Optical illusions

[sometimes99er]

And here's an XB version ... 😉
 

100 call screen(15)::call clear::call magnify(3)::display at(12,15):"+";
110 call char(36,"030F1F3F7F7FFFFFFFFF7F7F3F1F0F03C0F0F8FCFEFEFFFFFFFFFEFEFCF8F0C")
120 for i=1 to 16::call sprite(#i,36,14,85+sin(i/2.55)*70,124+cos(i/2.55)*70)::next i
130 for i=1 to 16::call color(#i,1)::for j=1 to 30::next j::call color(#i,14)::next i::goto 130
run

 

[Reciprocating Bill]

"Circle Illusion," fbForth. All objects moving on the screen are moving in straight lines.  

 

 

 

[+Lee Stewart]

On 9/15/2022 at 3:23 PM, TheBF said:

I saw this today on Twitter and it shocked the hell out of me so I had to make one.

It would be simple in XB. 

 

Perhaps stating the obvious to this group, but the illusion is caused by retinal fatigue. When staring at a single-colored object that is replaced by white or neutral space, the retina will perceive the complementary color of the missing object for a short time. The complementary color of magenta is green. The apparent, moving ball would be red were the ball colors cyan and blue were they yellow.

 

...lee

[Zoyous]

1 hour ago, Reciprocating Bill said:

"Circle Illusion," fbForth. All objects moving on the screen are moving in straight lines.  

 

 

 

That's cool. I remember seeing a diagram of an aircraft engine with the cylinders moving in a similar way; essentially everything moving linearly but resulting in a circular motion array.

[sometimes99er]

Wobbly ...
 

100 call screen(2)::a$=rpt$("0",25)::a$="C08"&a$&"80C00301"&a$&"103"::call char(64,a$,72,a$,80,a$,88,a$)
110 a$="@RHZ@RHJPBXJPBXZ"::a$=a$&a$::b$="ACYKQCYKQSI[ASI["::b$=b$&b$::call clear
120 for i=1 to 11::display at(i*2,1):a$::display at(i*2+1,1):b$::a$=seg$(a$,31,2)&seg$(a$,1,30)
130 b$=seg$(b$,31,2)&seg$(b$,1,30)::next i::call hchar(24,3,32,4)::call color(1,2,2,5,16,14,6,2,12,7,2,14,8,16,12)
140 goto 140
run

 

[+mizapf]

On 9/19/2022 at 4:33 PM, Lee Stewart said:

Perhaps stating the obvious to this group, but the illusion is caused by retinal fatigue. When staring at a single-colored object that is replaced by white or neutral space, the retina will perceive the complementary color of the missing object for a short time.

This is why I simply cannot bear these "dark modes" on displays or some web sites where you have a very dark or black backdrop, and bright letters. Honestly, I have afterimages for more than half a minute, dark blurry lines where I previously saw the bright text lines.

[PeteE]

100 call clear::call screen(16)::call magnify(4)::call char(32,"CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC")::c=5::s=3
110 call char(88,"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000FCFCFCFCFFFF")
120 call char(92,"000003030F0F3F3FFFFF000000000000FCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCC0C0C0C0C0F0")
130 call char(96,"7F7F0000000000000000000000000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000")
140 for i=0 to 3
150 call sprite(#i*2+1,88,c,i*24+1,i*64+18,0,s,#i*2+2,92,c,33+i*24,i*64+16,0,s,#i+9,96,c,150+i*10,i*64+64,0,s)
160 next i
170 call color(1,2,16)::for i=0 to 2000::next i
180 call color(1,16,16)::for i=0 to 1000::next i::goto 170
run

Pigeon neck illusion, inspired by this

Edited January 28 by PeteE
call color faster than call char

[+TheBF]

I love this Pigeon neck illusion. Makes me crazy that our brains do this. 

 

I used it to test the motion code in the direct threaded version of the Camel99 compiler which I have not fully vetted. 

Here is what it took to do it in Forth. 

Spoiler

\ optical illusion using Sprites by @PeteE on atariage.com 
\ 100 call clear::call screen(16)::call magnify(4)::call char(32,"CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC")::c=5::s=3
\ 110 call char(88,"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000FCFCFCFCFFFF")
\ 120 call char(92,"000003030F0F3F3FFFFF000000000000FCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCC0C0C0C0C0F0")
\ 130 call char(96,"7F7F0000000000000000000000000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000")
\ 140 for i=0 to 3
\ 150 call sprite(#i*2+1,88,c,i*24+1,i*64+18,0,s,#i*2+2,92,c,33+i*24,i*64+16,0,s,#i+9,96,c,150+i*10,i*64+64,0,s)
\ 160 next i
\ 170 call color(1,2,16)::for i=0 to 2000::next i
\ 180 call color(1,16,16)::for i=0 to 1000::next i::goto 170

\ Camel99 Forth translation 
INCLUDE DSK1.AUTOMOTION 
INCLUDE DSK1.CHARSET 

DECIMAL 
  2 CONSTANT BLACK
  5 CONSTANT BLU
  8 CONSTANT CYAN
 16 CONSTANT WHITE 

  3 CONSTANT SPEED  
128 CONSTANT BAR 

: CHARACTERS 
S" CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC" BAR CALLCHAR  
S" 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000FCFCFCFCFFFF" 88 CALLCHAR
S" 000003030F0F3F3FFFFF000000000000FCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCFCC0C0C0C0C0F0" 92 CALLCHAR
S" 7F7F0000000000000000000000000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000" 96 CALLCHAR ;

: 64*  8* 8* ;

: PIGEONS 
 4 0 
 DO  
\ char colr  col           row           spr#
   88  BLU  I 64* 17 +   I 23 * 1+      I 2*    SPRITE 
   92  BLU  I 64* 15 +   I 23 * 33 +    I 2* 1+ SPRITE
 LOOP ; 

: BARS 
  4 0 DO 
\ char colr   col           row         spr#
   96  BLU  I 64* 15 +   I 23 * 80 +   I 8 + SPRITE 
  LOOP 
; 

: VERTICALS 
   BAR SET# 2 1 COLOR 
   0 C/SCR @ BAR VFILL 
; 

: VISIBLE    BAR SET# BLACK WHITE COLOR ;
: INVISIBLE  BAR SET# WHITE WHITE COLOR ;

: ILLUSION 
  BEGIN 
    VISIBLE   4000 MS 
    INVISIBLE 3000 MS 
    ?TERMINAL  
  UNTIL ;

 : MOVE-EM  
   AUTOMOTION 
   SPR# @ 1+  0 DO  SPEED 0 I MOTION  LOOP ; 

: RUN
    GRAPHICS  
    CLEAR  WHITE SCREEN  3 MAGNIFY 
    CHARACTERS  VERTICALS 
    PIGEONS  BARS 
    MOVE-EM 
    ILLUSION
    CHARSET  CYAN SCREEN  DELALL  CLEAR 
;

 

 

[+mizapf]

Experts say that the visual cortex is an own intelligent subsystem of the brain, not just a simple evaluator.

[+TheBF]

25 minutes ago, mizapf said:

Experts say that the visual cortex is an own intelligent subsystem of the brain, not just a simple evaluator.

Makes sense to me. 

I think this is the reason Large language models are not the entire key to AGI.

Biological brain architecture seems to be numerous sub-systems with some kind of executive running things. (My non-expert opinion)  

[Reciprocating Bill]

More than that - there appear to be two processing streams for vision, the "dorsal" and the "ventral". The dorsal is the "what" pathway and gives rise to conscious visual experience, object and face recognition, the ability to describe a scene, etc. (vision for perception). The ventral is the "where" pathway, which is key to guiding motor action, but does not give rise to conscious visual experience (vision for action).

 

This can be demonstrated experimentally. An individual with damage to the ventral path way can see and freely describe the angle of a slot, but may have great difficulty orienting the card's angle to insert into the slot. An individual with damage to the dorsal path may be unable to see or describe the slot at all - but can deftly post a card into the slot at the correct angle. This is the basis of so-called "blind-sight" or "cortical blindness" sometimes seen in extreme brain damage.

 

Ordinarily the two streams of data complement one another, so we tend not to be aware the the constant unconscious guidance.  

 

See Milner and Goodale, "The Visual Brain in Action" (Oxford,1995). 

 

And a more recent reference - 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4678292/

Edited April 18 by Reciprocating Bill

[Willsy]

16 hours ago, mizapf said:

Experts say that the visual cortex is an own intelligent subsystem of the brain, not just a simple evaluator.

My visual cortex must be extremely dim. The number of times my wife has sent me to the cupboard to get the rice/pasta/whatever and I'll swear to her "it's not there. There isn't any" - only for her to go and get it from the same cupboard in 0.99 nanoseconds. And I'm sent to the sin bin!

[+mizapf]

I usually call this the "butter blindness" ... when you look in the fridge and just can't see the butter before your eyes.

 

There is some intelligence behind, which makes this phenomenon interesting. Obviously, your visual system can clip out all "regular" things in a heap in search of a "special" thing. However, the butter is so "regular" that it fails to qualify as "special".

[+Vorticon]

I've always wondered about that. It's like the object of interest simply does not show up in your visual field even though it's right in front of you. And it seems to be a greater affliction in male brains, particularly those in a relationship

[+mizapf]

1 hour ago, Vorticon said:

I've always wondered about that. It's like the object of interest simply does not show up in your visual field even though it's right in front of you. And it seems to be a greater affliction in male brains, particularly those in a relationship

Despite all those gender-related discussions and attitudes, there is some evidence that the minds of males and females seem to have their own special capabilities from evolution. For instance, keeping the kids together in the dark cave, being able to react to many different interactions in the area around you, seems to be advantageous for a woman. And yes, our "western culture" is something like a few hundred years old, while people spent their days in caves for thousands of years.

 

I explicitly say "own special capabilities", not that one is in any way superior.

[+TheBF]

6 hours ago, mizapf said:

I explicitly say "own special capabilities", not that one is in any way superior.

And even that might get you in trouble with the wife.  

 

wife: "So do your "special capabilities" include picking up your socks?"  😡

[+OLD CS1]

8 hours ago, mizapf said:

Despite all those gender-related discussions and attitudes, there is some evidence that the minds of males and females seem to have their own special capabilities from evolution.

I recently started a criminological project, and part of my research has moved across the differences between the effects of cannabis on the brain structures of young women versus men.  Not pretty.

[+TheBF]

8 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

I recently started a criminological project, and part of my research has moved across the differences between the effects of cannabis on the brain structures of young women versus men.  Not pretty.

Will it be made public?

 

[+OLD CS1]

2 hours ago, TheBF said:

Will it be made public?

This is not an academic project, so it will depend upon its quality and if someone wants to pick it up.  I may self-publish, but that only goes so far.  The cannabis studies I have come across are public, the primary one is published in the NIH.

[+Retrospect]

2 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

the effects of cannabis on the brain

The first "Robots of Death" game I made , each time I did a coding session on it, I was off my head on Cannabis.  That's why it took so long but that's also why it's got bouncing smiley faces , psychedelic effects and all the other stuff. 

I gave up the usage of cannabis about six months ago, after 21 years of constant use.  Avaris II was the first game I ever coded with a 100 percent straight mind.  

[+TheBF]

18 minutes ago, Retrospect said:

The first "Robots of Death" game I made , each time I did a coding session on it, I was off my head on Cannabis.  That's why it took so long but that's also why it's got bouncing smiley faces , psychedelic effects and all the other stuff. 

I gave up the usage of cannabis about six months ago, after 21 years of constant use.  Avaris II was the first game I ever coded with a 100 percent straight mind.  

Sounds like a good choice for furthering the lifespan of your game making.  

Good on ya.

 

(although it might be easier to learn Forth if you are stoned...) 😂

Edited April 19 by TheBF
fixed comment

[+OLD CS1]

23 minutes ago, Retrospect said:

The first "Robots of Death" game I made , each time I did a coding session on it, I was off my head on Cannabis.  That's why it took so long but that's also why it's got bouncing smiley faces , psychedelic effects and all the other stuff.

Cheese and aged rice... what were you on when you did Buttplug Simulator?

6 minutes ago, TheBF said:

(although it might be easier to learn Forth if you are stoned...) 😂

heheheh One of the songs I like has this part: "Just after midnight baby, can't close my eyes.  Maybe I'll take a pill it can't hurt to try."

[HOME AUTOMATION]

 

I believe there is an ERROR!

[+OLD CS1]

4 minutes ago, HOME AUTOMATION said:

I believe there is an ERROR!

Well, smack me around and call me Suzy... it actually works...

[HOME AUTOMATION]

Thanks ...Suzy!