My pareidolia knows no bounds.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21973 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 />This is why you will and will continue to see faces in two and three dimensions and multiple dimensions on the Martian surface.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The same is true for pareidolic images. As a matter of fact, a pareidolic image can be as detailed as standing there looking at the actual person you think the image represents. It's happened to me on numerous occasions.

Forget about "tea kettles in tree bark". That's not what we're talking about. As a matter of fact, if you re-read my definition, I am consciously <b>excluding them</b>.

rd

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

More
10 years 10 months ago #21920 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
An interesting story about "pareidolia in massage therapy" and "N-rays: an incredible historical example of pareidolia"

Highly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Excerpts (bold mine):

Pareidolia in manual therapy

We are talented at perceiving what we want and expect to see. <b>Over-interpreted perception has always been a big problem for empiricism. The brain is just fantastically good at making up patterns and filling in blanks </b> and palpation in a therapeutic context provides some rich opportunities for it. It is responsible for who-knows-how-many declarations of tightness, for instance. Here are several other candidates for illusory palpations, all common in massage therapy (and chiropractic, and osteopathy, and so on).

Its an open question whether or not the concept of trigger points correlates with altered tissue texture, but even if they do its likely that there are multitudes of incorrect diagnoses every day. See Trigger Point Doubts.

<ul><li>trigger points or muscle knots</li>
<li> fascial restrictions and releases</li>
<li> vertebral subluxations</li>
<li> many other asymmetries</li>
<li> cerebrospinal fluid circulation</li>
<li> energy disturbances or blocked chi </li></ul>

In each case, the alleged phenomenon may or may not be a real thing, <b>while the perception remains plagued by false positives.</b>

<b>N-rays: an incredible historical example of pareidolia</b>

While listening to my favourite new podcast, Caustic Soda, I came across a fascinating historical example of the pareidolia phenomenon dialed up to 11: the N-rays debacle. In fact, it may be one of the biggest pareidolia bloopers in history. Joe Fulgham tells the story well, and you should listen to the episode.

In a nutshell, in 1903 a French scientist, Blondlot, got himself worked up over a new form of radiation. He was certain he could see it. He couldnt. It was 100% wishful thinking. But this kind of mistake happens all the time in science and life.

<b>What really amplifies the example is that so many other scientists jumped on the bandwagon and eagerly shared Blondlots delusion.</b> That is a bit more unusual in science, specifically because science defines itself as a profession that carefully checks its facts. Fortunately, the N-ray delusion did not last long, because many other scientists called foul from the start. The immune system of science attacked the disease, and N-rays were destroyed.

saveyourself.ca/articles/palpatory-pareidolia.php

End excerpts.
================================================================================

Conclusion: Pareidolia (modern) is a common phenomenon and is becoming more widely known about as the years go by. I see no reason why a search of the Martian Landscape would be immune from this phenomenon, and I see many reasons why it would be fertile ground for it.

But more on that later, after I've had a chance to go back and review something.

rd

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

More
10 years 10 months ago #21921 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 jrich</i>
<br />

The test is not really directly applicable to our discussion here. What is significant though is that it shows that the human brain can be trained to very effectively find patterns in even completely random noise and that the patterns that it finds are at least somewhat influenced by individual biases concerning what such patterns should look like.

One gets the impression that those who favor the artificiality hypothesis of the land art do so in major part because they are unable to concieve of how their perceptions could be mistaken so often. I think this experiment demonstrates that it is possible to see what one hopes or expects to see, to do so many times, and with increasing proficiency in visual imagery where no artificial patterns actually exist.

JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is a reprint of a post made by Jrich on the "Superstitious S" study. I thought it was worth repeating.

During my correspondence with Dr. Schyns, I relayed to him this story about my wife:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"By the way, a couple of years ago, when we first started "anomaly hunting" in the Mars images, my wife, who is not really a math/science kind of person, but more a literature/arts "people person" kind of person, said in answer to my question about what she thought of the faces on Mars: "If you think they are there, you will find them. If you don't, you won't." Isn't that exactly what the S paper shows? I have a whole new respect for her insight." To which Dr. Schyns replied, "Yes, this is the idea that one sees what one knows. Profound insight!"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

rd

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

More
10 years 10 months ago #22023 by Larry Burford
I KNOW they aren't there.

I also KNOW the naked girls, and the animals and the other things, in the tile on my floor are not there.

***

And yet ... I still see them. I did not (and still do not) have to work at it. I first saw most of them out of the corner of my eye, not even suspecting an image was there. A few images take some work to see. But most don't.

My MIND <u>created</u> them from the patterns of this and that in front of me. Just like it would have created a mental image if I had been looking at a <u>literal photograph</u> of a face or a sexy girl or a cute kitten.

But, since I know my mind can do this, I am not fooled. I consider the context, and I wait for more evidence.

I'm still waiting. Not for the girls on my floor - sheesh - for the aliens on Mars. One of these days, someone may show me what I'm waiting for.

Malcolm? (I will know it when I see it. Sort of like Nixon and his pornography.)

***

I stroke the point on one of my ears. (Oops, better not do that in public.) Fascinating.

***

Hey! Anyone seen my shovel?

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

More
10 years 10 months ago #22097 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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />I KNOW they aren't there.

I also KNOW the naked girls, and the animals and the other things, in the tile on my floor are not there.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You make a good point in that it's actually more complicated than my last post makes it seem, but this is a different case. Yes, you know that the object of the pattern isn't there, but you also do know that you can see the pattern in the tiles (i.e., you know the pattern IS there).

It's two different cases.

In the Mars case, we can't go up to them and look at them close up to get confirmation. In your case you can. So, you know the girl isn't there, but you DO know the pattern is. Just like me and Fred know the faces ARE there, but not the people they represent.

In the Superstitious "S" case they knew the "S"s were there (they weren't thinking about false patterns).

In Neil's case, he knew both the pattern was there AND it was a real artwork (as opposed you, me and Fred who know that only the pattern is there). I suspect Malcolm and Neil have similar viewpoints, in that they KNOW there are artworks there, not just the pattern.

I think Jrich nailed it. Whatever happened to him?



rd

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

More
10 years 10 months ago #21922 by Marsevidence01



Malcolm? (I will know it when I see it. Sort of like Nixon and his pornography.)

***

I stroke the point on one of my ears. (Oops, better not do that in public.) Fascinating.

***

Hey! Anyone seen my shovel?

Larry, I plan on posting some information shortly....been busy but I keep in touch
[/quote]

Malcolm Scott

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

Time to create page: 0.439 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum