3 ms·
Fair point; it's not exactly the same mistake. If humans made those, this discussion would probably never happen. What I tried to rebut is your first, weaker a
by jpttsn 9y ago
Fair point; it's not exactly the same mistake. If humans made those, this discussion would probably never happen.
What I tried to rebut is your first, weaker assertion:
> The problem with optical illusions like that is that they are, in their vast majority, made of abstract shapes. Most of them play with our perception of distance and depth - and the majority again work on two dimensions, only.
This makes me see a moving 3d object when I am in fact looking at a static flat object; and I can't shake it, even if I try.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y agoOK, but I did say "the (vast) majority". Also, from what I can tell, this just happens to work better with a meaningful shape (the image of a T-Rex). It has something to do with how we confuse convex with concave shapes and the T-Rex's snout just happens to be very convenient to demonstrate this confusion (e.g., I think an image of a horse would work as well). I think the illusion would also work with an abstract shape- except it would be harder to find a good abstract shape to demonstrate it as clearly as with the T-Rex.