You may recall our discussion of the debate in 2015 over whether a dress was gold and white or black and blue.  Now a new picture has appeared on Imgur and Reddit that forces us to address optical illusions. So here is your brain teaser:  Is this the same picture or different pictures of two roads converging?

As one Reddit user deduced, the images are in fact the same.

“I took the photo and edited the dual image into two parts.  Now look at the pictures stacked:”

Freaky.

## 33 thoughts on “ARE THESE ROADS CONVERGING?”

One thing is certain. The Left, the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and the DOJ will never be found to be converging with the truth. Never the twain shall meet.

2. bernard helinski says:

A hacker just had to get into this site.

3. Jim22 says:

Well of course they are different pictures. One is on the left and one is on the right.

4. Late4Dinner says:

What optical illusion? There is no optical illusion. The only “illusion” is the question Turley posed: “Is this the same picture or different pictures of two roads converging?” That’s a verbal illusion. Not an optical one. Lose the words; keep the pictures. The problem is not a problem. There is no problem. Sheesh!

1. Ken says:

You are too dang smart for da operation here.

2. Allan says:

“What optical illusion? There is no optical illusion.”

Of course, it is an optical illusion. The picture of the road appears to be at two different angles even though the pictures are identical.

1. Late4Dinner says:

Because there are two copies of the photo, therefore there are two vanishing points. All of the slanted lines in each copy of the photo converge upon the same vanishing point for that copy of the photo. Any given slanted line in one copy of the photo is parallel to its corresponding slanted line in the other copy of the photo. The only way to see the optical illusion that Allan describes above is to compare two slanted lines that appear to be converging at or near the bottom right corner of the copy on the left and the bottom left corner of the copy on the right. But in order “to see” that “optical illusion” you have to ignore the vanishing points for each copy of the photograph upon which all of the slanted lines in each photograph converge.

Unless, that is, Allan is somehow imagining that both copies of the photograph “ought to have” one and the same, singular vanishing point; such that, the slanted lines in each copy of the photo are misinterpreted as being pitched at different angles. That rendition of the illusion requires studiously ignoring the thin white margin separating the two copies of the photograph. That, in turn, requires an explanation for the “Potemkin adobe wall” seemingly depicted in the right-hand copy of the photograph behind which some poor schnook parked his or her minivan. Good luck with that, Allan.

1. Allan says:

Definition: “An optical illusion is an illusion caused by the visual system and characterized by a visual percept that appears to differ from reality.”

“The only way to see the optical illusion that Allan describes above is to compare two slanted lines that appear to be converging at or near the bottom right corner of the copy on the left and the bottom left corner of the copy on the right.”

Diane, what do you mean “the only way to see the optical illusion…? I defined the term above. An optical illusion is not reality. When one looks at the two photos placed together in the fashion they were placed immediately the eye of most people will trick them into thinking the pictures are taken at two different angles (leading to the convergence) when the reality is that the pictures are identical.

I don’t think your use of the phrase “Potemkin adobe wall” is correct in your abobe statement.

1. Late4Dinner says:

Allan said, ” . . . immediately the eye of most people will trick them . . . ”

No, Allan. The eyes of few people are thusly tricked. Unless they were first misled by mere words.

P. S. Your definition of an optical illusion does not apply in this case, since the two copies of the same photographic image placed side-by-side do not constitute any given reality. And on the odd chance that you would balk at that last statement, be advised that I am prepared to go M. C. Escher on your pitiful definition of an optical illusion.

1. Allan says:

Firstly, rather than ” few people are thusly tricked” this optical illusion is frequently used as an example of an optical illusion. The initial perception of most people will differ from reality. You, however, conclude “few people”. What studies provide you with that information which conflicts with what appears to be the conclusion of the experts?

“Your definition of an optical illusion does not apply in this case, since the two copies of the same photographic image placed side-by-side do not constitute any given reality.”

This statement makes no sense in the context of our discussion.

“Your definition of an optical illusion… ”

My definition of an optical illusion is a standard definition of what is occurring. One may classify different optical illusions so that the above illusion is not included, but it is most definitely an optical illusion. You are throwing out names that you either just picked up or remember, but you are not putting the facts together in their proper order.

1. Late4Dinner says:

If a given illusion fails to fool me, then I dare to presume that that same illusion will also fail to fool very many other people, either. Because L4D cannot possibly be the only one who is not so easily fooled. This could be a fundamental difference between the two of us, Allan. Some gestalt psychologist tells Allan that his fellow human beings are routinely fooled by their stupid little gestalt psychology tricks and Allan immediately knuckles under to that gestalt psychology authority figurine.

Now hear this, Allan: Nothing human is alien to me and you’re one, too.

1. Allan says:

“If a given illusion fails to fool me, then I dare to presume that that same illusion will also fail to fool very many other people, either.”

Diane, you presume wrong. Maybe your mind no longer functions on a high enough level, maybe you looked at it before. There are a lot of maybes, but you are not the center of the universe rather N=1 which isn’t much of a study. The truth is you presume too much and thereby come up with too many failed conclusions.

“Some gestalt psychologist tells Allan that his fellow human beings are routinely fooled by their stupid little gestalt psychology tricks and Allan immediately knuckles under to that gestalt psychology authority figurine.”

Again you jump the gun for my comment doesn’t even demonstrate that little factual error. Note the word “appears” in my comment that follows: “with what appears to be the conclusion of the experts?”

You are not careful with your facts, with your reading comprehension or with anything else that helps you draw your conclusions so frequently based on N=1 or Diane being the center of the universe. You are too arrogant to recognize that with age skills have a tendency to decline so the quick answer of former years without thought represents your aging mind rather than a carefully thought out conclusion.

1. Late4Dinner says:

I hope you’re enjoying this, Allan. I am. Please allow me to remind you that to arrogate is to take without asking nor proposing that what was taken should have been granted or given. Enjoy!

1. Allan says:

Diane, senility provides a special type of enjoyment. You can think your facts, definitions, etc. are correct when they are completely wrong. That is ok until a senile person’s arrogance is on continuous display.

2. Late4Dinner says:

Wait a second. Picture the capital letter M. Now Italicize that capital M. Now superimpose that Italicized M onto the pair of side-by-side photos in the supposed illusion of converging roads. If that’s what Allan or anybody else is seeing when they first glance at the pair of side-by-side photos, then I must admit that that could be construed as an optical illusion. But I doubt that anyone could persist at that misperception for longer than a few tenths of one second. Moreover, once the illusion is dispelled, it will be difficult to return to the misperception.

1. Allan says:

“…admit that that could be construed as an optical illusion.”

Diane’s thesis is that she is the center of the world and therefore she can create her own definitions and use the definitions of other inappropriately. Some would construe that type of logic as insanity.

I note Diane that again you are attempting to resurrect your fallen opinion and statement in your prior response. Why don’t you leave the concept of resurrections to religion and stop trying to be the center of the universe?

1. Late4Dinner says:

Allan is sorely afflicted with gestalt psychosis.

1. Allan says:

“Allan is sorely afflicted with gestalt psychosis.”

… And you Diane are sorely afflicted with an insufferable arrogant aging mind.

2. Late4Dinner says:

L4D said, ““Your definition of an optical illusion does not apply in this case, since the two copies of the same photographic image placed side-by-side do not constitute any given reality.”

Allan replied, “This statement makes no sense in the context of our discussion.”

One cannot deduce the nature and extent of reality–whatever it is or even might be–from the presentation and occurence of any given optical illusion, least of all from the definition of optical illusion. Thus it is Allan who has his order of operations exactly backwards.

1. Allan says:

“One cannot deduce the nature and extent of reality–whatever it is or even might be–from the presentation and occurence of any given optical illusion, ”

One, however, can utilize the accepted definitions of words so that discussions are understood by all involved. Unfortunately, with age, the mind suffers a loss in its ability to manage information presented to it. Thus when a person is too arrogant and suffers such a loss one sees dialogue that misses its targets. That is your problem, Diane.

5. Jokerman says:

It’s easy to see that they’re identical if you slightly cross your eyes and look at the picture on left with your right eye and the picture on the right with your left eye. The two will converge into a third, very clear image. I know it sounds strange but it works.

Or you can just use a protractor or straight-edge to see that corresonding lines are parallel.

Seeing really is a learned behavior.

6. I just looked at the shadows and the flag.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

7. Paul C Schulte says:

Interesting. 🙂

8. Liberty2nd says:

It is a beaten path and a path with little resistance. The street is in France.

1. Late4Dinner says:

When did the French start flying the Mexican flag? Or building Spanish Missions? No. Wait. There’s some sort of joke there. Or a riddle maybe. A beaten path versus the path of least resistance. The French resistance. The three principles of Archimedes. What’s it mean? I don’t get it. What’s it mean?

9. I thought it was easy, but I decline to say why. Any trial lawyer who goofs this one should retire.

10. Michael Aarethun says:

Same but I’ll not give away the how and why of it.

1. Michael Aarethun says:

If the points of a line are divided into two sets, such that all the points of one set precede in

order of the points on a line all those of the second set, then there is one and onlyone point which

separates the points of the two sets.

If you can use the above defintion to arrive at it’s subject you can do the picture question.

This may help

intrinsic subjective objective

One of these forms of teaching is not found in schools today apparently at any level.

1. David B. Benson says:

Define separates.

I assert that your claim is false.

1. Late4Dinner says:

Picture a column of five dots next to another column of five dots adjacent to the four spandrels between the first five-dot column. Or, if you prefer, do the same thing with rows instead of columns. There should be exactly one dot at the bottom of the first column and exactly one dot at the top of the second column that have no counterpart in the adjacent spandrels at bottom of the second column and the top of the first column. I have every reason to believe that the above procedure is equivalent to taking the long way home.

2. This is self-contradictory….”if the points of the line are divided into two sets”…then, that negates the existence of any point not included in either set. Your imagined “separator point” cannot exist as a distinct point not included in the two subsets. It might be more logical to say that the two sets have an intersection at a single point of separation….that way the separation point can be included in both subsets.

1. Late4Dinner says:

I think Michael Aarethun was asking us to imagine the duplication of one line into two lines in much the same way that the photograph was duplicated into two copies shown side-by-side.

P. S. That I seem to understand what Michael Aarethun is trying to get at has often been deeply disturbing to me. But then, I strongly suspect that Michael is equally disturbed by the same phenomenon.