Field of view

[saiboimushi]

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.

[Justin]

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.

[saiboimushi]

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.

[saiboimushi]

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

1. 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.)
2. If it is not part of the thing, then the thing does not have a limit, making it infinity.
3. 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?

[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?

[Aristoddler]

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.

[saiboimushi]

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.

[de Silentio]

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.

[saiboimushi]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

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?

[Aedes]

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.