In article <757146996wnr at oimsdnp.demon.co.uk>, Peter Robinson <Peter at oimsdnp.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> So I stirred a hornets nest eh?
|>|> If I made any mistake, it was perhaps in misinterpreting the original
|> posters description of 'perception of 3D' with 'seeing' 3D.
|>|> Of course we can 'perceive' 3D by a number of means, but to 'see' it,
|> you need two eyes. If you don't believe me, look at a 3D object and
|> close one eye. You still know the object has depth because you know
|> from experience that it has, but you can't 'see' it.
What is the difference between 'perceiving' 3D and 'seeing' 3D? None.
What you lose by closing one eye is binocular depth perception based on image
disparity. You can still see 3D based on the other cues someone else posted.
About 20% of the population do not have binocular stereopsis and never know it.
They get along in a 3D world perfectly well.