Recent TICS articles(1,2) discussed the psychophysical evidence in favor of
Goodale and Milner's action vs. perception hypothesis(3). Carey argued tha
t most of the studies investigating the effects of visual illusions on gras
ping can be reconciled with the notion that the action system resists visua
l illusions(1). Bruno suggested a new interpretation of the action vs. perc
eption hypothesis in order to incorporate most of the empirical findings(2)
. Here, I argue that action does not resist visual illusions. Even more, th
e effects on the motor system seem to be comparable to the effects on the p
erceptual system. This challenges the action vs. perception hypothesis in i
ts current form.