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

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more