My pareidolia knows no bounds.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21621 by Marsevidence01
Malcolm, one of my basic tenets in this Topic has always been that at some level of resolution <b>there is no further debate! Common sense prevails.</b>

That's why it makes sense to "shoot the pixels" because they tell us how clearly we're seeing the object, objectively. It puts a firm foundation under our dispute.

I sort of see what you are describing, but in "sort of" lies the rub.

rd
[/quote]
Rich, in following this topic now for quite some time, I have noticed that we have deviated the discussion and rightly so. The topic has proven to be quite contentious and for understandable reasons.

As this is an open forum and points of view are interjected by any and all, I see we have essentially two interweaving topics which do appear to have been kept separate. My input in this topic is to try and bring back the reason why this topic is presumably being discussed in the first place.

The forum is Artificial Structures on Mars which implies an esoteric discussion as to the reality of possible life on this planet (unless of course we are referring here to the several lander's sent there over the past three decade as the only artificial structures currently observed which I am sure this is not the case).

In discussing the topic of Pareidolia (various) I presume we are discussing this in context to and in respect of artificiality on the surface and it's ramifications not the least of which is the matter of Pareidolia again (various). So in this discourse, I assume we should be able to address the issue artificiality (Forum) and the topic (Pareidolia) (various) in context with each other. It seems to me we are struggling with this connectivity.

How we see and what we see on the Martian surface is quite possibly one of the most profound spheres of human intellect since the conception of Man (pardon the pun) and, if in the course of those investigations, the apparent image of not one but several, relatively clear images of actual living or apparent living forms appear in the images on the surface, then by all means we should discuss both what we see as well as how we see in order to evaluate the observation with the accuracy which it deserves. Although I do not profess to speak for him, I think Zip Monster would reflect this point of view.

On a personal note, I have overcome the journey of the reality that life does in fact, reside on the planet and I can assure you of one thing, if you decide to make this journey as well, and are comfortable with the inevitable destination, you will begin to look more closely and more attentively to the many hi resolution images than ever before. In doing so, unless your technology (computer hardware) or your vision prohibits it, you will discover a world beyond your wildest imagination. Counting pixels will drop way off into the realm of just give me a 4K monitor!
Thanks,

Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21622 by Larry Burford
<b>[rderosa] "It's always been my contention that if we can see something clearly enough, we'd all pretty much agree what it is.</b>

That is reasonable summation of the world-view I've always had as well.

***

But this little experiment of mine (forcing all of us to say out loud, explicitly, in writing, for the record, what we mean when we use a specific word) is causing me to have doubts. I'm beginning to think it makes accurate communication less likely.

Can that be possible? (Assumption - saying explicitly what we mean **equals** 'seeing something more clearly'.)

But maybe the response curve is very non-linear. Accurate communication (the output) gets better and then worse and then better again (and so on) as 'clear seeing' (the input) moves linearly from bad to OK to better to wonderful.

This is absolutely fascinating. More later. My processors are running at well above 100% of capacity right now.

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21623 by Marsevidence01

But maybe the response curve is very non-linear. Accurate communication (the output) gets better and then worse and then better again (and so on) as 'clear seeing' (the input) moves linearly from bad to OK to better to wonderful.


LB
[/quote]

Larry, you are so right on - for this lies at the very heart of a productive debate!

Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21624 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />But this little experiment of mine (forcing all of us to say out loud, explicitly, in writing, for the record, what we mean when we use a specific word) is causing me to have doubts. LB<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In my opinion, this little experiment of yours <b>shocked </b>us in the direction of a significant increase in clarity. It took me a little while to understand it, but I believe it was exactly what was needed at that time.

I for one have a much better understanding of the whole idea of pareidolia (various) with respect to how it's used here and elsewhere. I'm convinced (for now) that there are five primary definitions. I'm thinking about summarizing them into five bullet points.

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21625 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />1. As this is an open forum and points of view are interjected by any and all, I see we have essentially two interweaving topics which do appear to have been kept separate. My input in this topic is to try and bring back the reason why this topic is presumably being discussed in the first place.

2. The forum is Artificial Structures on Mars which implies an esoteric discussion as to the reality of possible life on this planet (unless of course we are referring here to the several lander's sent there over the past three decade as the only artificial structures currently observed which I am sure this is not the case).

3. In discussing the topic of Pareidolia (various) I presume we are discussing this in context to and in respect of artificiality on the surface and it's ramifications not the least of which is the matter of Pareidolia again (various). So in this discourse, I assume we should be able to address the issue artificiality (Forum) and the topic (Pareidolia) (various) in context with each other. It seems to me we are struggling with this connectivity.

4. How we see and what we see on the Martian surface is quite possibly one of the most profound spheres of human intellect since the conception of Man (pardon the pun) and, if in the course of those investigations, the apparent image of not one but several, relatively clear images of actual living or apparent living forms appear in the images on the surface, then by all means we should discuss both what we see as well as how we see in order to evaluate the observation with the accuracy which it deserves. Although I do not profess to speak for him, I think Zip Monster would reflect this point of view.

On a personal note, I have overcome the journey of the reality that life does in fact, reside on the planet and I can assure you of one thing, if you decide to make this journey as well, and are comfortable with the inevitable destination, you will begin to look more closely and more attentively to the many hi resolution images than ever before. Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Malcolm, I broke your message into four parts, so that I can address them separately.

1. Yes, you're correct, there have always been two interweaving topics here, in the sense that this topic on pareidolia (all) was interjected (by me, with TVF's permission) into the broader Forum of Artificial Structures on Mars. In a way, this subject was a story that was unfolding behind the scenes before I formalized it. I believe Tom gave me permission because he too saw that it was inevitable. Or to put it bluntly, we were arguing about it anyway. You should certainly feel free to re-assert the counter argument of Artificiality in any way you see fit.

2. Same answer as in 1. But in case you didn't know, I was in your camp for years prior to this. From the early 2000s, Neil and I worked together on projects showing artificial structures on Mars. It was only later in the game, roughly 2005 or so, that I started to come to the realization that all this stuff was most likely pareidolia (modern). It's a long story, but it started with the fact that rarely did me, Neil, or my wife ever describe the same thing when looking at one of Neil's "finds". There are other reasons, but I'll leave it at that for now.

3. I agree 100%. Please feel free to approach this in any way you see fit. But, remember that my outlook now is more of an objective outlook: let's analyze this in any way we can. I've found that by having an understanding of relative resolutions, a lot often gets cleared up, and logical conclusions can be drawn. In case you haven't already concluded it, I'm not a big fan of: <b>because I see it, it must be so.</b>

4. I have no problem with looking at the evidence, but as I've often stated pareidolia (ressler) can be quite elaborate. Neil didn't believe that, but I've proven it to myself on numerous occasions. I've been on this journey myself for many years, and in all honesty, I haven't seen one convincing image yet. But don't stop trying on my account. You could be right, and I could easily be wrong.

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21662 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<b>The Five Definitions of Pareidolia Summarized:</b>

<ul><li><b>Original</b>: Manifestation of mental disorder, causing partial hallucinations.</li>
<li><b>Modern</b>: Psychological phenomenon involving random stimuli in normal people being perceived as significant, a form of apopenia.</li>
<li><b>Ressler</b>: Phenomena of seeing faces/figures/forms in patterns occurring naturally all around us.</li>
<li><b>New</b>: A simple pattern recognition error in any system/organism/process/organization/concept/etc. capable of performing the function of pattern recognition. </li>
<li><b>Derosa</b>: The manifestation of a personal human trait causing temporary confusion between man-made and naturally occurring faces, forms, features, sounds, etc.</li></ul>

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.422 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum