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.

The Ames room and the misunderstood versions and depictions

Understanding the geometrical properties of an Ames room and controlling it systematically and quantitatively

An attentional approach to geometrical illusions

Computer Simulation of Crossing Line Based Geometric Illusions

Amodal Volume Completion and the Thin Building Illusion

Optical Illusions: Exploring their Influence on Functional and Aesthetic Values in Contemporary Interior Design

Response to geometrical visual illusions in non-human animals: a meta-analysis

A Reply to Makelov et al. (2023)'s "Interpretability Illusion" Arguments

A crescent edge-length illusion induced by object-based perception

Unlocking optical illusions: Transforming perception with optical null media

Cultural differences in room size perception

Distance Deception by Fragmented Objects: How Figures May Alter the Perceived Depth of the Background

Cultural Differences in Visual Search for Geometric Figures

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

Opposite size illusions for inverted faces and letters

The Categories and Research Advances of Visual Illusions

Illusion as a Cognitive Clash Rooted in Perception

How small changes to one eye's retinal image can transform the perceived shape of a very familiar object

Visual Anagrams: Generating Multi-View Optical Illusions with Diffusion Models

Perceptual axioms are irreconcilable with Euclidean geometry

Seeing a Work of Art Indirectly: When a Reproduction Is Better Than an Indirect View, and a Mirror Better Than a Live Monitor