History of scientific ideas

by William Whewell

[8] The explanation of our seeing objects erect when the image is inverted has been put very simply, by saying, ‘We call that the lower end of an object which is next the ground.’ The observer cannot look into his own eye; he knows by experience what kind of image corresponds to a man in an upright position. The anatomist tells him that this image is inverted: but this does not disturb the process of judging by experience. It does not appear why any one should be perplexed at the notion of seeing objects erect by means of inverted images, rather than at the notion of seeing objects large by means of small images; or cubical and pyramidal, by means of images on a spherical surface; or green and red, by means of images on a black surface. Indeed some persons have contrived to perplex themselves with these latter questions, as well as the first.
The above explanation is not at all affected, as to its substance, if we adopt Sir David Brewster’s expression, and say that the line of visible direction is a line passing through the center of the spherical surface of the retina, and therefore of course perpendicular to the surface. In speaking of ‘the inverted image,’ it has always been supposed to be determined by such lines; and though the point where they intersect may not have been ascertained with exactness by previous physiologists, the philosophical view of the matter was not in any degree vitiated by this imperfection.

8. Second Paradox of Vision. Single Vision.—(1.) Small or Distant Objects.—The other difficulty, why with two images on the retina we see only one object, is of a much more real and important kind. This effect is manifestly limited by certain circumstances of a very precise nature; for if we direct our eyes at an object which is very near the eye, we see [310] all other objects double. The fact is not, therefore, that we are incapable of receiving two impressions from the two images, but that, under certain conditions, the two impressions form one. A little attention shows us that these conditions are, that with both eyes we should look at the same object; and again, we find that to look at an object with either eye, is to direct the eye so that the image falls on or near a particular point about the middle of the retina. Thus these middle points in the two retinas correspond, and we see an image single when the two images fall on the corresponding points.

Again, as each eye judges of position, and as the two eyes judge similarly, an object will be seen in the same place by one eye and by the other, when the two images which it produces are similarly situated with regard to the corresponding points of the retina[9].

[9] The explanation of single vision with two eyes may be put in another form. Each eye judges immediately of the relative position of all objects within the field of its direct vision. Therefore when we look with both eyes at a distant prospect (so distant that the distance between the eyes is small in comparison) the two prospects, being similar collections of forms, will coincide altogether, if a corresponding point in one and in the other coincide. If this be the case, the two images of every object will fall upon corresponding points of the retina, and will appear single.
If the two prospects seen by the two eyes do not exactly coincide, in consequence of nearness of the objects, or distortion of the eyes, but if they nearly coincide, the stronger image of an object absorbs the weaker, and the object is seen single; yet modified by the combination, as will be seen when we speak of the single vision of near objects. When the two images of an object are considerably apart, we see it double.
This explanation is not different in substance from the one given in the text; but perhaps it is better to avoid the assertion that the law of corresponding points is ‘a distinct and original principle of our constitution,’ as I had stated in the first edition. The simpler mode of stating the law of our constitution appears to be to say, that each eye determines similarly the position of objects; and that when the positions of an object, as seen by the two eyes, coincide (or nearly coincide) the object is seen single.

This is the Law of Single Vision, at least so far as regards small objects; namely, objects so small that in contemplating them we consider their position only, [311] and not their solid dimensions. Single vision in such cases is a result of the law of vision simply: and it is a mistake to call in, as some have done, the influence of habit and of acquired judgments, in order to determine the result in such cases.

To ascribe the apparent singleness of objects to the impressions of vision corrected by the experience of touch[10], would be to assert that a person who had not been in the habit of handling what he saw, would see all objects double; and also, to assert that a person beginning with the double world which vision thus offers to him, would, by the continued habit of handling objects, gradually and at last learn to see them single. But all the facts of the case show such suppositions to be utterly fantastical. No one can, in this case, go back from the habitual judgment of the singleness of objects, to the original and direct perception of their doubleness, as the draughtsman goes back from judgments to perception, in representing solid distances and forms by means of perspective pictures. No one can point out any case in which the habit is imperfectly formed; even children of the most tender age look at an object with both eyes, and see it as one.

[10] See Brown, vol. ii. p. 81.

In cases when the eyes are distorted (in squinting), one eye only is used, or if both are employed, there is double vision; and thus any derangement of the correspondence of motion in the two eyes will produce double-sightedness.

Brown is one of those[11] who assert that two images suggest a single object because we have always found two images to belong to a single object. He urges as an illustration, that the two words ‘he conquered,’ by custom excite exactly the same notion as the one Latin word ‘vicit;’ and thus that two visual images, by the effect of habit, produce the same belief of a single object as one tactual impression. But in order to make this pretended illustration of any value, it ought to be true that when a person has thoroughly learnt the Latin language, he can no longer distinguish [312] any separate meaning in ‘he’ and in ‘conquered.’ We can by no effort perceive the double sensation, when we look at the object with the two eyes. Those who squint, learn by habit to see objects single: but the habit which they acquire is that of attending to the impressions of one eye only at once, not of combining the two impressions. It is obvious, that if each eye spreads before us the same visible scene, with the same objects and the same relations of place, then, if one object in each scene coincide, the whole of the two visible impressions will be coincident. And here the remarkable circumstance is, that not only each eye judges for itself of the relations of position which come within its field of view; but that there is a superior and more comprehensive faculty which combines and compares the two fields of view; which asserts or denies their coincidence; which contemplates, as in a relative position to one another, these two visible worlds, in which all other relative position is given. This power of confronting two sets of visible images and figured spaces before a purely intellectual tribunal, is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the sense of vision.

[11] Lectures, vol. ii. p. 81.