>>10911670>An illusion assumes there is a mind that is being fooled.According to what exactly? The assumptions of exactly those organisms which would be under the impression you're trying to argue they couldn't be under?
Language conventions are a shit excuse for a proof of anything. We still use words like sunrise and sunset today which clearly tell us more about the assumptions (geocentrism) of those who coined the terms in the distant past than it does tell us anything about the actual relationship between Earth and the Sun.
And that aside you're not even correct in saying an illusion assume a mind is being fooled, unless you believe very simple programs have "minds." The topic of those particular optical illusions that machine vision happens to be more susceptible to has been around for a pretty long time now. All "illusion" requires is that some sort of process is led to produce the output associated with some object or event in the presence of something other than that object or event.
