Just so you know, the pictures on the website that I link to are NOT, in fact, dirty or pornographic in any way. But due to an optical illusion, they may appear.. well more provocative than you might expect: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php...our-brain-turns-bubbles-into-nude-bodies.html Anyway I found it fascinating, and it's yet another demonstration of just how strange our brains actually are, and it proves that ANYONE can see things that truly are not there. The next time someone tells you that they saw a UFO, or a ghost or a fairy or an angel, tell them you believe them, but then show them one of the pictures on that page. Tell them "well I bet you see a naked man(or woman) in this picture as well." The brain is truly a strange and amazing organ, as well as an incredible liar.
I actually do not. I see a person wearing bubbles. (Not a joke, that is how my fried thought organ interprets the image of the person with their clothing covered by bubbles.) Want to see some more illusions? I can post them. Be warned that this first one will be in spoiler tags in case a sensitive person who sees nudity as an offense comes in. It is nothing inappropriate, but the question is which way does she turn? Different people will see her turning clockwise or counterclockwise. I see here alternate between them. In truth she does not turn. (Use an image editor to examine the individual frames and you will get it.) Spoiler: Go Away if you are young or if nudity offends you. Also here is an easy one. If your brain did not try to compensate for things all the time this would be a static field of nuts, They do not move. Focus on one near the middle and hold your breath and be absolutely still. See?
That's pretty weird, Haldurson. Omni, can you explain your first pic? I don't have any image editor currently installed so I can't check the frames. I see the silhouette rotate clockwise but I don't really know what the illusion is supposed to be. Is it just that she doesn't change pose at all? Cause I can see that.
It's tricker for some people than others. Here's the key. are you looking at her from "below" or "above"? If you're above the sillhouette, it appears to be rotating clockwise. If from below, counterclockwise. Here's what always works for me. Cover the top 3/4 of the body with your hand so you can only see the bottom of the legs, then close your left eye. Wait a second, and then open it again and uncover the body at the same time. If you do it right, it should switch to counterclockwise. Covering it and closing your right eye instead of your left eye should switch it to clockwise again.
Hrmm. There doesn't actually seem to be ambiguity - as the lower half is a silhouette, with minimal '3d reference', all movement in the z (into the page) direction is equivalent to movement out of the z direction.
The nuts one doesn't seem to work for me, but then again I have visual problems so that may be why. If I do it with my glasses on, nothing happens, but if I do it with them off, I can only focus on the nut I'm staring at, and everything else is too blurry (I have focus issues, particularly up close).
Well, the way it is supposed to look, the nuts all appear to be moving if you do not remain entirely still. If this does not work, I cannot know why nor help you figure it out. You may want to save the image and use you image viewer/editor of choice to view it fullscreen. That may make it easier.
When it's on the normal screen, I can't see it. But if everything else is black, I momentarily saw ripples (I assume that's what everyone else is seeing???). The size didn't matter (I did try it full screen), I only get a momentary effect, and then I can't see it again.
To me it looks like the whole image is rippling like a wave moving over a pool of water. Back and forth. But I am pretty nearsighted and may not be the best gauge of what you should see.
Yeah I can't seem to find the silhouette one at all, even with what you said Moom. The nuts one appears right away to me though, wherever I look.
Exactly like Daynab here, nut thing worked right away(the effect is sort of like looking at gently moving water, like the surface of a pool/lake), silhouette only goes clockwise, even with Moom's advice.
Focus on the very bottom of the foot and you can probably get it to change direction. Or kind of flip between looking just below and above the outstretched leg.
It's not that people have a dirty mind, it's that the dude just leaves the skin while covering up the clothing.
I didn't mean that we had dirty minds -- I was just trying to be funny. But I was serious when I said that our brain lies to us. The lie, in this case, is that Daniel Craig, in the first photo, and the women in the bikinis in the next one, are actually naked. If you didn't see that (like apparently Omni didn't), then the illusion clearly didn't work on you. It's clear to me from this thread that each of us is at least susceptible to one or more of the illusions, but why one and not the other? I have no idea other than to think that it has something to do with individual differences between our brains. All I can say for sure is that each of us has a brain that lies to us, just that which lies get told tend to differ.
The big thing is "what things, that when we see them, do we tell to ourselves "can't trust that, bro."" I know that I cannot tell by inspection the lengths of lines with arrows on the end of them - but that shit still tricks me if I don't measure them or similar.
These are optical illusions and we know it. We know that someone is trying to fool us and it's good fun and not at all surprising to be fooled -- that's the whole point. We know it's happening and we still see the illusion. The problem is that in the real world, it's also possible to be fooled, or our brains to lie to us. It's one thing to admit that we are fooled when seeing something that we know ought to fool us, and quite another thing to draw the conclusion that we are capable of being fooled without knowing it. Here's an example. There was an experiment done by some teacher. He took a group of people into a field at night for some stargazing. During the evening someone spotted a UFO. most people described it as flying around in unusual ways, and so on. But it was a setup. What he had done was enlisted the help of a confederate to nail one of those shiny piece of aluminum from a tall wooden post. It never moved. Yet almost universally, the people with this teacher saw movement. it was described in ways that were 100% inaccurate. People saw things happen that didn't happen. If one person saw something, a dozen saw it. Ever try to explain to a ghost believer that their brain can lie to them? It's impossible. In that kind of situation, the truth not only is impossible to hear, it reinforces the illusion. The more someone is told what they saw isn't real, the more strongly they trust their own senses.
Well, whenever I have a flu or am just plain sick, I sometimes wake up and see everything way closer than it is. I also once woke up and saw everything in my room was Team Fortress 2 dispensers and computers. It looked way too clear, but those possibly are the result of a sleeping brain or something. Oh right the conversation is about dirty minds. All the images on Google are set ups anyways, I don't see why the creator of the images does not have a dirty mind. It's like bad abstract art, where you don't have to think about the meaning of the art, because it's too obvious.
