Who remembers this?
-
It doesn't lack visual cues. I could tell it's overexposed and adjust for the lighting. You just can't see the cues, and that's the difference.
No, it does. That’s the point lol. Go read the Wikipedia thicko
-
No, it does. That’s the point lol. Go read the Wikipedia thicko
I can see them with my own eyes right now. And the dress is black and blue, so I'm right. You just can't see them, but don't mistake your eyesight problems for objective truth.
-
I can see them with my own eyes right now. And the dress is black and blue, so I'm right. You just can't see them, but don't mistake your eyesight problems for objective truth.
wrote last edited by [email protected]lol ok Neo.
Unfortunately you're unable to see the (objective) pixel representation
-
lol ok Neo.
Unfortunately you're unable to see the (objective) pixel representation
In the larger version of the picture, you can see three areas of glare on the right. One from the window, one from the top of the table, and one from the floor. The backs of the items closer to the door, and the edge of the table, are darker than these glare areas. There's also a bright spot on the left. If you have good spatial intelligence, you can clearly tell the glare is coming from the sun based on how the light falls in the room.
-
In the larger version of the picture, you can see three areas of glare on the right. One from the window, one from the top of the table, and one from the floor. The backs of the items closer to the door, and the edge of the table, are darker than these glare areas. There's also a bright spot on the left. If you have good spatial intelligence, you can clearly tell the glare is coming from the sun based on how the light falls in the room.
The College of Optometrists came out and said it was ambigious. It's the point of the image dumbass. It's not about good spatial awareness. All you're demonstrating is lack of basic perception.
-
The College of Optometrists came out and said it was ambigious. It's the point of the image dumbass. It's not about good spatial awareness. All you're demonstrating is lack of basic perception.
Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.
And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.
-
"What science"
Proceeds to explain the science
-
Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.
And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You lack perception because your level of understanding is childish. I’d put you at 7/8. It’s really quite illuminating how thick some people can be.
-
Don't forget Laurel and Yani!
And the trainer.
The dress was always blue and black to me (blue and copper tinged black really), but this one keeps switching from grey and mint to pink and white and then back again.
-
I don't get it. It's clearly white and gold. How can anyone see black and blue?
I know right? But the manufacturer says it's blue and black. They didn't make a white and gold one.
-
That is literally what the argument is caused by, adaptive perception to lighting conditions.
That's less than half of the related concepts.
-
You lack perception because your level of understanding is childish. I’d put you at 7/8. It’s really quite illuminating how thick some people can be.
Most insults aren't the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it's the entire substance of one's argument. Like you're doing right now, shit-for-brains.
-
Most insults aren't the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it's the entire substance of one's argument. Like you're doing right now, shit-for-brains.
It’s not though, read my comments again. Slowly if you’re struggling.
-
That would be because the outlines themselves are not the same colors, just the blue/white and black/yellow sections. Here's an image I quickly edited with the outlines and skin removed, so you can see just how much an effect they have on the image. Both dresses still look normal, but they no longer look like completely different colors when compared together this way.
(edit): And here's the same image with the outer boxes removed, to show how much the lighting is affecting things, where one of the dresses just looks completely wrong to me now.
lol I prob need those images described cuz for some reason…. I don’t even really know what I’m looking at heh… I’m not this dumb on other topics
-
lol I prob need those images described cuz for some reason…. I don’t even really know what I’m looking at heh… I’m not this dumb on other topics
wrote last edited by [email protected]The two boxes are meant to be different types of lighting. The box on the left is a warmer, yellow lighting while the box on the right is a colder, blue lighting, which you can tell from its effect on the grey background. The portions of the dresses inside of this "lighting" are the exact same colors, which I tried to help demonstrate with the second picture. The portions of the dresses outside of the "lighting" represent their real color without any lighting affecting them.
The point of the image is just to show how two different colored dresses could look exactly the same depending on the lighting. At the same time, the real dress from the original image is seen as different colors by different people because brains are weird and they interpret the lighting differently.
Some people see a gold and white dress in a blue-tinted light like they're in the shade, while others see a black and blue dress that is overexposed by a bright yellow-tinted light.
-
It’s not though, read my comments again. Slowly if you’re struggling.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Oh, I see what the problem is. I was using the word "because" in the sense of evidence. As in, "Jack is the murderer because he has a bloody knife". You were using the word "because" in the sense of causation. As in, "Jack is the murderer because he hated the victim". So, I questioned your evidence sarcastically, and you misunderstood and engaged in a non-sequitor, swivelling the conversation from an evidence-based dialogue to hurling insults for no reason. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were still talking evidence, when I shouldn't have. I should have understood that you were no longer having a discussion based on evidence, you were just being pointlessly mean. That's my fault for assuming you were a mature adult.
-
Oh, I see what the problem is. I was using the word "because" in the sense of evidence. As in, "Jack is the murderer because he has a bloody knife". You were using the word "because" in the sense of causation. As in, "Jack is the murderer because he hated the victim". So, I questioned your evidence sarcastically, and you misunderstood and engaged in a non-sequitor, swivelling the conversation from an evidence-based dialogue to hurling insults for no reason. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were still talking evidence, when I shouldn't have. I should have understood that you were no longer having a discussion based on evidence, you were just being pointlessly mean. That's my fault for assuming you were a mature adult.
Yikes, we’re gonna need a bigger spectrum.
You lack nuance. I started winding you up because ‘you’re wrong and I see good’ is a one dimensional smooth brained perspective.
