In three experiments, we showed that the visual system treats a dot somewhat like a geometrical point, which has a location but no area. We represented a "point" or "dot" with a small disc (diameter of 0.08º of visual angle), and a "disc" with a larger disc (diameter of 1.5º). The Weber fraction of the dot was larger than that of the disc. In Experiment 1, the relative retinal image size cues for depth for the dot and the disc were placed in conflict with the motion parallax cue. We found that the dot indicated the positions defined by the motion parallax cue better than the disc did. In Experiment 2, we placed a constant retinal image size in conflict with convergence eye movements. We found that a binocularly fused dot appeared to move in depth with convergence eye movement, whereas a fused disc appeared to move less. In Experiment 3, we examined the apparent sizes of the afterimages of a dot and a disc and found that Emmert's law failed for the dot afterimage; the apparent size of the dot afterimage changed very little for different distances-as though it had no area-whereas the apparent size of the disc afterimage changed by an extent predicted by Emmert's law. The differences in the dot and disc conditions could not be explained by the differences in the Weber fractions alone.