Abstract:We demonstrate in this work a fundamental distinction between the logic of the visual perceptual system and the cognitive (mathematical) one. We provide evidence that perceptual axioms, though known to be true perceptually, cannot be mathematically described or reconciled with Euclidean geometry. These findings challenge previous assumptions that these 'illusions' are departures from reality and shed light on the irreconcilable difference between the brain logical systems that generate different categories of reality, suggesting that no single brain reality is inherently more 'objective' than any other. There are different definitions of axioms, but the one that seems to have general approval is that axioms are statements whose truths are universally accepted but cannot be proven; they are the foundation from which further propositional truths are derived. Previous attempts, led by David Hilbert, to show that all of mathematics can be built into an axiomatic system that is complete and consistent failed when Kurt Gödel proved that there will always be statements which are known to be true but can never be proven within the same axiomatic system. But Gödel and his followers took no account of brain mechanisms that generate and mediate logic. In this largely theoretical paper, but backed by previous experiments and our new ones reported below, we show that in the case of so‐called 'optical illusions', there exists a significant and irreconcilable difference between their visual perception and their description according to Euclidean geometry; when participants are asked to adjust, from an initial randomised state, the perceptual geometric axioms to conform to the Euclidean description, the two never match, although the degree of mismatch varies between individuals. These results provide evidence that perceptual axioms, or statements known to be perceptually true, cannot be described mathematically. Thus, the logic of the visual perceptual system is irreconcilable with the cognitive (mathematical) system and cannot be updated even when knowledge of the difference between the two is available. Hence, no one brain reality is more 'objective' than any other.

How Visual Perception of the Inside of Things Creates the Impossible Dovetail

The Working Memory Ponzo Illusion: Involuntary Integration of Visuospatial Information Stored in Visual Working Memory

Amodal Completion: Mental Imagery or 3D Modeling?

Amodal Volume Completion and the Thin Building Illusion

PossibleImpossibles: Exploratory Procedural Design of Impossible Structures

Visual Working Memory Organizes Functional Related Objects Beyond the Spatiotemporal Limit

Building Blocks of Visual Working Memory: Objects or Boolean Maps?

Perceptual organization and visual awareness: the case of amodal completion

Constructive Apraxia: An Unexpected Limit of Instructible Vision-Language Models and Analog for Human Cognitive Disorders

What do we see behind an occluder? Amodal completion of statistical properties in complex objects

Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad?

Perceptual axioms are irreconcilable with Euclidean geometry

Unlocking optical illusions: Transforming perception with optical null media

Physical experience leads to enhanced object perception in parietal cortex: insights from knot tying

Selective Engagement with Specific Invariants in the Perception of Art

Magic for the mind's eye: A promising avenue for more universal design in the art of magic

Amodal completion across the brain: The impact of structure and knowledge

Decoding intelligence via symmetry and asymmetry

Perception games, the image understanding and interpretational geometry

Perspective (In)consistency of Paint by Text