Keys

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The bottom line is that you posted your open line (quoted here) and it was obvious to anyone paying attention that you hadn't actually read the article or my excerpted quote of it. Or if you read it, you either didn't understand it, or blanked it out and chose not to comment on it.

That's the real important point here. By merely going back and re-arranging words so that Tom doesn't ad-hominize you {again}, all you've accomplished is to highlight this fact once again. The use of the word "logical" in every other sentence changes nothing.

The science that's being done in the cognitive sciences is showing more and more that "pareidolia" is the likely explanation of all of your keys. Hiding from that fact is not going to help anymore than re-arranging sentences is.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Relying on mainstream science (filtered through the NY Times no less) as you sole argument does not add to its veracity, This amounts to the "50 million Frenchmen" argument--another logical fallacy.

Berating my use of logic (which is always explained) is ad hominum, as are veiled threats ("that Tom doesn't ad-hominize me {again}").

BTW, one other logical fallacy you frequently employ is equivocation, the use of words with varying, floating, vague definitions in order to obfuscate meanings; as in equating "have little faith in" with “condemn,” and in equating, "tube conduit ruins" with "Martian rapid transit system.” And the like.

The “real important point here” is that your one year long effort to discredit the artificiality hypothesis is based on this kind of technique as a substitute for your lack any credible evidence.

Here is Tom’s opinion on your main thesis. (the Frequent, Elaborate, Pareidolia Hypothesis)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Here's how you could help us scientists with our Mars research, if you are inclined to help us at all. Tell us everything you can remember about the "canvas", the nature of the objects in the image. Were the bright patches lit by sunlight or artificial light? Why was the image mildly blurred? Why the contrast stretch? Can you take another photograph today (if one does not already exist) showing the same scene under closely similar lighting conditions, but unblurred and with a full range of natural grayscales in the image? Also, did you come upon this image totally by chance, or was some staging involved? Can you post an image of the negative as is, so we can see that the "positive" print was not subsequently "photoshopped"?

We have no interest whatever in devaluing your work or imagery. Our inquiries are purely for application to the scientific interpretation of Mars images. It would therefore be of considerable value to science if you were willing to reveal a few details of the circumstances surrounding this image that you might not be willing to share with your colleagues or fans.

I understand if you are reluctant to do that. But at the same time, because the degree of staging has become an issue for the science, if you cannot provide such information to give the image a "scientific pedigree" (so to speak), we would likely be forced to exclude it from influencing our discussions. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">February 13, 2007
Faces, Faces Everywhere
By ELIZABETH SVOBODA
{excerpts}

<b>Why do we see faces everywhere we look?</b> .........

<b>Compelling answers are beginning to emerge </b>from biologists and computer scientists who are gaining new insights into how the brain recognizes and processes facial data.

<b>Long before she had heard of Diana Duyser’s grilled-cheese sandwich</b>, Doris Tsao, a neuroscientist at the University of Bremen in Germany, had an inkling that people might process faces differently from other objects. Her suspicion was that a particular area of the brain gives faces priority, like an airline offering first-class passengers expedited boarding.

......... <b>“So we started questioning whether there really might be an area in the brain that is dedicated to face recognition.”</b>

.........<b>She discovered almost immediately that groups of cells in three regions of the brain’s temporal lobe seemed to be strongly attuned to faces.</b>

<b>“The first day we put the electrode in, it was shocking,” </b>Dr. Tsao said. “Cell after cell responded to faces but not at all to other objects.” Her results were published in October in the journal Science.

Dr. Tsao’s investigation yielded a surprising related finding: <b>areas of the brain she had identified as face-specific occasionally lighted up in response to objects that bore only a passing resemblance to faces. </b>

<b>“Nonface objects may have certain features that are weakly triggering these face cells,” </b>she said. “If you go above a certain threshold, the <b>monkeys</b> might think that they’re seeing a face.” In the same way, she said, objects like cinnamon buns, <b>rocky outcroppings</b> and cloud formations <b>may set off face radar if they bear enough resemblance to actual faces</b>.

Pawan Sinha, a cognitive scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, <b>has devoted years of research to figuring out just what attributes touch off these face-specific pings........</b>

To develop detector software optimized to pick out any human face, ......, Dr. Sinha began by putting into his computer hundreds of faces as varied as those in a Benetton advertisement famous for its diversity.

As the computer amassed the information, it was able to discover <b>relationships that were of great significance to almost all faces, but very few nonfaces...“These turn out to be very simple relationships, things like the eyes are always darker than the forehead, and the mouth is darker than the cheeks,”. Dr. Sinha said. “If you put together about 12 of these relationships, you get a template that you can use to locate a face.” </b>

.......<b>This suggests that like the computer, the human brain processes faces holistically</b>, like coherent landscapes, rather than one feature at a time.

These images are just “ dark blobs on a big blob,” Dr. Sinha said. “So clearly there’s not enough diagnostic information in the individual features. <b>Yet something about the overall organization of the image, the gestalt, is still allowing us to recognize the face.”</b>

Once in a while, the computer emits a false alarm. ......

“But this prototype is not perfect,” he said. “Sometimes genuine faces do not match these regularities, <b>and sometimes nonfaces satisfy them.</b>”

While the human tendency to see faces in other objects is rooted in neural architecture, the large number of actual faces we see every day may also be partly responsible for the Nun Bun phenomenon, said Takeo Watanabe, a neuroscientist at Boston University. <b>His studies of learning processes show that after the brain is bombarded with a stimulus, it continues to perceive that stimulus even when it is not present.</b>

To demonstrate this effect....{see article}

<b>Dr. Watanabe says the results suggest that subliminally learning something “too well” interferes with perceptions of reality</b>. “As a result of repeated presentation, the subjects developed enhanced sensitivity to the dots,” he said. <b>“Their sensitivity got so high that they saw them even when there was nothing there.” </b>

<b>Because faces make up such a significant part of the visual backdrop of life</b>, he added, they may fall into the same category as the dots: <b>people have gotten so used to seeing faces everywhere that sensitivity to them is high enough to produce constant false positives.</b> ....... “If you lived in primeval times, for instance,” Dr. Watanabe said, “it would be good to be very sensitized to tigers.”

Dr. Sinha of M.I.T. says that whether the hair-trigger response to faces is innate or learned, <b>it represents a critical evolutionary adaptation, one that dwarfs side effects like seeing Beelzebub in a crumpled tissue.</b>

“The information faces convey is so rich — not just regarding another person’s identity, but also their mental state, health and other factors,” he said. “It’s extremely beneficial for the brain to become good at the task of face recognition and not to be very strict in its inclusion criteria. <b>The cost of missing a face is higher than the cost of declaring a nonface to be a face.”</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


rd

What's your point?

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">people have gotten so used to seeing faces everywhere that sensitivity to them is high enough to produce constant false positives.
Their sensitivity got so high that they saw them even when there was nothing there
The cost of missing a face is higher than the cost of declaring a nonface to be a face.
Non face objects may have certain features that are weakly triggering these face cells,” she said. “If you go above a certain threshold, the monkeys might think that they’re seeing a face
His studies of learning processes show that after the brain is bombarded with a stimulus, it continues to perceive that stimulus even when it is not present.
it represents a critical evolutionary adaptation, one that dwarfs side effects like seeing Beelzebub in a crumpled tissue. Rich

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

Interesting theory, but the evidence is ephemeral or weak at best, and no one doubts that we see faces in clouds for some of the reasons mentioned. But this says nothing about the issue of whether frequent elaborate pareidolia is a fact of nature or faked. Only good science will decide that issue. When Michaelangelo saw "God and Adam's faces" in the clouds, it gave him the idea for the theme of the Sistine Chapel. But your "logic" (and theory) seems to be saying that there is no way to tell the real Sistine from the "cloud faces."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

The “real important point here” is that your one year long effort to discredit the artificiality hypothesis is based on this kind of technique as a substitute for your lack any credible evidence.[nd]

The evidence is plastered all over this website. Here's one example [rd]:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think you may be getting confused. You showed my evidence not yours (see below one post). <b><i>Your</i></b> evidence has never been verified, substantiated, etc. We never know what we are really looking at.

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>
Relying on mainstream science (filtered through the NY Times no less) as you sole argument does not add to its veracity, This amounts to the "50 million Frenchmen" argument--another logical fallacy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Using the words of scientists from their studies is commonplace, but I doubt if they would be thrilled about their lifetime of studies being equated to the blatherings of "50 million Frenchmen". I guess I have more respect for someone whose taken the trouble to earn a PhD than you have.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Berating my use of logic (which is always explained) is ad hominum, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That may be true, <b>but pointing out that the use (overuse) of the word is different than the meaning of the word isn't.</b>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">BTW, one other logical fallacy you frequently employ is equivocation, the use of words with varying, floating, vague definitions in order to obfuscate meanings; as in equating "have little faith in" with “condemn,” and in equating, "tube conduit ruins" with "Martian rapid transit system.” And the like.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I refer you to the slide show Slide 27, where it says "Suggestions of functionality include water pipes or an environmentally protected underground rapid transit system." : www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydo...act_html/default.htm

Once again, I can't stress too strongly the importance of reading the material before you post.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The “real important point here” is that your one year long effort to discredit the artificiality hypothesis is based on this kind of technique as a substitute for your lack any credible evidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The evidence is plastered all over this website. Here's one example:



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Here is Tom’s opinion on your main thesis. (the Frequent, Elaborate, Pareidolia Hypothesis)

Here's how you could help us scientists with our Mars research, if you are inclined to help us at all. Tell us everything you can remember about the "canvas", the nature of the objects in the image. Were the bright patches lit by sunlight or artificial light? Why was the image mildly blurred? Why the contrast stretch? ............................................................
I understand if you are reluctant to do that. But at the same time, because the degree of staging has become an issue for the science, if you cannot provide such information to give the image a "scientific pedigree" (so to speak), we would likely be forced to exclude it from influencing our discussions. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">1. That quote was directed to Fred, not me.....and
2. I thought that quoting scientists to: "Relying on mainstream science ....... as you sole argument does not add to its veracity, This amounts to the "50 million Frenchmen" argument--another logical fallacy."
3. I understand your reluctance to comment on the study itself (excerpted in the previous message) but that still remains the substantive issue in this debate.

rd

<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 />What's your point?Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> <ul><li>people have gotten so used to seeing faces everywhere that sensitivity to them is high enough to produce constant false positives. </li><li>Their sensitivity got so high that they saw them even when there was nothing there </li><li>The cost of missing a face is higher than the cost of declaring a nonface to be a face. </li></ul> <ul><li>Nonface objects may have certain features that are weakly triggering these face cells,” she said. “If you go above a certain threshold, the monkeys might think that they’re seeing a face </li><li>His studies of learning processes show that after the brain is bombarded with a stimulus, it continues to perceive that stimulus even when it is not present. </li><li>it represents a critical evolutionary adaptation, one that dwarfs side effects like seeing Beelzebub in a crumpled tissue. </li></ul>

rd

Since this topic is dedicated to the furtherance of the artificiality hypothesis for Mars by means of the NASA verified evidence we have at our disposal, and logic applied to that evidence, we will proceed to the next step in our investigations.

I have begun the task of ranking the likelihood of artificiality by means of the visual evidence available at present, this may change as more evidence comes in, therefore it must be said that this is an evolving paradigm. As always I welcome any constructive input into this project.

Following is a “ranked” list of faces, now familiar to readers of these posts. Following the list will be more visual evidence.

1- <u><b>Cydonia face </b></u>– positive: sculpture, realism evident in several confirmations, details corresponding to a human face, lack of background noise or interference, proximity to other possible artifacts or structures; negative: one side of face severely damaged.
2- <u><b>Cavebear</b></u> – positive: photographic realism, good shading, one confirmation at higher resolution, proximity to other possible artifacts or structures; negative: some background noise, apparent flat art, limited detail
3- <u><b>Clown</b></u> – positive: realism in two confirmation images, extensive detail corresponding to a human face, proximity to other possible artifacts or structures; negative: extensive background noise, unfamiliar art style of mosaic, apparent flat art
4- <u><b>Profile Image </b></u>– positive: “Michelangelo-esque” art style, detail conforming to human face, good shading, two confirming images, proximity to other possible artifacts or structures; negative: background noise, limited detail due to medium resolution of images or damage, apparent flat art
5- <u><b>Curiosity </b></u>– positive: high degree of bilateral symmetry corresponding to a human face, sculpture; negative: medium to poor resolution of image, no confirmation images, excessive background noise
6-
7- <u><b>Saint</b></u> – positive: classic “stained glass” style art, good detail and proportionality conforming to that style, proximity to other possible artifacts or structures; negative: extensive background noise, medium resolution, no confirmation images, apparent flat art
8- <u><b>Parrot</b></u> – positive: detail and structure conforming to a familiar domestic animal (parrot), sculpture, proximity to other possible artifacts or structures, one confirming image; negative: can be explained as geological formation
9- <u><b>Easter Island Man </b></u>– positive: statue, two confirming images, similarity to familiar terrestrial art, no background noise; negative: poor image resolution
10- <u><b>Aladdin and Jinn </b></u>– positive: realistic art, good shading, good detail and proportions corresponding to human faces; negative: apparent flat art, no confirming images, medium resolution, strange or alien apparent theme, excessive background noise
11- <u><b>Crownface</b></u> – positive: realistic portrayal of handsome human face; negative: features or part of face missing or damaged, no confirming images, part of “strange mosaic,” face is north/south inverted within larger face, flat art
12- <u><b>Barbara</b></u> – positive: realistic, detailed human face, good shading, one confirming image; negative: large face over 2 km wide; details partially damaged or missing, Crownface is “strangely” inverted inside “hair” of large face, flat art, excessive background noise
13- <u><b>Guardian</b></u> – positive: face etched out of cliff or embankment, fair detail, part of “Parrotopia” mosaic; negative: large face, unlikely appearance of “baby face,” can be explained as natural formation
14- <u><b>Zorba</b></u> – positive: realistic, well proportioned, symmetrical “sketch-like” art; negative: fine detail can’t be discerned at this resolution, poor resolution for size of face, apparent flat art, excessive background noise
15- <u><b>Greta</b></u> – positive: realistic, well proportioned, symmetrical “sketch-like” art; negative: fine detail can’t be discerned at this resolution, poor resolution for size of face, apparent flat art; part of “strange mosaic,” excessive background noise, no confirming image
16- <u><b>Grant</b></u> – positive: realistic and good shading, corresponding to a human face; negative: excessive background noise, no confirming image, apparent flat art
17- <u><b>Sculptured Faces </b></u>- positive: mosaic of sculptures, realistic and good shading, corresponding to human faces, one confirming image; negative: excessive background noise, medium resolution at this scale
18- <u><b>Face in Triangle </b></u>– positive: sculpture, associated with triangle shaped structure, human like features; negative: medium resolution at this scale, excessive background noise
19- <u><b>M1800558 Face 1</b></u> – positive: well detailed eyes, good proportion, probable sculpture; negative: damaged or missing lower part of face, no confirming image
20- <u><b>Coprates Lady </b></u>– positive: highest resolution HIRISE image, good proportion and orientation, apparent construction marks or signatures visible; negative: poor detail in secondary features at this scale
21- <u><b>Hombre</b></u> – positive: good detail and proportion in stylized face, part of mosaic with related theme; negative: medium to poor resolution at this scale, no confirming image
22- <u><b>Nefertiti’s Family </b></u>– positive: part of Nefertiti (Profile Image) mosaic in same style, one confirming image, good shading and proportion; negative: faces very faint compared to Profile Image, medium detail
23- <u><b>Profile with Hands </b></u>– positive: well defined outline of profile with hands; negative: excessive background noise, no confirming image
24- <u><b>Mesa Man & Woman</b></u>—positive: thematic mosaic at fair resolution; negative: excessive background noise, no confirming image, flat art coupled with natural terrain features

(to be continued) (temporary note: I replied to rd's last two posts under my "what's your point?" comment 2-3 posts up. N)