My pareidolia knows no bounds.

More
10 years 1 month ago #22693 by Marsevidence01
Let me put it this way Larry...if Pareidolia in ANY of its connotations is used in the process of evaluating images on Mars (at least in my posts) I'm out. Here's why:

With respect to the study of the images of the Martian surface, use of this perceived negative phenomenon is: wrong, incorrect, mistaken, in error, inaccurate, untrue, false, fallacious, unsound, specious, faulty, flawed, full of holes and last but not least, an insult to researchers for the reason posted several times in the posts above.

Move this subject to Terrestrial Science where it rightfully belongs.

And btw, are Gods immune to the 1st directive i.e. below this subtle dig re. Joe Keller?

Quote: Larry Burford

(BTW, in terms of scientific credibility he runs circles around you)







Malcolm Scott

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

More
10 years 1 month ago #22634 by Larry Burford
You are not required to use pareidolia (any) to evaluate an image if you do not want to. Others may, if they want to. And of course there can be a discussion about the appropriateness of either action. You may ignore a comment that suggests a particular pattern is pareidolic (any) in nature.

***

Perhaps my wording can be improved. Joe's massage is more scientific than your message? At least it seem that way to me. Not always and everywhere (he has lots of opinion only stuff as well), but on average.

I did not intend to be personal. Sorry.

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

More
10 years 1 month ago #22744 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 /> THERE MAY VERY WELL BE A PINK ELEPHANT ON THE SURFACE!

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's true. But it also may be a whole lot of nothing, a mere pareidolic experience.

I asked my wife which is more likely:

a) That the vast wasteland that is the Martian surface is littered with artworks over every square inch?

or

b) That we see faces, bodies, armies in the patterns of the terrain which appear to be real.

Her answer:

"Oh Jeez!"

rd

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

More
10 years 1 month ago #23325 by Marsevidence01
<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 />You are not required to use pareidolia (any) to evaluate an image if you do not want to. Others may, if they want to. And of course there can be a discussion about the appropriateness of either action. You may ignore a comment that suggests a particular pattern is pareidolic (any) in nature.

***

Perhaps my wording can be improved. Joe's massage is more scientific than your message? At least it seem that way to me. Not always and everywhere (he has lots of opinion only stuff as well), but on average.

I did not intend to be personal. Sorry.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks, no worries.

It does seem to me that this contentious issue of the use on Pareidolia (any) and its socially perceived umbrella of negative "mental illness" has been bantered about this site and the internet so as to deliberately dis-credit researchers into the study of the Martian surface images and by all accounts "they" have done a very good job of it. It's amazing what a paycheck (or lack of it) can do....Isn't it a shame Larry?

So what remains now is the $64,000 question with respect to Meta Research:

1. Is this a case of severe Cognitive Dissonance?

or

2. Are there thumb prints on heads?

A little frustrating for me, as I really needed to get a real sense of "comradery" here in order to evaluate some truly remarkable finds. But I am now quite confident that these images will only be received with negativity and ridicule. Disappointing....

But I do thank you for the opportunity anyhow.

Have a good day my friend!




Malcolm Scott

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

More
10 years 1 month ago #23326 by Marsevidence01

Her answer:

"Oh Jeez!"

rd
[/quote]

Well if that's good enough for Mrs. Derosa....that's way good enough for me!

Malcolm Scott

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

More
10 years 1 month ago #22635 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 />You see the connotations of this condition in all their interpretations are enveloped under the "real or misinterpretation" that this condition is a mental disorder and contrary the real process of evaluation of the surface.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What mental disorder? Nobody's talking about...<b><i>oh wait!</i></b> I get it now. You're using the old definition from the 1800s German Psychological Literature, back from when they still used leeches and the life expectancy was around 50.

Well, we soundly disagree with that definition and prefer one of the 4 modern ones listed here:

Note: No mention of mental disorders.

* 1 ****************************************************
Reference: encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

Definition:
Pareidolia (/pr#616;#712;do#650;li#601;/ parr-i-doh-lee-#601;) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant, a form of apophenia. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records when played in reverse.

The word comes from the Greek words para (#960;#945;#961;#940;, "beside, alongside, instead") in this context meaning something faulty, wrong, instead of; and the noun eid#333;lon (#949;#7988;#948;#969;#955;#959;#957; "image, form, shape") the diminutive of eidos. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia, seeing patterns in random data.

Name: modern

NOTE - formerly named 'rev 1', changed on 12/20/2013





* 2 ****************************************************
Reference:
Fred Ressler: www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pareidolia

Definition:
Pareidolia is the phenomena of seeing faces/figures/forms in patterns; as opposed to where one normally sees faces/figures/forms (on animals including people/landscapes etc.)

Pareidolia is seeing what appears to the individual to be a representation of a face, figure, or form in the clouds, wood grain, marble, smoke, shadows, or any non-homogeneous area. It can also be an auditory phenomenon as in hearing white noise or a record played backward that sounds to the individual like words or a melody that isn't actually there.

Name: Ressler




*3 ****************************************************
Reference:
The Journal of Mental Science, Volume 13, Pg. 238 (Apr 1867);

(deleted as antiquated)



*4 ****************************************************

Reference: Discussion earlier in this thread with rderosa about the evolution of this word, especially since the rise of mechanical computing systems capable of sophisticated pattern recognition. (Ref. for discussion: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2...in-computers/260760/ )

Definition: Pareidolia is a simple pattern recognition error in any system/organism/process/organization/concept/etc. capable of performing the function of pattern recognition.

For example, a system processes some input (sound, image, text, etc.) and produces a positive result ("the input is recognized as 'A' with very high confidence") when in fact the input is B. 'B' is used here to mean 'not A' (something, anything, significantly other than 'A').

Name: New



* 5 ****************************************************
Reference: www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...C_ID=873&whichpage=1

Definition:
Pareidolia

1. A personal human trait, in which we perceive images (or sounds) in random patterns that appear to be man-made (or God-made, or Martian-made, etc.), but in fact aren't. They are merely patterns which our mind interprets and fills in the blanks to create what seems to be something that is man-made (or God-made, or Martian-made, etc.)

2. On close inspection, all pareidolic images are interpreted from a rational standpoint (i.e., they either go away totally, or are understood for what they really are.) Some examples might be: faces, bodies, armies, buildings or vehicles in the clouds, in shadows, in trees, in wallpaper, on the Moon or Martian surface. All which appear man-made, but when examined closely, are understood to be everyday objects, or natural features of the landscape, etc.

3. Pareidolic images are essentially the "partial hallucinations" described in Def 3 pareidolia (original) with the exception that they are the manifestation of a normal human trait, rather than a mental disorder.

4. An important element of this definition is the question of whether or not the object in question is real and/or man-made or merely an image we have constructed in our minds from the pattern. For this reason, clocks and the back of trucks and the like are specifically excluded, since we already know they are real and man-made. Without this underlying question, we are not dealing with a pareidolic image under this definition.



Name: derosa

NOTE: This definition specifically excludes any and all images of the type shown on this page ( www.flickr.com/groups/hellolittlefella/ ) which are, in fact, real and man-made, but have shapes that can sort of look like something else (a face). Because we know them to be real and man-made in the first place, they don't apply.




rd

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

Time to create page: 0.636 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum