I disagree, but I'd love to see any references or scientific studies that support this statement.

Do you have any?

Steven Youell

There are a lot of references, but I am not a scientist so I don't keep track of them. The first one that occurs to me is the book, "Visual Thinking" by Rudolph Arnheim, a seminal study from the 1970's. Any of the books by neurologist Oliver Sacks have fascinating case histories that clearly show the truth of the statement. The best known book by Sacks is "The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat". One of the several case studies is about a blind-since-birth man who was given the gift of sight by modern surgery. It took years for him to learn to make "perceptions" out the visual input. The process was so confusing and painful that he begged the surgeon to take the sight away again. The story is about the fact that we have to learn to "see"; it is a cognitive process.

There was a recent show on the Discovery Science channel about the mind and perception. I can't remember the name, but it was something like "The Mind and Perception". The show had lots of proofs about the cognitive nature of perception. I am sure that there are plenty of dry academic scientific studies, but I don't read them. I am an art professor.

I am not asking you or anyone else to believe my statement. You are welcome to reject it as ridiculous and I respect your point of view (no pun intended).

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey

you all take this WAY too seriously.lol..

Have a carrot!

I've read some of Sacks work, but I don't
believe they prove that there's no difference between fooling the mind and fooling the eye. But it's fine with me if
we agree to disagree.

Steven Youell

Glenn has a point. What science definitely HAS shown is that the eyes don't work independently of the brain. The same is true of other senses so we can make artificial 'hearing aids', for example.

But that brings up another point... an audience (especially close-up) doesn't just rely on their vision. I'm no great master of coin magic and on occasion I have given something away by the sound of a coin clanking into a supposedly empty hand. (Explainable by the presence of a ring, but shouldn't NEED explaining!)

Hmm. I don't really see how dogs and blind men come into a discussion about card magic. Neither makes a great audience.

Gentlemen,

I think part of the disagreement stems from the fact that no clear distinction has been drawn between "fooling the eyes" and "fooling the mind." Those that think that one is possible without the other should qualify what that difference is.

Consider

http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/ch......ion.html

does this fool the mind or the eye?

Incidentally one way to test the statement is to printsecreen then paste into any paint program and erase all squares but A and B.

Pfft! That is amazing!

BTW an easier way to test is to cut a piece from one square and paste it onto the other.

Does it fool the eye or the mind?

Well, either way, what has it got to do with a one-handed double lift?!?!

It clearly fools the mind. The eye sees the pixals as the same color and value, which they are. The brain puts them into a context that fools the mind into thinking that they are different. I have been giving lectures on these phenomena for 36 years.

That doesn't mean that I expect anyone to agree with me.

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey

Here is another optical illusion that I use in my lectures. You have to continually stare at the "box" for a minute or so. The box will start to "magically" change: the "front" will become the "back" and then it will change back again. It will keep shifting as long as you stare at it:

http://www.optillusions.com/dp/1-8.htm

The reason this happens is because our mind keeps trying to correct the drawing which is an isometric drawing rather than a correct perspective drawing. This is fooling the mind. It happens without our permission.

Best regards,
Glenn godsey

True, but what about mirages on the highway or in the desert? Those certainly fool the eye.

SO what is the distinction between a mirage on the highway or desert and the optical illusions which fool the mind?

Why do one handed when you can do both handed much easier and probably much better?

Why read the whole thread when you can just read the last few messages?

Your eye sees light blue color on the highway or the desert. Your mind tells you it is water rather than a reflection of sky color.

Perhaps a careful re-reading of my post would help. The discussion was about perception as it relates to magic.

What if your one handed double is motivated? Say you swing cut half the pack over with a DL face up on the top, fan the other half to recieve the card(s) face down in the middle?

Would you use a one handed double in this case? Or would you use a modified Vernon push-off and use the fan to flip it over the rest of the way?