My pareidolia knows no bounds.

I think a major reason to see what this guy says, is that he seems to have the ear of the BBC in the u.k. He has been able to conduct television experiments with a massive audience participation.

I seem to recall, that some airforce presented photographs to its new pilot cadets. In some of these were hidden anxious images. The follow up to this experiment showed that the cadets who hadn't seen the hidden images, were more likely to be involved in air accidents.

So, I think I'd like to see a large scale experiment that looked at that aspect of things. I'd also like to see whether belief systems altered what is seen in the Mars images. The most obvious one being, a belief that Martians could once have lived.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />I'd also like to see whether belief systems altered what is seen in the Mars images. The most obvious one being, a belief that Martians could once have lived.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, I see what you're getting at.

Personally, I think it was shown in the study done at The University of Glaskow (“SUPERSTITIOUS PERCEPTIONS REVEAL PROPERTIES OF INTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS Frédéric Gosselin and Philippe G. Schyns” ) {see page 5 of this topic} that top down influences resulted when the subjects were led to believe there was an "S" in plates of white noise. The results showed that "we see what we believe is there."

So I would strongly predict that any study that led people to believe there once was Martian life on Mars would surely show an increase of "faces in the landscape" detected by the subjects in the MOC Gallery. I've almost interviewed a large enough random sample of my own to convince me of that. But you're right, that would be great to demonstrate.

Although, I doubt if that would have much of an effect on the diehards. It's doubtful to me that it would be able to overcome both "confirmation" and "disconfirmation" biases.

It would certainly be interesting, though.

rd

Let's say that paradigms have survival value, they are tools for living, both artifacts and artifices of human society.

Then we have a pardigm shift, and I would argue that pareidolia will come to the fore in such a cultural crisis. Personally I think that this is a good thing, our conscious and subconscious minds communicate in a richer manner than normally.

The interesting thing about this example however, is that implicit to it, is the idea that we may be dealing with a paradigm which is not of our making. Our paradigms can collapse over time, probably because we have patched them up and mythologised them too many times.

The pareidolia and almost visionary reorientations involved in historic paradigm shifts, have the added novelty here, of having the human paradigm shift of, "yes aliens could have lived on Mars," and the more perplexing one of, "we must allow the aliens to have paradigms of their own." I may be alone in thinking that this might produce problems of some sort of a "feedback loop" nature. Though, I have to say, that's why I find it so facinating, it could give us some new insights into the creative process.

Stoat- Man made paradigms are attemps to coincide with the natural paradigm that exists. They have been dropped by the wayside and will continue to do so, until we will find the key to the lock. The key is pareidolia, the lock solipsism.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />The pareidolia and almost visionary reorientations involved in historic paradigm shifts, have the added novelty here, of having the human paradigm shift of, "yes aliens could have lived on Mars," and the more perplexing one of, "we must allow the aliens to have paradigms of their own." I may be alone in thinking that this might produce problems of some sort of a "feedback loop" nature. Though, I have to say, that's why I find it so facinating, it could give us some new insights into the creative process.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, I agree this is an immensely important point. Not only is this what makes it so fascinating, it's also makes it so confounding. This is in part why I argued that just because JP Levasseur attempted to prove that "The Profile Image (Nefertiti)" was not pareidolia, it does not follow that one would use the same techniques on known Earthly pareidolia. In the case of "The Profile Image", it could be pareidolia, or it could be Martian Art. Also, who is to say whether or not Martian Art would conform to Earthly Art? For that matter, it could be Martian Art designed to elicit Earthly pareidolia! (ok, too many assumptions)

Whereas, in the case of known Earthly pareidolia, we know it's not the product of Martian or Earthman, so the paradigm is totally different. So what rules do we use to tell the difference? Neil solved the problem by refusing to accept the existence of the known Earthly pareidolia, thereby concluding everything on Mars was Martian Art, but that doesn't work for some of us. Fred's work proves that.

I seriously believe this is an incredibly important topic, in its infancy in many ways, and has the possibility of gaining much more participation over the coming years.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For that matter, it could be Martian Art designed to elicit Earthly pareidolia! (ok, too many assumptions)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> [] Love that idea[8D] Terraform a planet as a post hypnotic suggestion. Any other passing alien would see a giant billboard, saying. "keep of the third planet, or else!!"

As for paradigms, I see them as having survival value but rather than seeing them in a Darwinian sense, I think that they should be looked at in a physiological/psycological developmental sense. For example, the "high stepping reflex" in babies. Babies can't walk untill their bones are strong enough to carry the weight. I think with this approach we can avoid the temptation of assigning inferior status to our historic paradigms. In very early paradigms, for instance, pareidolia was given a high status, in the shape of the tribal shaman.

In the case of paradigm shift, I think our subconscious minds present to our conscious minds, more of the information that would normally be screened out. The object being to create a new more stable paradigm. There's always a massive flourishing of the arts and science but there's also a lot of pain. "My paradigm, right or wrong" syndrome.

I can imagine a bunch of subconscious minds, sitting in a bar, over eh moon with their latest project. Redefine the paradigm to include the alien, and present it in such a multisensory way that even those idiot conscious minds can understand it. With the caveat that this doesn't destroy the poor things. [8D]