WJC
Well-known member
Bino Thoughts 6
MORE ON THE VALUE OF THINKING A LITTLE DEEPER
As I was finishing Bino Thoughts #5, I was running out of day. I have two important examples to support the same concept. The first clearly demonstrates that we often supplant scientific evidence with our own erroneous opinions because of our level of thinking and resistance to opposing realities.
BF Illustration 1 was used on page 74 of my first binocular book. It was one of several illustrations created at MIT by neuroscientist and professor of Vision Science, Edward H. Adelson. Although the two leaves appear (to most people) to be greatly different in hue. In fact, they are EXACTLY the same. This can be proven, to those open to doubting what they THINK they know, by placing a couple of fingers just outside the apex of each.
I think BF Illusion 2 is even better. Not only is it stark, with fewer extraneous stimuli, visiting MIT’s optical illusion site one can see the two identical spheres revolving from one side to the other ... several times.
Probably the best—certainly the most frustrating for me—is BF Illustration 3, wherein it is abundantly clear that squares A and B are VERY different ... YET THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry, Mr. Twain; I thought all the exclamation marks were necessary.)
BF Illustration 4—http://www.openculture.com/2011/08/mit_checker_shadow_illusion.html—shows how it was set up and watching the young lady take a sheet of paper and move it back and forth from one square to another with its hue seemingly changing from one shade of gray to another to match the stationary square it’s placed on.
Vision Science has a lot to tell us. But what it has told us so far has burst many bubbles for those who have such concrete opinions of what they THINK see or don’t see in a given binocular.
The second example, BF Illustration 5, illustrates that those who claim to see axially and peripherally in the same instant are mistaken ... and WHY. :cat:
Cheers,
Bill
MORE ON THE VALUE OF THINKING A LITTLE DEEPER
As I was finishing Bino Thoughts #5, I was running out of day. I have two important examples to support the same concept. The first clearly demonstrates that we often supplant scientific evidence with our own erroneous opinions because of our level of thinking and resistance to opposing realities.
BF Illustration 1 was used on page 74 of my first binocular book. It was one of several illustrations created at MIT by neuroscientist and professor of Vision Science, Edward H. Adelson. Although the two leaves appear (to most people) to be greatly different in hue. In fact, they are EXACTLY the same. This can be proven, to those open to doubting what they THINK they know, by placing a couple of fingers just outside the apex of each.
I think BF Illusion 2 is even better. Not only is it stark, with fewer extraneous stimuli, visiting MIT’s optical illusion site one can see the two identical spheres revolving from one side to the other ... several times.
Probably the best—certainly the most frustrating for me—is BF Illustration 3, wherein it is abundantly clear that squares A and B are VERY different ... YET THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry, Mr. Twain; I thought all the exclamation marks were necessary.)
BF Illustration 4—http://www.openculture.com/2011/08/mit_checker_shadow_illusion.html—shows how it was set up and watching the young lady take a sheet of paper and move it back and forth from one square to another with its hue seemingly changing from one shade of gray to another to match the stationary square it’s placed on.
Vision Science has a lot to tell us. But what it has told us so far has burst many bubbles for those who have such concrete opinions of what they THINK see or don’t see in a given binocular.
The second example, BF Illustration 5, illustrates that those who claim to see axially and peripherally in the same instant are mistaken ... and WHY. :cat:
Cheers,
Bill
Attachments
Last edited:
