Humans can normally see a limited visual field (something like 180
degrees). Given the inherent problems with not being able to see
behind you (e.g., malicious humans or fierce animals can sneak up on
you), I would have thought that 360 degree vision would have yielded
enormous evolutionary advantages. It would seem feasible enough to
create some kind of computerized camera in a helmet or set of goggles
that would create a visual field of 360 degrees. Specifically, take
two video streams, one of 180 degrees in front and one of 180 degrees
in back. Then, reduce each of these 180 degree video streams to 90
degrees by removing every other vertical line at a fine level and
crunching the rest together. Now combine the front and back view
together (keeping the front 90 degrees in the center and adding 45
degrees of the backwards view to each side). My questions are: Has
anyone done this? Does such a device exist to see what this kind of
360 degree vision is like? Bonus questions: Are there any evolutionary
arguments for why such vision has not evolved (besides lack of time)?
What?s the greatest visual range found among animals or insects? Have
any science fiction writers proposed creatures that can see 360
degrees? Are there any inherent limitations of the human brain that
would make such vision too complex to handle? Any other thoughts on
this topic would be welcome.

MH,

Interesting. And how would you know if you were coming or going? " ..
adding 45° of the backwards view to each side .." only limits your
view to distorted peripheral vision. I think we would end up walking
in circles with arms extended so as not to trip over.

I believe a predator's eyes tend more toward the front of the head.
The preyed upon with eyes further to the side. Only heresay mind you.
Don't quote me.

Convex side-view mirrows attached to one's shoulders might be worthy
of investigation. Not to mention the potential fashion statement.

Phil

I remember watching on a nature show that explained why predators have
eyes in front. This is so the individual fields overlap allowing for
sterioscopic vision. This makes for reliable depth perseption,
something very nessary if you are about to pounce on a tasty squril
from a distance or throw a spear at some animal. Pray, on the other
hand, is most likely a gatherer and doesn't require depth perception
to grab a seed off the ground. But does need maximum field of view to
spot the hunters.
I don't think our brains are inhearently limited to 180 degrees.
However, we have evolved for thousands of years this way so if you
wore a 360 degree view device like you suggested, it would be a while
before you got used to it. Allthough I think you could manage to not
trip over youself while walking. Your brain might just edit out the
rear view automaticly unless you trained with the device for a long
time.
Your idea on how to create such a device would be relitivele simple
for a person knowlagble in embeded computers. I would suggest you
pester the computer science geeks at your local collage about this.
One of them might need an idea for a school project.

I can conceive of slightly easier 360 degree vision systems but I get
your drift. Something you may not have thought of is the vertical
plane. That?s quite important if you happen to be dinner for flying
predators.

However, simple assumptions on what Darwin eluded to have dogged
understanding of ?survival of the fittest? (not his term). Perversely,
great ability to survive predation or environmental vicissitudes can
actually endanger survival of that species for the simple reason that
they will eat their environment out of existence. So for every
survival adaptation, antagonistic elements must evolve. Rabbits are
particularly ineffectual at defending themselves though in principle
their back legs can disembowel and their teeth could sever a jugular
with ease. They compensate by breeding fast. If however one removed
rabbit predators, in time they would become less fecund because only
groups of lower fertility could survive.

This comprehension is largely unrecognised by the scientific community
which is still entrenched in the concept that only positive
characteristics evolve to promote superior survival and that
weaknesses are deficiencies of evolution. Why for instance does man
have a limited life span? Why can we not grow new limbs? Why can?t we
see in IR? Why are we so physically weak? etc etc? There is no
biological reason for extended attributes to evolve but it?s pretty
obvious that if we lived for ever and could repair terrible injury
whilst still maintaining fertility and sex drive, we would die out. Oh
dear, guess what we are going to do. Survival of the fittest is *not*
survival of the strongest.

I could rabbit (ha ha) on about this for hours so that is just a
taster. But as for animals and 360 degrees, many birds have this
capacity with eyes on the side of their heads. Not sure if the fovea
is offset for binocular detail in the limited forward overlap but it
would make sense. Chameleons can also do 360 with independently
movable orbs but when targeting they synchronise to full front for 3D
depth perception. In addition, they do the colour change trick. These
attributes would seem to confer pretty good survival but they still
end up as snacks because to compensate for their clever tricks they
are dead slow. Of course it is ridiculous to suggest that the lack of
speed directly compensated for the eyes but both the plusses and
minuses are attributes for survival of the DNA.

There is certainly enough time for 360 degree eyes to have universally
evolved but predators often have no need one way or other. Wouldn?t
benefit or harm a lion or a bear so nature makes little attempt. There
would be a case to make if it was essential for the status quo and
three eyes would be even better. Also bigger fovea but much greater
demands would be placed upon the processing. Don?t be mislead by the
size of brain necessary to do the job though. Brain size is indicative
of little. It does tend to work out that bigger brains are smarter but
it doesn?t have to be that way. Some bird brains impart intelligence
way beyond that of equivalent mammals where there is less demand upon
weight. But again, everything works in sympathy. The woodcock sees 360
degrees because its DNA thought it would help its survival, which of
course it does -- kinda difficult to creep up on it. If however this
attribute imparted perfect survival it would die out. So whilst the
360 was evolving, other detractors evolved. It takes it three
hazardous weeks to fly from Russia to UK., stupit burd.

Finally, let us imagine a SF creature with full 360 3D vision. Lets
give it kevlar bones (bearing in mind that the common nettle
synthesises silica for it?s stings), low food requirement, wide
temperature tolerance, super injury repair, incredibly strong, long
lived etc etc. In what environment would it have evolved? In one which
is replete with similarly attributed creatures. A good basis for an SF
story. Takes the likelihood out of the Predator and Alien films
--however the reproduction process of the ?Aliens? is pretty dumb so
maybe.....

Best

MH, AB and Guzzi,

Now I'M wishing I had asked the question. I aware that my first reply
was half joking. Had I known that I could have drawn your insightful
thoughts guys, I would have asked similar.

MH .. any more thoughts on your idea? 

AB .. well said. So, there WAS something in my memory bank after all
re the front view and side view eyes. Thanks for clarifying that.

Guzzi .. please DO "rabbit on" as you say, provided that MH agrees. 

Question to:
"If however one removed rabbit predators, in time they would become
less fecund because only groups of lower fertility could survive."

Can you explain that bit again please Guzzi?

Regards, Phil

Thanks for the comments so far! Here are a few responses and
additional thoughts. Hopefully others will continue the line of
thinking.

Phil's suggestion of a couple of convex side-mirrors attached to one's
shoulders is a pretty funny (but feasible) low tech version of this.
One still has the problem of focus (i.e., you have to focus on the
mirror which effectively negates most of the view of the front). The
device I envision would not have this focus problem (at least not to
the same degree). But Phil does capture the essence of the idea in a
hilarious way.

I agree with anotherbrian that it would take time to get used to. Only
one way to find out (and this suggests another thought -- I read of
glasses that inverted a person's vision, and that after a few days of
continuous use people's brains merely readjusted and switched the
image back to right side up -- anyone care to track information down
on that?). Perhaps if one wore these 360 degree goggles, his or her
brain would simply "revert" the person's vision back to normal.

Guzzi's comment that he "can conceive of slightly easier 360 degree
vision systems" is unfortunately unsubstantiated (i.e., he doesn't
elaborate on these simpler ideas, which might be useful to others). I
had thought of the vertical plane in theory, but this would seem to
add a great deal of complexity (the ultimate would be to have full
vision of all directions, including down by one's feet, but how this
would work in practice is hard to envision; and if you think getting
used to the simpler version I presented would take time...).

My understanding of is that what Darwin really said was "survival of
those most adaptable to change." I am aware that both non-functional
or advantageous characteristics can evolve (i.e., useless features),
and that not all desirable characteristics will necessarily evolve
(otherwise I'd have photographic memory, perfect pitch, fantastic
vision, super-strength, etc.).

The thoughts regarding brain size not being related to this issue are
interesting (I'm not sure I fully agree, but most humans probably have
sufficient mental capacity to handle such vision -- unless, again, our
brains would merely convert the image back to normal after a certain
time period).

The idea that if humans (or some other animal) evolved such superior
vision (okay, that's an assumption; it may be associated with
unforeseen costs), that they would multiply out of control due to a
lack of predators doesn't seem relevant. First, humans seem to be
doing just that anyway. Second, if this evolved in one species, it is
likely that it or some other compensatory capability would evolve in
the predators of that species (I wonder what those might be?).

Finally, in response to Phil's request to Guzzi for clarification
about why rabbits would become less fecund without predators, I think
this might rest on a number of unstated points and assumptions. First,
if there are too many rabbits, many will starve (true enough). Second,
rabbits with few offspring will be able to devote more resources to
ensuring their survival (take two sets of rabbit parents -- if one has
three children and the other 15, is it more likely that all three of
the first pair will survive than that at least 3 of the second pair
will survive?). I'm sure some biologist could shed more light on this
supposition.

Beyond these thoughts, I'd just comment that hopefully someone knows
whether anything like this has been tried (of course, it's hard to
conclusively state "no" if it truly hasn't). It'd make a fun
engineering project for some MIT students (or students at any
engineering school). Any takers?

Oh wow mharoks, this is a huge topic. Be super to spend a night
discussing and arguing in a pub about it -- silver777 (Phil) too of
course. But one should be advised that he eats rocks and does
imaginative things with tomato ketchup.

Sorry for dangling brevities such as ?slightly easier? but didn?t want
to stray too far off topic. I also lack Phil?s liquid use of language.
However, one vertical camera pointing at a conical mirror would avoid
the need to knit images. Pretty close to Phil?s off the cuff (or
shoulder) ?fashion statement? LOL. Still have to manipulate for
presentation and there would be no 3D, but if you were really keen you
could mount an inverted system on top of that. The vertical 3D
presented would be no good for our eyes but an ?intelligent system?
could use it fine. For the two (or more) cameras as you suggested, you
don?t really need to remove alternate vertical scans, just resample
with a frame store (which is what I meant by ?easier?). I say ?just?
but of course it would need dedicated software. Displaying on goggles
would take time to adjust and as you say, the up/down and left/right
is accommodated after a few days. Problem is that readjusting to
normal takes almost as long (haven?t looked for refs but the
experiments are well known). Could also use a rotating system -- yea
one does hesitate from designing with mechanicals but we?re stuck with
them. In all these notions, there is always the problem with data
overload so I?m not sure of useful application. Interesting though,
and as you say, a good project for someone.

Regarding Darwin, he *almost* got there. Slightly frustrating because
our concept of survival has evolved little since then and the theory
as presented has become almost sacrosanct. Wasn?t actually
particularly original but did at least render Lamarckism obsolete. It
is of course well known that characteristics evolve which detract from
apparent survival capacity, but what I try to point out is that these
negative aspects are of equal importance to the positive ones. If one
adopts this approach in ones thinking, it proffers a panoramic
clarity. All these questions bandied about such as ?we don?t know why
this characteristic has evolved because it seems to impart no
advantage? become superficial because the answers are so obvious. I
invite you to examine on this basis.

What I mean about brain size is that it really is not particularly
size efficient. It is perhaps optimised for the range of constraint
conditions but could be a heck of a lot smaller if exigencies
dictated. The avian raptor has incredible acuity with a tichy brain
but conventional wisdom would argue that it sacrifices shape
recognition etc. Were that a definite requirement it could evolve to
incorporate even human capacity and if essential for this to be
contained within a brain of the same size, that too could evolve. No
reason why not, except for a few billion years of doing things a
certain way. Carrots and humans share a lot of DNA. However, the fact
that the avian brain is deficient in certain aspects goes back to the
mooted superseded Darwinian. Can?t be too ?successful? or it would
wipe itself out. What good after all is consciousness? Would not our
DNA survive better without it or would we all become Republicans :-)

You are dead right about predators evolving to compensate for prey
gaining 360 degrees -- if that acts to reduce the predator?s success.
But strip things down to limiting conditions where there is only one
animal species on the planet. It would still fall ?prey? to the
environment if it was to ensure its survival. To hold itself in check,
it would evolve to lower fertility, or the plants would become
progressively more inedible or etc etc. Thousands of little things
working in concert to assure survival. Benign environments (fauna and
flora) don?t precipitate aggressive survival attributes. The converse
is also true. So many examples flooding my brain but it?s sympathy
which ensures survival, not strength. Take the cheetah -- no
biological reason for it not to be able to run a lot faster, but if it
suddenly did it would destroy its environment and ultimately kill
itself. Simplistically, it must only be slightly faster than its prey.
So the woodcock can see in 360 degrees but this advantage was offset
by other evolved factors. So why did the DNA dictate it in the first
place? Well it seemed like a good idea at the time. A little bit of
excess predation advantaged individuals with wider vision angles to
the point that predation became a minor aspect. The predator moved
onto something else but the woodcock or the environment responded to
compensate. In all cases though, the role of the predator is no
different to that of the environment.

The simple case of the rabbits, (General Woundwort excepted) my glib
generalisation was illustration. Your scenario, mharoks, is perfectly
valid though not quite the one I was thinking of. Rabbits have very
wide angle coverage eyes, not quite 360 but they can generally see you
if you try to creep up on them. However, the smart predator (me)
stalks upwind with low sun in my back. However, falling fecundity is
merely one route to survival, in isolation. That?s why I said ?groups
of lower fertility? to bracket the concept. It wouldn?t have to take
this particular route (as you pointed out), but assuming it did, the
super successful ?group? would so damage their environment that they
would self limit, possibly by reduced fertility, whereas a more preyed
upon (by raptor or environment) neighbouring group would happily
nibble away in health and contentment. Of course the stronger group
could muscle in on the ?weaker? bunch but they would only offset the
final outcome. That?s why I said ?groups?, implying relative isolation
-- isolation being pretty key to species evolution, without which
there would be less diversity of species. But Australia is a good
example of inappropriate rabbit success. After they destroyed
everything they began to self limit. The art of survival is finding
one?s niche. Does that one make sense too Phil?

Indeed we (man) are evolving better vision. Street-lamps etc. And we
are getting stronger, more healthy and have within our grasp the
capability to live for a very long time. So will we evolve restraining
characteristics to compensate? No, we?ve bent the rules. But something
horrid is going to happen to us. The environment is going to kick us
in the teeth. At high technological level the long term sustainable
word population is perhaps a few hundred million. The very biggest,
above all others, problem which will shortly beset humankind is
overpopulation. Some would say it already is. 360 degree vision ain?t
going to be a lot of good then.

Hope I?ve managed to cover most things without being too dumb. Trouble
with such discussion (with erudite and intellectually impassioned
minds) is it?s very difficult to stay within topic boundaries. With
alacrity I nearly strayed onto consciousness, the several states of
dreaming, the mind?s eye, how it relates to watching movies, the
?tags? attached to dreams and memories, why in consequence lie
detectors work and how we believe in deities without mental schism.
Another time.

Best to both. (Andy)

Gentlemen,

I am near lost for words. My few words as follows may take over an
hour to type in my attempts to regain composure from the affects of
near pissing myself laughing.

This is simply THE best combination of both learning and humour I have
experienced through this medium.

MH .. you have passed the "Phil Test" with flying colours. I often
challenge new ideas with humour and cynicism. In doing so, it serves
two purposes. It sorts and defines the mildly interested from those
with a "vision" (directly related to your question) like you. Humour
and cynicism in a brain-storming environment I believe is important in
leading to an answer. Likened to Edward De Bono's "Six Hats" of
thought, a result will be determined one way or another.

I thank you for accepting my off-the-cuff, almost dismissive
statements prior, for what they were. They were of course to draw
further thought from you in defiance of that dismissiveness. You have
addressed that. Well done. Stick to your guns and persue the matter
further. The difference between you and the mildly interested to new
thought is that they will clam up in defense and disappear, where you
will accept the naysayers for whom they are, then push on. Excellent.
I like your attitude. I'm thinking that maybe you have outsmarted me,
in knowing that already. All the better, because it's from people like
you, I learn.

AB .. Now here's the chap to watch. He's like-minded and presents his
thoughts in plain English. I'm appreciative of the way you worded your
response in reference to me AB. A lesser person might have discarded
that. And chaps .. ya gotta watch the quiet ones, from them too we
learn from fewer succint words.

Guzzi .. What can I say? You are one of a kind. I'm still laughing as
I try to type. Before I forget, thanks for offering your name in
brackets at the end of your salutation. I will remain mindful to use
your handle in other questions, unless you prefer the usage of your
Christian name. Your advice is needed, as I know it's important to
many people.

I wish us blokes could have a beer together, with a few sheilas and
legs of lamb on the side in a Medieval atmosphere! I presume that's
what you meant in your reference to "liquid use of language". Please
correct me if not so, as you have nothing lacking Guzzi.

I am going to have to print out this entire text to absorb it properly
after multiple readings. Having read your last paragraph, you have me
hooked on further thought. This Q&A site is not the place for
"discussion". Only wish I knew where to direct us to like minded ideas
without breaking any rules.

"The art of survival is finding one's niche". I like that, it makes a
lot of sense. Wish we could explore that thought further here. Maybe
we can.

As for rabbits, I know quite a bit about them. Type my handle in the
search box and you will see what I mean, although my business interest
is now severed due to personal reasons.

MH .. Some of my mates are inventors. They might not be conducive in
thought to your modern idea, but I enjoy our problem solving times
over a beer with them in other practicalities.

Thanks again guys, I am enjoying this as if you might not have guessed.

Here's cheers to a better world through deliberation of thought.

Kind regards, Phil

Hi guys

Couple of points I should have paid more attention to -- sorry
anotherbrian for not directly referring to you too. And of course
?republicans? quip was not aimed at rebellious Aussie upstart
republicans :-)

By ?liquid?, I meant fluid. But there again, there is a national
stereotype to uphold....

But Phil, you are too kind. Sorry the bunny venture was curtailed but
with your rabbit fettish you?ll probably know that rabbits have almost
360, and vertical.

http://www.cramptonarts.com/rabbits/r_wild.html
http://www.bio.miami.edu/hare/vision.html

Pigeons BTW have 340 degrees and 24 degrees binocular. Wondering about
the fovea in wide angle, there is lots on the web. This is good :-

http://www.dvrconline.org/raptoradapt.html

Apparently many diurnal birds have *two* pairs -- one for sideways and
the other pair for binocular, which answers my surmise. But I find it
very difficult to conceptualise how they manage the two vision
attention fields at the same time. Perhaps they switch off the points
of attention when not required, leaving only the motion sensing. Like
we too do when we stare into space in contemplation -- some of us more
than others. But therein is the virtue of GA because in viewing your
question, mharoks, it has lead to great stuff. Thanks. Investigating
vision impact came up with this site which has some fascinating info
regarding ?cross over? of the visual nerve -- humans having about 50%,
dogs 60% and horses 85%.

http://nzphoto.tripod.com/sterea/3dvision.htm

But further investigation on the concept of 360 degrees, I though military :-

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/1293/
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/experts/experts_lists/Artintell/robvision.cfm
http://www.remotereality.com/press/pc_20040120.pdf

Nice to know our taxes are wisely spent by the military. They?ll
probably get RayBan for consultation. Duh.

Finally, by all means Andy, or Drew, or Pink Panda, or Catweasel, or
Sparky, or a bunch of others.

Best (Pet Lamb)

Just dropped in to say G'day. Thanks again for the posts guys. I will
now have to absorb the additions as posted by Guzzi before I dare
consider any further contribution. I'm not sure that I could add
anything more of value to help achieve your goal MH. My position now
lays strictly in learning from your words. Great stuff.

Thanks all.

Phil