My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Note: I'm saying this here rather than in the "Nefertiti's Family" Topic since I don't want to elevate that until I'm prepared to fix it, but I do have the means to fix it once I get the computer from storage that has those images. The website I was using at the time went bust and I wasn't ever able to get those images from them, but I do have them. It's a long story, but hopefully, I will have that computer back early next year. I'm a 1000 miles away from it, but it is intact, and I still own it (long story).

Malcolm, here is some incontrovertible evidence that there are deer in my back yard:

Zip Monster- What is the name of the 1868 Medical Journal?
According to my sources pareidolia was first named by Steve Goldstein in 1994. When a "crazy" person sees a face that isn't there it is a hallucination. When a person sees pareidolia he is observing a pattern from his point of view. That this point of view can also be observed by a second party increases the level of it's pareidolicity. Pareidolia has nothing to do with disease. People can become pathologically obsessed with anything- or nothing including pareidolia.

pareidoliac, you are referring to an article in Skeptical Inquirer that credits Goldstein for first using the term pareidolia in 1994. It appears Goldstein has appropriated the word without knowing its actual definition or its origins. His definition of the word is totally incorrect and unfortunately - has become widely misused by many skeptics.


Therefore the entire premise of this thread is built on fabrication.


See - The Journal of Mental Science, Volume 13, Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England), Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Medico-Psychological Association, Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, Oxford University, 1867, p238.

Link: books.google.com/books?id=UpIEAAAAQAAJ&q...q=pareidolia&f=false

Zip Monster

Zip Monster- i don't see the word "pareidolia" in your link.
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
#8213; Friedrich Nietzsche

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />I'm just pointing out that you can't serve both purposes at once. Analysis of Martian imagery is a whole different game if you are trying to establish artificiality than if you are trying to reconstruct the picture left behind by artists whose existence is no longer in doubt. Decide which goal you are persuing each time you do an analysis, and state your premises clearly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The main purpose of this topic is to discuss pareidolia. That's why I started it. A sub-purpose is to show that pareidolia goes away at some level of detail. As you said, the more pixels, the better. High magnifications, and alot of data. Another sub-purpose is to show that it's personal.
rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Zip Monster, if you read my purpose here, what part do you figure is "built on a fabrication?"

This is what I think has happened to the Artificiality camp. After years of posting squiggles and not getting the "OH WOW!" you anticipated, you are now using the classic tactic of "attacking the opposition", rather than just posting some incontrovertible proof of your assertions.

To think that all people who see faces in the trees and clouds are having a mental episode sounds, well, mental, to me.



rd