14th September 2005, 2:51 PM
Yes, but in this case there is enough evidence to show that what it appears to be is wrong.
First of all, it's a PNG file. Not just a gif with a false extension (which IE can apparently see through), but a true PNG file. I checked it out in an image editor, just one frame, and that single frame still looks all weird like that.
Second of all, try focusing on single parts of the image. You will see that it stands still and the areas just outside your focus appear to "wave". This happens on such a consistant basis the only conclusions are that either the computer can tell where you are looking at any time, or the image is not truly animated and it must be an optical illusion.
Since the first option is pretty much "out", it's an illusion.
Now that we've established that, how does it work?
Well, basically, your brain is programmed to recognize images (duh), but that programming is not without glitches. From what I've seen, most of these glitches seem to be just direct almost unavoidable consequences of our methods of recognizing things. Look at the patterns. Diagonal rows of red flowers and diagonal rows of white flowers, right? Red white red white, oh wait, not exactly. Red white white red white red red white red white white red white red red. This pattern messes with established patterns your brain has. So, when you focus on any one part, you can see the detail is standing still, but since some parts seem "bigger" in somewhat odd ways outside your focus, and your brain has already established, in a glitchy manner, that the pattern is "red white red white", well it seems to be assuming that the "bigger" areas must be closer, so it's put together in your mind as "closer", yet at the same time your brain also realizes the rows are the same size as the rest, so it puts it "farther". So, the image ripples like a sheet in the breeze in your mind, so long as you've seen sheets blowing in the wind before... Not sure if someone who has never experienced that would see the same thing...
Anyway, that's the explanation that seems to make the most sense, but there are at least two people here who have taken psychology, so they would certainly have been taught about optical illusions, being that that's one of the bodies of knowledge in that field that seems to have the strongest evidence base...
First of all, it's a PNG file. Not just a gif with a false extension (which IE can apparently see through), but a true PNG file. I checked it out in an image editor, just one frame, and that single frame still looks all weird like that.
Second of all, try focusing on single parts of the image. You will see that it stands still and the areas just outside your focus appear to "wave". This happens on such a consistant basis the only conclusions are that either the computer can tell where you are looking at any time, or the image is not truly animated and it must be an optical illusion.
Since the first option is pretty much "out", it's an illusion.
Now that we've established that, how does it work?
Well, basically, your brain is programmed to recognize images (duh), but that programming is not without glitches. From what I've seen, most of these glitches seem to be just direct almost unavoidable consequences of our methods of recognizing things. Look at the patterns. Diagonal rows of red flowers and diagonal rows of white flowers, right? Red white red white, oh wait, not exactly. Red white white red white red red white red white white red white red red. This pattern messes with established patterns your brain has. So, when you focus on any one part, you can see the detail is standing still, but since some parts seem "bigger" in somewhat odd ways outside your focus, and your brain has already established, in a glitchy manner, that the pattern is "red white red white", well it seems to be assuming that the "bigger" areas must be closer, so it's put together in your mind as "closer", yet at the same time your brain also realizes the rows are the same size as the rest, so it puts it "farther". So, the image ripples like a sheet in the breeze in your mind, so long as you've seen sheets blowing in the wind before... Not sure if someone who has never experienced that would see the same thing...
Anyway, that's the explanation that seems to make the most sense, but there are at least two people here who have taken psychology, so they would certainly have been taught about optical illusions, being that that's one of the bodies of knowledge in that field that seems to have the strongest evidence base...
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)