My pareidolia knows no bounds.

The 7th point of view. Everything is pareidolic/solipsistic/hologramatic. What most call pareidolia i would call double pareidolia. Even when we look in the mirror, "our face," is a projection from our consciousness which is all that exists, (solipsism). When we see a plant it is a projection since we are almost as hardwired to see plants, chairs, animals etc. as faces. The universe is in each of us as we are in the universe, in a hologramatic manner. (see David Bohm.) On top of all this, even "time," as well as "space," as well as all concepts are pareidolia, as all there is, is the here and now, fixed frames, which our consciousness appears to travel throuugh, creating the illusion of time and motion. (see Parmenides.) There is only the plenum, standing waves which permanently interact, causing interference patterns, which we term object, pareidolia, double pareidolia.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Tom states: "We might agree about that for isolated images. But cases where images contribute to a scene are more likely artificial, IMO."

i have camptured many scenes (at least 30) with multiple pareidolic images. ... These multiple images always "fit together" as though they were painted by the same "artist,"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We are using "scene" with two different meanings. You are speaking of pareidolic images appearing in a noisy background. I am speaking of instances where nearly everything in and around an image is a coherent part of a complex, interrelated mosaic that may or may not contain any faces. The former can arise by chance, the latter requires an artist.

As with the Cydonia Face (at least on its west side), it is the absence of noise allowing our minds to form images that do not exist outside our minds that makes the difference. If the Cydonia Face existed in a noisy background, or if there were other possible candidates for secondary facial features that gave our minds any freedom to pick and choose features that filled our preconception of a face, then we would likely draw an entirely different conclusion. But the mind has no such freedom at Cydonia. -|Tom|-

My conclusion is that there are as many "real" answers as there are people. The want/need/desire/vantage point all determine the outlook. To me this corroborates my solipsistic view, because i view things solipsistically. This fits in with Heisenberg's view that the experimenter influences the experiment, and there can be no one concensus "reality" answer. The figures on Mars may be all of the seven views, or more, all at once. Like the movie "Roshomon." Objective "reality," may be a myth depending on the viewer.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />My conclusion is that there are as many "real" answers as there are people. ... To me this corroborates my solipsistic view<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Personal philosophies are always fascinating. However, this site operates on "deep reality physics" principles, under which we take the pragmatic viewpoint that there is a single, objective, external reality; and our collective goal is to find it, observe it, understand it, and predict it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This fits in with Heisenberg's view that the experimenter influences the experiment,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Meta Model has a deterministic explanation for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the EPR paradox, and other quantum phenomena. The initial problem arose by observing waves assumed incorrectly to be particles. Then interpretations of experiments were driven in absurd directions by the pervasive but wrong belief that nothing could propagate faster than light in forward time.

But all of that is another story for another day. -|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">it might be possible to prove that really elaborate pareidolic images can be created simply by tossing all the ingredients into a pot and shaking them up.-rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Perhaps so, but it would not shed much light on our concerns here. It doesn't seem to touch the <i>a priori</i> artificiality proof, nor to provide us with a criterion to distinguish artificial from natural on a level playing field. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I've given this alot of thought, and I have to agree this is really a tough one. I keep going back to Morty The Snowman. What is it about Morty that makes us know it's man made? Is it because of the fact that we know it's man made, makes it an impossible example to study? Or is there something about it that makes it obvious it's man made?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Just because artificiality was proved, doesn't negate the incredible nature of pareidolia, as Fred's photos prove. -rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We might agree about that for isolated images. But cases where images contribute to a scene are more likely artificial, IMO. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In my limited experience with this, I tend to agree with Fred. I've seen a number of examples where once I lock in on a face, I immediately see one below it, and another one smaller below that, and then two on the side. I think we're all experiencing pareidoia in the same way, with the only difference being the medium.


rd

<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 />Perhaps so, but it would not shed much light on our concerns here. It doesn't seem to touch the <i>a priori</i> artificiality proof, nor to provide us with a criterion to distinguish artificial from natural on a level playing field.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One other point. If we could show that pareidolia could be "synthesized", so to speak, and created out of a variety of random noise, wouldn't that show that one must "doubt all, before you believe anything?" (Descartes). I would think that would stand on its own.

rd