4 ms·
It's not different, because the left-right flip by the lens is part of a rotationally symmetric image translation (that also flips up for down, e.g.), not a bil
by walnutclosefarm 3y ago
It's not different, because the left-right flip by the lens is part of a rotationally symmetric image translation (that also flips up for down, e.g.), not a bilaterally symmetric reflection. With the rotation, there is no change in the relationship of parts of the image one to another, relative to our personal orientation, the way there is in the reflection, so it's trivial for the brain to account for it - up on the retina is always down in the real world, left on the retina is always right in the real world, etc.
- 1lint 3y agoI think the point you're making is that orientation of the image is arbitrary, and the original commenter agrees that's the case for one eye: "If we had only one eye, there would be no issue, the image would appear as a continuous image, just flipped around." But we have two eyes, so if you directly connect the two inverted images observed by each retina, there would be a discontinuity in the middle of the joined image (peripheral light from the outer sides of each eye would be mapped to the middle of the joined retinal image). The original commenters point was that criss crossing the neural connections from the retina would resolve this discontinuity, allowing the brain to process a continuous image.