> "The human perception system sees a checkerboard with a cylinder, while a basic SSR measurement shows squares A and B read the same. “Illusion” implies that o

> "The human perception system sees a checkerboard with a cylinder, while a basic SSR measurement shows squares A and B read the same. “Illusion” implies that our system is fooled, but as far as useful information goes, the checkerboard interpretation is probably better. Try as they might, mathematicians can’t make the computers see the checkerboard. Rather than a demonstration of how easily fooled we are, optical illusions like this one are examples of the brain’s mysterious and irreplicable abilities. It interprets its environment with a sophistication that exceeds our ability to measure and reconstruct physical phenomena." I am certainly no expert on this matter, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that the reason they haven't had much luck is because they are trying to solve a much harder problem than the brain actually solves. The brain almost certainly is using input from other "functions", particularly edge detection and large-scale pattern detection to determine that there is a repeating grid there, not just raw color information and inferred scene lighting. I bet a computer can detect those edges with relative ease, but that's not how the researchers are trying to solve this. They probably know that they could do it that way, but consider it cheating because that's not what they wanted to study.