You would describe as an innate and obvious part to the environment. Interesting how something that took 1000s of years to articulate is just innate to the layperson in the modern world.
I'm not putting it on a pedestal. I'm afflicted with the need to know the source of beliefs. It could be with more study one might find the value is anything but arbitrary. I guess I should bow out of this thread since I'm never really sure what we are discussing. One certainly doesn't need to understand the foundations of understanding to get by in the modern world. I can't really cope without knowing the roots of why we do what we do.
I guess so... I lost track:) The original comment seemed to imply that we had a coping system for understanding 3-D. I had an undergrad drawing class that started with Brunelleschi and framing tool he used to frame the Palazzo Vecchio. The story goes that he spent about 5 years trying to accurately reproduce what he saw in the frame. This is how he developed perspective. If one looks at the Plazzo Vecchio it looks like an obvious place to work on perspective.
There is another comment regarding a theory that Brunelleschi was influence by the book of optics and I can see an influence. I'm not sure how flushed out the perspective system is. I have only done a cursory look and the book argues that light in our eye on is perceived at right angles. Off angle light is not detected. I can see Brunelleschi reading that while studying the Plazzo Vecchio
and developing perspective.
I wasn't asking for clarification because I thought I understood your statement.
As a side remark, it is probable [0] that Brunelleschi built his understanding of perspective from the Books of optics [1], written by Ibn al-Haytham around 1020 AD.
I read a little of the book of optics and I could see it influencing Brunelleschi. The other reference requires a login so I wasn't able to look into the claim.
It's hard to rationalize because it is fundamentally irrational.