[9] Mach, _op. citat._, 2te Aufl., Jena, 1900, S. 96.

It is brought up again by Lipps,[10] who assumes that the streak ought
to dart with the eyes and calls therefore the oppositely moving streak
the 'falsely localized image.' For sake of brevity we may call this
the 'false image.' The explanation of Lipps can be pieced together as
follows (_ibid._, S. 64): "The explanation presupposes that sensations
of eye-movements have nothing to do with the projection of retinal
impressions into the visual field, that is, with the perception of the
mutual relations as to direction and distance, of objects which are
viewed simultaneously.... Undoubtedly, however, sensations of
eye-movements, and of head-and body-movements as well, afford us a
scale for measuring the displacements which our entire visual field
and every point in it undergo within the surrounding _totality of
space_, which we conceive of as fixed. We estimate according to the
length of such movements, or at least we deduce therefrom, the
distance through fixed space which our view by virtue of these
movements has traversed.... They themselves are nothing for our
consciousness but a series of purely intensive states. But in
experience they can come to _indicate_ distance traversed." Now in
turning the eye from a luminous object, _O_, to some other
fixation-point, _P_, the distance as simply contemplated is more or
less subdivided or filled in by the objects which are seen to lie
between _O_ and _P_, or if no such objects are visible the distance is
still felt to consist of an infinity of points; whereas the muscular
innervation which is to carry the eye over this very distance is an
undivided unit. But it is this which gives us our estimate of the arc
we move through, and being thus uninterrupted it will appear shorter
than the contemplated, much subdivided distance _OP_, just as a
continuous line appears shorter than a broken line. "After such