Faces from the Chasmas

<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 />Customarily, we say them once and assume they will be remembered. Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ditto. But that goes both ways.

Tom, are you reading every message? Let me start with one question, and that will tell me if there's any hope of coming to a conclusion on this.

Do you agree with the definition of pareidolia that I posted on the Pareidolia topic?

rd

<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 />Do you agree with the definition of pareidolia that I posted on the Pareidolia topic?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I note with amusement that you were unable to quote your "definition". The closest I could find to a definition, as opposed to a description with examples and qualifiers, was this:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Pareidolia, as it relates to faces is simply a perceived face that is not man-made.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But in my short search, I found seven paragraphs of descriptions, examples, and qualifiers to show what this "definition" was and was not intended to mean.

So no, I don't see any definition that isn't modified by a list of exceptions, such as my example of reflections that nominally meet your definition.

So either give us a simple, one sentence definition. Or if you would like to stick closer to a substantive matter, explain what was ambiguous or inconclusive about my previous post that somehow led you to raise this seeming diversion. -|Tom|-

<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 found seven paragraphs of descriptions, examples, and qualifiers to show what this "definition" was and was not intended to mean.

So no, I don't see any definition that isn't modified by a list of exceptions, such as my example of reflections that nominally meet your definition.

So either give us a simple, one sentence definition. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, now I think you're playing with me, but that's ok.

Here's my one sentence defintion:

<b>Defintion: Pareidolia, as it relates to faces is simply a perceived face that is not from living entities (or reflections of living entities) and is not intentionally made by man, to be a face.</b>

{Note: Notice that there are no references to 2D vs. 3D in the definition, nor is there any reference to flat art, statues, etchings, or any other "shape specific" concepts.}


<b>Examples and descriptive statements:</b>

The face in question can be an illusive wispy face in the clouds or smoke, totally transient, or a pattern in a cliff wall or marble column, which is essentially eternal.

It can be easy to see as the face, where more than one person readily sees it, all the way to being very obscure, and needing to be pointed out from one observer to another.

The only thing that would make the face NOT be pareidolia, is if someone (presumably a human, but could be a Martian) created the image of the face, as art, pastime, mischief, or whatever.

Shadows may or may not play into the face, from one extreme (like with Fred's art) where it's all shadows, all the way to the other extreme where their are no shadows involved, and everything in between.

OK? Now.....do you agree, or not?

rd

<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 />now I think you're playing with me, but that's ok.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We haven't been understanding one another for the last several exchanges. It would be better to work on the reason for this failure than to propose an out-of-character, motiveless conjecture.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Defintion: Pareidolia as it relates to faces is simply a perceived face that is not from living entities (or reflections of living entities) and is not intentionally made by man, to be a face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This excludes all of Fred's and your shadow "tree faces". I presume you did not mean to do that. We might say instead "not from humans or other animals" instead of "not from living entities". But then I could show you pareidolic faces formed from shadows cast by barnyard animals too. And do insects have faces? Do bacteria?

IMO, you have really not found the essence of the word yet because living or non-living really has little to do with it. How about something like "face-like shapes formed by natural illusion rather than biological intention"?

Maybe "intention" will need to be augmented with "or programming" for those who think intention can only arise from "intelligent beings". I meant it to include all DNA programming.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Notice that there are no references to 2D vs. 3D in the definition<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nor should there be. The 2D vs. 3D issue is one of a small number of proposed ways to rule out natural illusions while not eliminating artificial faces. A single exception would discredit this as a useful criterion.

So let's go back to considering applications to primary artificiality. Do you agree or disagree that all pareidolic faces must be 2D or have a narrow range of viewing/lighting angles? Any exception would ruin the rule. -|Tom|-

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Defintion: Pareidolia as it relates to faces is simply a perceived face that is not from living entities (or reflections of living entities) and is not intentionally made by man, to be a face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This excludes all of Fred's and your shadow "tree faces". <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, finally we're getting to the point I've been trying to get at for a number of interchanges. This tells me you still don't quite understand what it is I'm saying. No offense, but I don't think you fully grasp what pareidolia is.

There's nothing in Fred's or my shadow "tree faces" that are from "living entities" or "man made". Unless you're trying to tell us that because the photograph itself is man made, that it's not pareidolia. I disagree with that point of view. We're talking about the faces themselves. Whether it's a stone face, or a picture of the stone face doesn't change anything. Just like whether it's one of Fred's photos, or that instant when those shadows existed, doesn't change anything.

Tom, I want to ask you something again, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but are you reading every message? Do you have the time to read them all?

I only ask that because of my experiences in technical support, where I had to read and respond to tens of emails a day, and in some cases continue a thread for days before resolving any one issue. And I can tell you, it became obvious to me when someone was reading every message. There's a continuity aspect to this stuff that can't easily be ignored. Once I suspect that the other side of the discussion isn't reading everything, but instead is re-iterating their argument while picking and choosing which side of mine they read, I back off. To give you an analogy, imagine if we were standing there talking, and every third sentence I said to you, you turned your head and talked to someone else, and then when you return to the conversation with me, you picked up where you lead off, without acknowledging the three sentences you just missed from me.

I get the distinct impression that's what is happening.

rd

<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 />There's nothing in Fred's or my shadow "tree faces" that are from "living entities" or "man made".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The last time I checked, trees were still classified as "living entities". When they form shadow faces, your definition excludes those from being classified as pareidolia.

So that is a flaw in your definition. I offered a simple correction to get around that problem and back to the mainline discussion. But you seem hell-bent on avoiding the mainline discussion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">are you reading every message?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. Why again are you attempting to divert to side topics?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I get the distinct impression that's what is happening.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You get more messages per day from me than everyone else put together. So I get the distinct impression that you are just trying to deflect the discussion away from the hard questions. I have no objection if you want to take a break to regroup. But if you are going to dialog now, quit ignoring my points and questions.

The main one now on the table is this: Do you agree or disagree that all pareidolic faces must be 2D or have a narrow range of viewing/lighting angles? Any exception would ruin the rule. -|Tom|-