Skip to main content

The Disturbing Celebrity Illusion

In case you missed it... (and what explains it?)

Comments

Jim Baerg said…
I don't see it.

I have the 'lazy eye' syndrome, ie: my brain pays little or no attention to the input from the 'bad' eye.

This suggests that the reason for the illusion involves the merging of the images from the two eyes.
Anonymous said…
Place a mirror halfway across the image of the Mona Lisa, to make two new faces.
Looks to me as if the artist might be suggesting something about male/ female identity.

View the revolving hollow face mask illusion. Which demonstrates how mental programming overrides conscious reasoning. The reverse is concave, without dispute. But the brain compels an observer to believe that it is convex, as it normally would be. Thus rendition trumps reality.
jeremy said…
@Jim, no it isn't, because the illusion persists if you close one eye completely.

My guess is that it has a lot to do with the difference between central and peripheral vision, with the latter being of poor fidelity. Usually our eyes flit from area to area within our visual fields, so that most of the area is briefly viewed by our central ("foveal") vision. We don't notice that we are doing this (it is an unconscious reflex) and the brain assists by piecing the bits together into a coherent whole that consciousness gets fed, so we aren't aware how bad our peripheral vision actually is.

By keeping our central vision trained on the cross, this reflex is suppressed.

There may be more to it, though. I have a suspicion this illusion also keys into the propensity of our brains to see faces in anything face-like. Perhaps the illusion is what happens when you feed the "face detection" program poor data from our peripheral vision, rather than the central vision that normally (unconsciously) does all the proper viewing. The distorted faces are the best the brain can do to "normalise" the dodgy data into something face-like. You could test this by repeating the experiment with various shapes instead of the faces.

Let me just stress though, these are just the thoughts that struck me. I have no particular expertise in this, and so I might be completely off base!
Unknown said…
ZOMG!!! It's you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Owen_Wilson_Cannes_2011.jpg
Anonymous said…
jeremy said...
There may be more to it, though. I have a suspicion this illusion also keys into the propensity of our brains to see faces in anything face-like
In addition, I wonder if that algorithm is accentuating certain facial regions (caricaturing). So that it may better use them in memory comparisons, to achieve identification.
mimpromptu said…
Is it because celebrities are made of different substances? I thought that give and take we can all be beautiful and ugly either at different times of our lives or even both at the same time.
mimpromptu said…
Haven't heard from Stephen for a long time - wondering why???????
nownki
dennymour said…
These photos of ‘Stars’ are fabulous showings of this blog. And yes I have known about these celebrities first time through this blog and truly I am pleased adding their name in my list own list of celebrities with lazy eye.
Unknown said…
Great post. I think it is good for visitors. I like this kind of website where has a lot of real information, It proved to be very helpful. Thanks for admin, His creativity, Presentation, Information and all is good.
Celebrity

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o