Great Optical Illusion

By -
Here.

Comments

  1. LarryRuane5:18 PM

    Just the letters themselves are the same color, not the squares containing the letters, right? The squares (containing the letters) in the first picture don't look the same as the corresponding squares in the second picture.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah5:29 PM

    The squares are the same color. You can use something like the Macintosh color utility to confirm this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LarryRuane5:49 PM

    That is a great illusion! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy12:25 AM

    Man alive, that was freaky. At first I didn't believe it, but then when I really tried to isolate just those two squares, they suddenly changed before my eyes and I "saw" that they were the same color. Freaky deaky Dutch.

    I sincerely hope that if someone held up two gray bars next to anarcho-capitalism and communism, the same thing wouldn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah8:45 AM

    What?! There are two gay bars next to anarcho-capitalism and communism?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah8:47 AM

    By the way, I couldn't even convince myself, visually, that they were the same - I had to call up the Mac color sampler app and see the RGB values were the same before I believed it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TokyoTom1:15 AM

    Yeh, I've seen this before and was just as surprised.

    Of course, given the real world, the "truthy" way our brains process this image is actually the most helpful one. That is, we expect illuminated objects to cast shadows, so that background appears to be a relatively uniform one of black and white squares (we probably also have congitive predilections re: backgrounds as well). If we didn't have these cognitive predilections - which can trick us in some cases - we'd have more difficulty in interpreting what we see in the real; world.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more