RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
January 20, 2017 at 1:10 am
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2017 at 1:46 am by emjay.)
(January 20, 2017 at 12:52 am)Khemikal Wrote: Questions of inference aside, that one fails on it's premise. You don't need two eyes. One eye with multiple reference points is more than capable. We employ this method when constructing 3d images out of a series of 2d images. It's the number and placement of images, not the number of detectors, at play. That we have two eyes, in and of itself, does not suggest anything of the sort. Bilateral symmetry points to your heredity and the limitations of biology, not a conclusion regarding direct or indirect realism.
Thank you, (clearly) I never knew that. That's very interesting. But would an objection along similar lines be valid... if a sensory limitation could be found that proves it has to be a constructed perception rather than direct? Do you think there is any such thing? Your ears for instance... again two of them... required for locating an object in 3D space? Or I suppose that might fail on account of location not being a property? Clearly I've got a long way to go, not least in coming up with sound arguments, but it's early days yet.
K, are you absolutely sure about what you said about the eyes? Cos I have a lazy eye, and no depth perception except from visual cues of comparative size... and everything is 2D to me... like a cardboard cutout... and I can't catch a ball for the same reason. I'm sorry to say it but I think you're wrong; my visual field is not properly integrated as I imagine yours is, so my own eyesight if nothing else leads me to the conclusion that two functional eyes are necessary for 3D perception.
