goddamnit. From the book Incognito,by david eagleman. The illusion of of "seeing" Neuroscientists weren' t the first to discover that placing your eyes on somet incognito looks retarded science
x
Click to expand

goddamnit

goddamnit. From the book Incognito,by david eagleman. The illusion of of "seeing" Neuroscientists weren' t the first to discover that placing your eyes on somet

From the book Incognito,by david eagleman

The
illusion of
of "seeing"
Neuroscientists weren' t the first to discover that placing your eyes on something is no guarantee of seeing it. Magicians figured this out long
ago, and perfected ways of leveraging this knowledge? By directing your attention, magicians perform sleight of hand in full view. Their actions
should give away the they can rest assured that your brain processes only small bits of the visual scene, not everything that hits your
retinas.
This fact helps to explain the colossal number of traffic accidents in which drivers hit pedestrians in plain view, collide with cars directly in
front of them, and even intersect with trains. In many of these cases, the eyes are in the right place, but the brain isn' t seeing the stimuli.
Vision is more than looking. This also explains why you probably missed the fact that the word "of" is printed twice in the triangle above.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+280
Views: 26642
Favorited: 35
Submitted: 03/03/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to amuserwholikesmuse Subscribe to fucking-science submit to reddit

Comments(34):

[ 34 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - thesoulless (03/03/2013) [+] (2 replies)
That must be why some people can't see why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch
#19 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (03/04/2013) [+] (2 replies)
The double of thing doesn't proof it, we ignore it subconsciously because of the way we read as we know it's redundant.
#20 to #19 - meowthre (03/04/2013) [-]
Actually, that's exactly what proves it. We technically see the whole image, but our brain chooses to ignore details that it doesn't consider valid. This applies both in the double 'of' situation as well as in the magic tricks example; we see it, but it doesn't register because of what the brain chooses to filter out.
User avatar #8 - Crusader (03/04/2013) [-]
I didn't even look at the triangle until you mentioned it,I figured it was a logo
#30 - felixjarl ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Jokes on you, i did not read the words in the triangle!
Jokes on you, i did not read the words in the triangle!
#13 - anonymous (03/04/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Nope, completely different phenomenon.
+5
#14 to #13 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #18 - dapape (03/04/2013) [-]
Thanks for making me paranoid as **** about getting hit by cars now.

Dick.
User avatar #25 - chainsawwielder (03/04/2013) [+] (2 replies)
You need to login to view this link

Found the book if anyone's interested.
#21 - WrightVGC (03/04/2013) [-]
**WrightVGC rolled a random image posted in comment #44 at Hue hue hue ** I read the paragraph first, well **** .
#10 - sathrax (03/04/2013) [-]
I noticed it. I think it also partially depends on mindset.
#7 - avacyne (03/04/2013) [+] (1 reply)
>mfw
>mfw
User avatar #33 to #7 - llanox (03/05/2013) [-]
Jesus Christ How Horrifying
User avatar #6 - Mahazama (03/04/2013) [+] (1 reply)
The whole bit of not seeing "of" has nothing to do with not processing stimuli, my brain simply omitted reading the entire thing (as it was skimming the title) and simply assumed that "of" would not be repeated twice

Failure to process stimuli =/= Assumption and omission.
User avatar #9 to #6 - amuserwholikesmuse (03/04/2013) [-]
he wasnt referring to that,he was making the point he started with "placing your eyes on something does not mean you will see it"
#1 - thedustlord (03/03/2013) [-]
mfw
#31 - anonymous (03/04/2013) [-]
why is this post empty?
#23 - anonymous (03/04/2013) [-]
But...I did see the double of in the triangle. That's why I read the post because it pissed me off.
#22 - anonymous (03/04/2013) [-]
I expected something like this and checked the triangle extra carefully.

I still didn't notice that.
User avatar #17 - rhiaanor ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Its not that you dont see it.... its that you ignore it, whether subconciously or not...
User avatar #15 - igiveawayitems (03/04/2013) [+] (1 reply)
I suppose that's why when I look at a clock to check the time I don't remember it 30 seconds later.
User avatar #12 - thepyras (03/04/2013) [-]
Common knowledge + new terminology =/= groundbreaking information.
#4 - anonymous (03/03/2013) [-]
I did not. Deal with it.
#2 - anonymous (03/03/2013) [-]
doesnt count, i didnt read the triangle
[ 34 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)