Mro--First Looks

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But, in Neil's case he's making a blanket statement that such pareidolia does not exist. Period. So it's huge for his stance.

[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Incorrect. I have said several times that the more detail, correct proportion, and proper orientation vis-a-vis the represented object, there is (in so many words), the more unlikely that it is a natural formation, (i.e., pareidolia), and the more likely it is artificial (i.e., a product of art).

Please don’t misunderstand my meaning. Not being a statistician, I don’t know the numbers, but I do know the logic of the hypothesis, and it seems to be a falsifiable one. My idea is not analogous to a physical law, (like the pendulum principle mentioned above), to which there are no exceptions. It’s more a statistical one, like the odds against throwing 100 snake-eyes in a row (with balanced dice). It can be done, but it’s not very likely.

My other big point of contention was that if we have to prove “artificiality on Mars” by extraordinary proofs, it seemed only reasonable to me to have to prove the “frequent, elaborate, pareidolia hypothesis,” for the same kinds of reasons. Right now it has, and should have, the same epistomological status as UFO sightings.

Neil

Here are some more possible artificial structures from the HIRISE images. Just a note before I resume. Trinket said somewhere that most people don't download these images. We most definitely have to download the images if we want to find anything useful in them. The “devil” (also the facts) is in the details, as they say.

These images are from Mawrth Vallis, TRA_000847_2055, from the color enhanced center section. All faces are north oriented. I'll come back later and plug in the dimensions.









And some keys of same.







Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Seek and you will find. It may have something to do with metaphysics which is the real interesting part to me. i feel these images were given to me because i was naive, non-materialistic, foolish, or given to prove solipsism to save the planet by ending dualism and war. It is here to show us what killed god and the worthless paper that replaced it. Everything used to follow the natural flow of light as is seen in these images, this has been subverted so no one is really concerned with pareidolia. No one makes a living off of it.
I am convinced with adequate equipment we could capture the "last supper", or the equivilent within 4 years. You could virtually prove that god might have been dead, but now thanks to pareidolia has been resurected.[pareidoliac]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's true that I took this excerpt "out of context" but does it really matter? Is this what the pareidolia advocates are defending--in the name of science?

Moderators, this line of thought never used to be allowed on this website. Why the change? Or am I missing something?

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Moderators, this line of thought never used to be allowed on this website. Why the change? Or am I missing something?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is unusual to have a guest on this MB with no training in science and no knowledge of scientific procedures or precepts. We always try to err on the conservative side when it comes to cutting off someone's free speech.

Neil, you are correct. Such remarks would not be acceptable content under most circumstances. But Fred was Rich's guest, and understandably does not know proper scientific behavior.

Fred, may I request that you stick to the facts and resist the temptation to philosophize, and especially to inject personal beliefs of any kind on any subject into the discussion. We're not an all-topic Message Board, but strictly limited to what science can hypothesize, then test and possibly falsify. Thanks for your understanding.

Neil and Rich: Remarks from both of you have also crossed the line several times. Again, we try to err on the side of tolerance rather than censorship. But this "battle of the brothers" is getting old. You two have got to find a way to take your personal battles elsewhere, and stick to what advances science on this MB. It's always okay to disagree respectfully, but I haven't seen much respect of late. And prefixing a slam with "respectfully" doesn't get you where you need to be. -|Tom|-

Tom, I deleted my last post.

With respect to Fred's posts, this is my take on it. I think Fred's thoughts are valid and appropriate to the Pareidolia topic. I think what's happened here is that there has been some overflow to a few other threads occasionally. So, while I agree that they are not really en pointe when it comes to the overflow threads, I think they are very relevant when it comes to the pareidolia thread. More so now, then I did in the early days of the thread.

Plus, you have to remember that Neil made some disparaging remarks about the integrity of Fred's art, so a quote here or there from famous artists, and some "spiritual" insights sort of seems appropriate to me. I think Fred has been a role model on this board in the way he handled the insults.

But, I think the whole thing is pretty much winding down, anyway. You've been a good host, so I don't want to cause any problems.

rd

I've no problems at all with Fred's comments. Within the context of the thread they are germaine.

I have a mental picture of Fred, as a wryly amused old scallywag, who has happened upon a cave full of believers in inductive logic. To his surprise, they speak to him but don't turn round from their study of their own shadows on the cave wall.

Pareidolia as a paradigm shift perhaps [8D] Descarte's dream, Kekule's dream, perhaps we have to do a spot of meta terraforming of Mars before we can walk out of the cave. I betya Fred has forgot to bring a few pairs of these for us[8D][8D][8D]

I'm okay as I have a pair of Hegelian reactalights[][8D][]

(edited) Oh yeah, Neil, the square in the first picture, did you notice it? About a quarter of the way across from the top left corner, then down a little less than half way.