useful concepts. We are able to describe specific things qualitatively, and we can therein abstract the concept of a forest and how it differs from the concept of a tree.

Aedes,

:)Yes, all part of one open system, open because it is open to the cosmos, and the cosmos perhaps yet still open to the unknown. With this reality, there being no such thing as a closed system, it is difficult to come to a firm conclusion that anything is a singularity or totality.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Recursion, Infinity, Endlessness, whatever you would like to call it, it is an embedded rule system that allows for infinite expression of possibilities, whether it be infinite ideas, numbers, time, language, universes, or space. Along with these rules comes the equally important cessation of the infinite, the ceasing of time, space, or number. In essence we understand +1 until we cease to. This may seem confusing, but the concept of recursion allows our perception of time/duration, it is what allows us to show faith in the outside world. +1 doesn't end, we cease to recognize it. The world goes on, we don't. We have no proof that the world goes on after we do not, yet we act as if it does.

Most things that we consider to make us human tend to have this recursive, infinity making structure. Language can create rule based ideas that are infinite in both length, due to laws of embedded recursion, and in content. This should not be the case statistically due to the limited number of rules in any given language and limited number of lexemes. The difficulty for Language Based AI is that no one has ever been able to recreate code using language's rules to create a language generator, that can function with limitless recursion. There is no +1 system.

Possibility, a +1 concept of possibility can be a synonym for hope. Hope by definition is infinite. It is the projections of things that may be. Some people have a difficult time imagining infinity and its not because they cannot grasp a +1 concept, it is because they cannot grasp a +1 concept of possibility. Not that these people have no hope, its that these people may not really believe in hope, they may not consciously see possibility, they may have lost faith in their sentience.

Grasping the concept of time/duration is another thing that makes us human. It is debated whether other species really have a handle on their own mortality, or if they have a natural survival instinct, but it is not debated as to whether humans understand that they are mortal, at least in a cerebral sense. Our durative passage is self awareness, or at least physical self awareness, and as stated above, the notation of our recognition of the world outside of our minds.

Our concept of +1 space is where our imagination meets the physical world. The world outside our perception, the world that astonomers/explorers/ecclesiatical leaders, and our common sense tells us is there.

Considering all the above, the very idea of the unknown is infinitely recursive and the cornerstone of imagination, self awareness, hope, drive, ambition, intelligence and the entirety of what cognitively makes us human. It is +1, the unknown is infinity, the unknown is the reason infinity is incomprehensible but conceptually easy to understand, its cessation is percieved but not believed. We are infinite beings with finite perception, our humanity could stem from our recognition of the infinite and our internal reaction to recursion

0 Replies

@saiboimushi,

Aedes wrote:

The questions in this thread, like what constitutes our field of view and what is the horizon, are so concrete to me that I don't really understand how it can propagate any philosophy other than semantics.

My comment about the horizon was more to the point that the horizon isn't actually a physical boundry between the sky and sea, it is a boundry that my eyes percieve between the sky and the sea, an illusiory boundry that is created by distance, the curvature of the Earth and so forth.

With regards to the the boundry that I percieve, that is not the actual boundry between the sea and the sky. Is the horizon then something physical? If it is not is it a concept? What do we call something like an optical illusion?

I am treading on uncharted waters here, so I don't even know if what I am saying makes sense. Thanks for the help.

2 Replies

Field of view

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know