Talk:Illusion

Parallel

Shouldn't the various illusions parallel? For instance "Optical", "Aural", and "Kinetical" (as opposed to optical, auditory, and touch). Hyacinth

Good Idea, but it is not the one that is generally followed. The reason was, in the beginning, when there was not of much idea regarding Hallucination, Illusion and Delusion, the attributed the illusion to "sound" and not to the "ears" and hence it was called as auditory and not aural.

Of course, now we know that Sense organs are involved in Illusions and Sensations are involved in Hallucinations (with minor exceptions) Doctor Bruno 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that a kinetic illusion and a tactile illusion are two different things. The first relies on one's expectations of how physical objects act upon one another, and the latter relies on fooling the sense of touch. Either way, the English language just doesn't work the way you propose. IanThal 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent (11/06)

I have made some made some recent changes to this article, but it is still is in rough shape. I will be away for the holiday, but I wanted to outline my thoughts in case anyone wanted to pick this up (or for myself when I return).

• fixes references! I will do this of course.
• some prose is unclear to me...the entire article needs reworked for clarity.
• physical section needs fleshed out...help here would be awesome!
• do we really want the paranormal section? Maybe this is an article in itself or could be merged with something else...skeptic?
• Art and magic merge? See also links?
• last paragraph?
• any other ideas?

This is really my first page so any help, direction, constructive criticism would be great.MiaKarina 13:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

what?

Yes this is true, but why you might ask yourself, why? Do you know or is it I that knows, the Wiki master, ahhh... we shall find out! <---whats up with that?

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

the beginning of the article claims that all human senses can be fooled. I've yet to expirence an illusion of taste/smell. i.e. something salty tasting sweet. it may follow that consumption is the 'truest' of human expirences... Andrew

Certain illnesses, trauma, or medication can cause a great deal of "taste" and "smell" confusion. Smelling or tasting things that aren't there is an important diagnostic indicator, particularly for neurological diseases or tramua of the brain. Inability to smell is equally important and can be surprisisngly dangerous. There is an entire industry devoted to making smells and odors seem different from their natural state. Ande B 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

I posted this query to mindhacks.com and get some responses that might answer your query. - Vaughan 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

the mindhacks responses are very good, thank you for that.

Y'know...

I have had "illusions" with touch and taste, so maybe some of you need to be more adventurous.

  -Coopol

Proposed Merger

This page is extremely similar to the "Optical Illusion" page. Most pictures are common to both. Therefore, it should be merged under the name "Illusion." Dewarw 16:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge. "Illusion" refers to more generic term, it may refer to optical, auditory, etc. illusions. The article Optical illusion is already quite big, it better stay as a separate article. Instead of merge, I would suggest moving stuff related to optical illusion from this artcile to optical illusion article. Andreas Kaufmann 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you have seen the point. The is a lot of duplicate material on these pages. If you oppose the merger, then move material. Dewarw 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have done this now. Now this article is an overview of different kinds of illusions. The details are explained in the corresponding articles. Andreas Kaufmann 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A is not the same as B

In that picture, a is not the same as b and that is a fact.Get a new picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.242.58 (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

uuuuuurm..... yes it is! if you isolate both squares and put them on the same coloured background, you will find that both A and B are exactly the same shade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.77.200 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

nfn dskm j jk v vjn dejb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.114.165 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Distortion of the senses

The article claims, in its first sentence, that illusion is a distortion of the senses. According to Schopenhauer's On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the sense organs merely supply data to the brain. The senses are not distorted. Their data are merely given, as felt, to the brain. It is the brain's capacity for understanding that distorts the data and conjures up an unusual apprehension of an object. This occurs because the sense data are given in a different, unusual context. The brain's apprehension is then distorted. For example, crossed fingers touching a ball result in the brain's apprehension of two balls. Another example: the sun, usually seen high in the sky, is seen on the horizon in visual proximity to earthly objects and the earth's atmosphere. The brain misapprehends the sun as being large due to the influence of atmospheric perspective and comparison to earthly objects such as trees, buildings, etc. The senses, however, gave all of their data properly and correctly. The phrase "distortion of the senses" seems to mean, mistakenly, that the senses present "perverted," "twisted," incorrect, improper data to the brain. That is not true. The sense organs properly pass sensations to the brain. It is the brain that misinterprets the sensations. Illusions are not distorted sensations. They are misunderstood sensations.Lestrade (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I agree and believe this is an important point. Unfortunately the cited source (Solso) does indeed use the term distortion in the definition, following an unfortunate trend to simple-minded dualism in cognitive psychology. Perceptual science strongly disagrees with this view. We need to find a way to resolve this. Strasburger (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing

The Ouchi illusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 December 2012‎

What is the Ouchi illusion? Lova Falk talk 11:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider removal of the "Illusion on Rabindranath Tagore"-illustration.

I see no justification for the "Illusion on Rabindranath Tagore" illustration. Illustrations should either be self-explanatory or they should be explained in the text, as to how they relate to the subject. I do not find any of those rules to be conducted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.118.176 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you and I have removed the illustration. Lova Falk talk 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Living gecko hunting the pointer of a mouse.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrespective of the copyright issue, (and even though it is nice work), the video can be safely deleted as an example for an illusion here, IMO. Strasburger (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)