Optical Illusions

[Racoon]

OK, the site I got the STD images from is pretty cool...

which is where I found this

 

Optical illusions. Conflict between right brain/ left brain from visual stimulus.. Try this exercise! :hihi:

 

[Racoon]

And here is another! :singer: :hihi:

 

 

[Racoon]

And One more for now!....:shrug: :)

 

 

What do you think?

How and why does that/this happen... with optical illusions? :singer: :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

I think I posted those exact two in a thread some time ago...

[HydrogenBond]

These optical illusions are a good example of the two sides of the brain working at the same time processing the data differently. Although far more difficult to demonstrate, complex theoretical data processed in the imagination goes through the same thing. For example, in cosmology there are a wide range of theories. Although common sense would indicate that the universe can only form one way at a time, all the alternatives reflects increasing and decreasing right hemisphere contributions.

[UncleAl]

Motion-induced blindness,

 

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/index.html

[Racoon]

[HydrogenBond]

I am not trying to change the subject, but these optical illusions are a good example of right side of the brain altering our perception of rationally reality within the left side of the brain. If one is unaware of the process, one might assume the illusion affect is occurring in reality instead of only in the imagination.

 

The example I gave about many seeming useful but conflicting cosmology theories appears to show the affect of right side thinking mingling with left side. Cosmolgy is hard to prove so there is no easy way overcome the illusion affect and nobody to point out the affect. With most scientists unaware of the dual internal processing they assume all these are purely rational without an any optical illusion affect. The funny thing is, many of these cosmology theories can be supported by math. Math can be used to simulate the right-left hemiphere abberation.

 

The last posted image by raccoon is an optical illusion, but one could model the optical illusion of the gray circle shrinking with a math function. Just because one can simulate it with math does not imply it is reality. One could do a pixel count and prove that it does not move in reality even if the math supports the position that the eyes appear see. It only moves between the two cerebral hemisphere but not in purely rational reality.

 

This is part of the reason I have been a butt head. I can see through many of the optical illusions of science and was trying to show others. Most people seem unaware of the dual brain processing going on and how rational optical illusions are often assumed to reflect physical reality.

 

Let me give an historical example, when everyone thought the world was flat, that expectation was not just stored in the left hemisphere but also the right hemisphere. One could gather all types of rational data that appeared to prove the illusion. If someone said the world was roundm because everyone was seeing the optical illusion, that person would be labelled crazy because he is seeing something different. With optical illusions one has a rational reference that tells what is going on but one still can't shut it off. When it come to theory, most people don't have a solid reference nor can they totally shut off the imagination illusion.

[Tormod]

Let me give an historical example, when everyone thought the world was flat, that expectation was not just stored in the left hemisphere but also the right hemisphere. One could gather all types of rational data that appeared to prove the illusion. If someone said the world was roundm because everyone was seeing the optical illusion, that person would be labelled crazy because he is seeing something different.

 

Can you provide us with some scientific evidence of when people (in general) thought the Earth was flat?

 

As far as I know, that people in general has believed this is a myth and it is unecessary to promote this idea further.

 

The simplest way to ascertain that the Earth is round, is to look at the shape it casts on the Moon. This only proves that it is *round* however, and not a sphere....although the shape of this shadow would have to change as the Moon moved, if the Earth was a flat circle, and theoretically we would then see the Earth as a thin shadow on the Moon when the Moon was directly behind the Earth as opposed to the Sun. :eek:

 

A better hint would have been apparent for any people who travel, however. Not only by looking at the curvature of the oceans, which is a dead give-away (although some might have believed it to be an optical illusion perhaps), but the fact that certain star signs are only visible from certain latitudes. So from Oslo, Norway you can't see some of the ones that are low on the horizon in, say, Paris, France.

 

But most people did NOT travel such long distances.

 

So how, then, would they know that the Earth was a sphere?

[InfiniteNow]

I am not trying to change the subject, but these optical illusions are a good example of right side of the brain altering our perception of rationally reality within the left side of the brain. If one is unaware of the process, one might assume the illusion affect is occurring in reality instead of only in the imagination.

Even if one WERE aware of the process, how would they be able to accurately differentiate between that which occurs in reality and that which occurs in the imagination? Isn't reality brought into our awareness/consciousness (call it what you will) through the same mechanism as our imagined thoughts? If you disagree, please explain to me why.

 

 

Also, a relatively simple explanation for these perceptual effects regarding illusions is the unconscious reallocation of attentional resources due to sensitization.

 

Whoa... big words... maybe not so simple. :)

 

 

Cheers. :eek:

[HydrogenBond]

Can you provide us with some scientific evidence of when people (in general) thought the Earth was flat? As far as I know, that people in general has believed this is a myth and it is unecessary to promote this idea further.

 

Your exactly right. The myth is the right hemisphere programming. This with limted but reinforcing observational data resulted in the optical conclusion the earth was indeed flat. Data that did not agree was ignorred because it did not cooincide with the expectations from the myth.

 

The world was then proven to be round. This took a while to catch on. But at the same time, it did not dispel the parallel myth that the earth was the center of the universe. When sun was proven to be the center and the earth went around the sun, this was resisted until Copernicus was on his death bed. But all it did was place the sun at the center of the universe. This was closer to rational truth but still had subjectivity attached to it. Further data led and is still leading to further rational understanding with less subjectivity connected to it.

 

Even if one WERE aware of the process, how would they be able to accurately differentiate between that which occurs in reality and that which occurs in the imagination? Isn't reality brought into our awareness/consciousness (call it what you will) through the same mechanism as our imagined thoughts? If you disagree, please explain to me why.

 

It has to do with the way data is stored in each hemisphere. The left hemisphere is based on cause and affect, i.e., rational. This can be represented by 2-D thoughts, with rational (x,y) axis of cause and affect.

 

The right hemisphere is 3-D or spatial. Using a geometeric analogy it is like a ball instead of a plane. The 3-D memory can be approximated by a wide range of 2-D planes intersecting the origin of the ball at different angles.

 

As a way of example, if we look at the very first optical illusion, colors and the names of colors, the right hemisphere assessment is independant of language. If one was Chinese, German or English one would see the color the same due to the right hemishere. Where the lillusion differs is in the words. The colors are the 3-D universal ball, while the different languages of the left hemisphere are the many rational planes that, all integrated together approximate the 3-D ball. If a theory has many opinions, each of these represent partial 2-D representations of a 3-D ball. All together better approximate the 3-D. The subjectivty is connected to the difference between 3-D completeness and the 2-D approximation.

 

Let us do the same optical illusion slightly differently. Label the colors in a foreign language that nobody knows, i.e, Navajo. What would happen is one would not see the illusion anymore because the left hemisphere would not be able to fully participate, yet the right hemisphere would still make an accurate accessment of the colors.

 

If the people began to extrapolate from this right hemisphere assessment they may assume that the strange words represent these colors. This will program the 2-D memory. It would make no logical sense that someone would put the wrong words on the wrong colors. For now on, the navajo word for red becomes green and the word for green become blue. If a Navajo indian came along and told the group they were misusing the words, if this had become a long term habit or tradition, they may have a difficult time adjusting to the reality due to habits focusing the mind in the erroneous correlation.

 

One of the useful tools of science that perpetuates the optical illusion of knowledge is statistics. From the point of view of the scientists statistics helps to factor out the subjective affect. That is good. But onbe the theory is put into production (reaches common knowledge), unless one really understands the nature of the statistics, one is given an idea with built in subjectivity, without a good way to filter it out.

 

Let me give an example. Brand-X is found to show a 30% increase in the body fat of people who eat it. What does this actually mean? Does it mean that 3 out of 10 people will get overweight. Does it mean that every three out of 10 times one eats brand-X it will put on weight. Is this just an average among a wide range of reactions to brand-X? There is a lot of subjective room to maneuver with this study.

 

A person who is unaffected by brand-x may decide that 30% risk is too high after they do their own simple statistical risk assessment. They were never at riskm but now they think they are. On the other hand, people who are at risk, may like to gamble and feel that 10/3 odds is good and will take their chance. The polititian may use this as a platform to prohibit it from the general public because they think everyone is at risk.

 

If we get rid of the optical illusion by requiring logic and reason, before theory is fit for general consumption, the result would be much different. For example, if a,b, or c, one can eat all they want, this study does not apply to them. If d,e and f, one needs to serviously cut back because it definitely applies to them. If it is a combo of the six parameters, their is some subjectivity left but much smaller than before, The net affect is that rational takes away the optical iilusion that statistics can perpetuate.

[C1ay]

Try this one....

 

http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.html

[InfiniteNow]

It has to do with the way data is stored in each hemisphere. The left hemisphere is based on cause and affect, i.e., rational. This can be represented by 2-D thoughts, with rational (x,y) axis of cause and affect.

 

The right hemisphere is 3-D or spatial. Using a geometeric analogy it is like a ball instead of a plane. The 3-D memory can be approximated by a wide range of 2-D planes intersecting the origin of the ball at different angles.

Your logic implies that someone who has had brain surgery, perhaps an entire hemisphere of their brain removed, would lose all the abilities associated with that hemisphere. This simply is not the case. While there are trends toward certain activities and abilities associated with each hemisphere, each will share some of the load. This "redundancy" in the system has evolved for all of us.

 

Thanks for the information.

[HydrogenBond]

The brain association analysis is oversimplified. But the fact remains that both spatial and logical aspects of the brain exist and can redistribute if one of the hemispheres is damaged or removed. I would like to give a better example to explain the difference between 3-D and 2-D thought.

 

Picture an isolated island with a delicately balanced eco-system. This eco-system is a function of geology, climate and weather. The eco-system is not just on the island but also beyond the island into the surrrounding water. This eco-system is a 3-D interaction of geology, plants and animals. If we look at any particular aspect, it will follow logical rules of science. Each aspect is sort of a 2-D plane of logic. All these planes are integrated into the 3-D whole to get an integrated interaction of 2-D logic systems (principles of science that goven each aspect).

 

If we focus our attention on a higher animal that is an omnivore, its eating behavior may seem less than logically predictable and may be better expressed with a statistical type relation. This will help filter out our limitations in explaining how this unpredictable eating behavior fits in with the big picture of the eco-system.

 

Animals are more right hemisphere than left hemisphere. Their behavior is more connected to the spatial nature of their natural instinct. This time averaged spatial nature of their instincts will not only reflect the spatial nature of the animal's needs but also its connection to the spatial integration of the eco-system. To maintain the overall balance of both 3-D constraints, the animal's 3-D memory generates 2-D planes of causual behavior. The seemingly random eating actually represents a range of 2-D logic planes that integrate the animal to 3-D environment. If one food is getting harder to get, maybe due to low numbers, the animal will shift to something almost as good but much easier to come by. This food may begin to expand beyond the natural balance. The animal doesn't think this through but its 3-D memory integrates it logically with the 3-D picture.

 

If we add some humans to the island, they are more centered in the left hemisphere based on 2-D logic planes. At some subliminal level the 3-D side of the brain will attempt to integrate the humans with the environment. But through survival education, the 2-D ego may approach the task in a lpurely ogical way that may or may not be condusive to the integrated nature of the eco-system.

 

If the people were going to be on this island for a long time, common sense would imply the need to find how to blend into the delicate balance, For example, one may initially hunt some of the big slow animals for fast food. But if these are hunted to extinction the whole environment may change in the long term with negative consequences. What would happen is that 3-D human survival instinct would create a counter position to the 2-D logic of our culturally learned needs of short term survival. One can resist the natural impulse or one may be nagged by the impulse causing them to see the environment in a more integrated way. The natural instinct may even kick out some 2-D planes of logic and survival that allow the human to better integrate themselves with the environment.

 

These 2-D planes may be creative impulses that may create topics of discussion and debate as well as inventions. Each person will have their own creative impulses. Each is providing a 2-D aspect of the big 3-D picture within the collective mind. It is more complicated than that. The 2-D plane skicked up will also overlap our personal memory. The environment is new but our learned propensities are time weighed. This makes the 2-D output plane a combination of natural 3-D output and 2-D bias. For example, the biggest person may give more weight to certain hunches simply because they physically weigh more than anyone. The result would not be a 3-D integration but a cultural compromise that is closer to 3-D but still not at the optimum.

 

Cultural would remain in a creative flux of change not only due to the less than optimum solution but due to the less than optimum causing the 3-D integration of the eco-system to change. Eventually, through a type of self forfilling prophesy, the environment may alter to where the big and strong become far more essential for survival. For example, the little animals and easy food may become scarce, because of the less than 3-D integration with the eco-system, now requiring dangerous tree climbing and the need to hunt big dangerous animals.

 

The latter is an example of the 2-D memory, centered on the ego, not integrated with 3-D, eventually altering the natural 3-D memory until the 3-D memory becomes replaced by something less than 3-D. The result is still a logical world but with far more subjective influence since human creativity is no longer stemming from a 3-D memory but from something less than 3-D that has spatial error culturally built into it.

[billg]

I just thought it was important to note here that only the first optical illusion, with the reading of colour words in colours, is to do with left vs. right brain processing. The first of the other ones (with the black dots) is to do with centre-surround inhibition of the ganglion cells in the retina. I'm not sure of the explanations of the second illusion with the horizontal lines that appear sloped but it's not to my knowledge used as an example of left/right brain differing in function but rather a result of the interactions between receptive fields of the retina or higher in the visual system, and the final illusion which is linked to, the castle one, which by the way is awesome and easily the best of its kind I have ever seen, is due to our visual system inhibiting the perception of one colour when it sees another (for example seeing yellow, inhibiting the perception of blue), and as a result when the colour is taken away neurons corresponding to it's "inverse" fire more and we perceive the gray as the inverse of the image our eyes have accustomed to. That really is a wicked illusion though, even though I knew how it worked it took me about 5 minutes of experimentation before I believed it wasn't just timed to change colour!!! I know this is a bit off-topic now but I love illusions.

[InfiniteNow]

HB, you clearly have a lot of knowledge on the topic, but your explanation seems to be an answer in search of a problem. Simply, illusions are caused b/c we take perceptual short-cuts and fill in the gaps of incoming data. An illusion simply shows how errors can be caused by such short-cuts.

 

Silly Example:

You are a kid playing in the yard, and you hear your mom yell "Hydrogen, it's time for..." but you don't catch the last word. Judging by the shadows, and the sun's change in position, and your knowledge of how long you've been outside playing, you are pretty confident that she said "dinner." However, it could just as easily have been "It's time for America's Funniest Home Videos with Bob Sagat."

 

An illusion is the same thing, but visually.

[HydrogenBond]

Let me give a slightly different example. If anyone has camped in the woods at night, the darkness makes it harder to differentiate objects. If one tells children or adults scary stories, many will begin to see strangers or animals lurking in the dark. Their imaginations become active.

 

Because the left side of the brain can not fully differentiate the shadowy objects, nor can it rule anything out, due to the dark, the right hemisphere will often begin to make patterns, around what was suggested in the story.

 

Some kids or adults are so convinced of something out there, because of the anxiety they feel, that no amount of logic or reason is enough. They often needs to see the truth with their own eyes, or their anxiety remains. The left hemisphere reinforces the right's hemisphere's image due to the fear tone being very real to the left hemisphere. Often you have to walk over to the bush and scream like it got you, i.e., if you want a laugh. If you want to be nice, you walk over and show them there is nothing there, so their left hemisphere common sense is able to get the upper hand. It allows the right hemisphere to depotentiate, usually removing the fear tone at the same time.

 

At the frontiers of knowledge, we are also in woods, in the dark due to very limited proof. Cultural expectations through frontier camping stories (theories) will induced symbolic overlay from the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is also at a disadvantage but will often reinforce right hemisphere projection with logical extrapolation. One will often feel that something is really there. It is not always easy to get a person to see through the rationally reinforced illusions of science, even in you shake the bush. Often theory illusions are not based on fear but desire and excitement. Humans get off to the desire and excitement and often resist the real logic or data when you shake the bush, because they don't want to lose that warm and exciting subjective feeling.

 

This is easy to see this in others that in oneself. If one looks at a die-hard religious zealot, they are getting their jollies with their subjectively based theory and will resist losing that fearful or exciting feeling no matter how many times a scientist shakes the bush with logic and data.

 

Cosmology is a science example of surrounding oneself with a web of logic to keep the subjective jollies going. The universe can only form one way at a time. But who cares if others are misled since their will love the buzz. It is not a conscious thing to mislead but the reinforcing web of logic and even optical illuision data, is like passing a community cup of alcohol. It is good in small doses but if the while herd becomes drunk with excitement its creates a contact buzz that can overcome common sense.