h a l f b a k e r yNot so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Obviously, these are not really extensible eyes, but replicas of your own eyes, on flexible tentacles.
The contrivance works as a pair of glasses, which fit firmly on the head.
When needing to look at something outside your field of vision, press the button and one lens of the glasses flaps down,
allowing the fake eye to extend in a direction controlled by the integral joystick (one on each side obviously).
A loud "beep, beeb, beep" accompanies this action so as not to startle passers-by.
Optical information is delivered by a fibre-optic cable running down the tentacle.
Suitable for people with a crick in their neck, too idle to turn their heads, or for the just very paranoid.
Huzzah*! Another first for British technology.
* not to be confused with the tv series the Dukes** of Huzzah, who drive around in a Dodge Charger and say huzzah at appropriate moments.
** Not to be confused with the Jukes family, bad science anyway****
**** and I have just invented recursive footnoting. see Huzzah*!
Artist's impression of the extensible eyes
http://bella-ts.dev...gle-Glass-494610650
[not_morrison_rm, Nov 15 2014]
Accessorise!
Eating_20Serpent
[pocmloc, Nov 15 2014]
Well....it's a prototype
https://drive.googl...nAVzUNoR545fvPwlOWQ
[not_morrison_rm, Feb 02 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Excellent. A pair of these eyes could also give
enhanced depth perception, by being set further
apart than normal eyes. |
|
| |
I wonder how your brain would cope with the changing
separation and angular alignment between the two images. |
|
| |
I think it would be fine after the first week or two (as
with the inverting glasses). |
|
| |
The difference here is that your brain has to perform an
optical transformation which is continuously changing. I
just wonder if you'd even be able to make out a coherent
image. What does an object even look like when the
angular separation between the images is 90 degrees or
greater? Having said that, many animals have highly mobile
eye stalks and seem to do alright. Mantis shrimps and snails
spring to mind. [+] |
|
| |
Interestingly i have found an artist's impression of the extensible human eye glasses, maybe Google were already working on it, as an add-on for Google Glass. See link. |
|
| |
[not_morrison_m], you know that means this may not qualify as an
appropriately Original Idea.... |
|
| |
If you were to peruse the link... |
|
| |
Fliers of the Apache attack helicopter need to get
used to differing focal points as well as differing
information in simultaneously presented views. If
they can do it I can do it. I want more wavelengths
too. |
|
| |
Next up: augmented hearing: Left ear receives
sounds
upsampled from 20 to 5,000 Hz, right ear receives
downsampled from 45,000 to 5,000 Hz, skewed to a
happy medium. |
|
| |
Why is there no three-asterisk footnote? - it jumps straight from '**' to '****'. |
|
| |
//I wonder how your brain would cope with the changing separation and angular alignment between the two images.// - EnochLives |
|
| |
//I think it would be fine after the first week or two (as with the inverting glasses).// - MaxwellBuchanan |
|
| |
This is a really interesting question. I think it's more complicated than the inverting glasses case, because you're dealing with two essentially independent images. From what I recall, the left half of each eye's visual field is processed in the right brain hemisphere, and vice versa for the right side. (I don't know what happens in the middle.)
Maybe it's an easy adjustment to make - but then, if it were trivial, why can't we move our eyes independently?
Obviously, some animals do have independently moving eyes - chameleons, for example. Maybe they have differently wired brains. |
|
| |
// I think it's more complicated than the inverting
glasses case, because you're dealing with two
essentially independent images.// |
|
| |
I assumed that the eyestalks would be looking in the
same direction, but re-reading the idea I see that's
not the case. |
|
| |
My guess is that, if someone _constantly_ wore
something that gave them diverging, non-overlapping
views, they would probably adapt. The brain is
incredibly plastic. |
|
| |
As to why we haven't evolved this - good question.
Perhaps because consistent depth perception is more
important than being able to look in two directions at
once? (Peripheral vision extends out to about 75°
either side, giving us about 150° total vision. With
two independent eyes, located where ours are, you
get something just over 180°, unless there's a nose in
the way.) |
|
| |
And yet our focal reading area of that range is remarkably narrow. |
|
| |
//Why is there no three-asterisk footnote? - it jumps straight from '**' to '****'. |
|
| |
Ah well, only clever people can see the *** |
|
| |
As I might have mentioned, I'm trying to make the
things I dream up. |
|
| |
So, I'm doing this one. Not quite as inconspicuous as
I'd hoped, but it only a prototype. I have the nasty
feeling it'll figure in the next Ann Summers catalogue. |
|
| |
You're linked images, [nmrm], appear to be more hat-like
than extensible eye-like. |
|
| |
Ah, the swing bridge build across the cavern between thought and reality. |
|
| |