Faces from the Chasmas

<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 />I think you failed to notice that the seeds do not qualify as pareidolia by my definition (because they are the result of biological programming) or by yours (because they are living entities).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Hmmmmm. This is a tough one. I never said "dead plants" were excluded, but I agree that a human or animal skull would not be pareidolia.

You have to remember that this picture of the seed capsules was picked because others considered it to be pareidolia and posted it on the web as such. Also, because the word is so new, I decided it was fair game for a consensus definition.

Plus, like I said, if a Martian saw them, he would have no known way (by any tests you've talked about) to tell which is which. So, I'm leaning toward revising my definition to allow this.

Also, I don't buy the notion that Pompador Head's features aren't 3D and that they "go away" on different viewing/lighting tests. I don't live that far from it, so I might have to go for a visit and take photos.

I would like to preempt objections to my letting the definition of pareidolia migrate. Remember when we were kids, and someone said, "ain't", and then someone else invariably said, "ain't ain't in the dictionary"?

Well, not only is it in the dictionary, now, but the British use the word pretty much the same way we do, and they think they "own" the English language.

Main Entry: ain't
Pronunciation: 'Ant
Etymology: contraction of are not
1 : am not : are not : is not
2 : have not : has not
3 : do not : does not : did not -- used in some varieties of Black English
usage Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing to catch attention and to gain emphasis &lt;the wackiness of movies, once so deliciously amusing, <i>ain't </i>funny anymore -- Richard Schickel&gt; &lt;I am telling you--there <i>ain't </i>going to be any blackmail -- R. M. Nixon&gt;. It is used especially in journalistic prose as part of a consistently informal style &lt;the creative process <i>ain't </i>easy -- Mike Royko&gt;. This informal ain't is commonly distinguished from habitual ain't by its frequent occurrence in fixed constructions and phrases &lt;well--class it <i>ain't </i>-- Cleveland Amory&gt; &lt;for money? say it <i>ain't </i>so, Jimmy! -- Andy Rooney&gt; &lt;you <i>ain't </i>seen nothing yet&gt; &lt;that <i>ain't </i>hay&gt; &lt;two out of three <i>ain't </i>bad&gt; &lt;if it <i>ain't </i>broke, don't fix it&gt;. In fiction ain't is used for purposes of characterization; in familiar correspondence it tends to be the mark of a warm personal friendship. It is also used for metrical reasons in popular songs &lt;<i>Ain't </i>She Sweet&gt; &lt;It <i>Ain't </i>Necessarily So&gt;. <b>Our evidence shows British use to be much the same as American. </b>
rd

Tom, while we're in this mode of giving and getting the "third degree" on some of this stuff, can we get one other thing out of the way?

It's on the subject of "does or does not, elaborate pareidolia exist?"

Both Fred's and Alexander Boe's artworks would certainly pass your test for pareidolia. They are in fact, by definition, pareidolia.

I've brought this up in direct refutation of Neil's claim that no such thing exists, but he chooses to dodge the question, so let me ask you.

Would you concede that both Fred's and Alexander's art work qualifies as "elaborate"? If you need a scale to work with, choose the midpoint of complexity in the Faces topic.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Would you concede that both Fred's and Alexander's art work qualifies as "elaborate"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My electronic dictionary is running out of electrons from overuse. [] But for "elaborate", it says: "having many different parts or a lot of detail, and organized in a complicated way". So if I say "yes, I agree that such pareidolia exists", Neil will just say he is talking about "really elaborate pareidolia".

You see the problem -- How elaborate? It is purely a subjective judgment unless one devises a measure for elaborateness.

My "3D" axiom was a first attempt to come up with a specific criterion that has some objectivity to it. -|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 />So if I say "yes, I agree that such pareidolia exists", Neil will just say he is talking about "really elaborate pareidolia".

You see the problem -- How elaborate? It is purely a subjective judgment unless one devises a measure for elaborateness.

My "3D" axiom was a first attempt to come up with a specific criterion that has some objectivity to it. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ok, that's a start. In this case though, I think Fred's method of counting "corresponding features" has alot of merit. While, I stand by the fact that counting alone can't be used to determine whether or not it's pareidolia, it certainly can be used as a scale of "elaborateness".

And when we approach it this way, it's very easy to see that Fred's art is far more elaborate on this scale, then the majority of the images in this topic. Ok, so let's take it one step farther. (I want to try to avoid using a fallacious arguement here). Now, in fairness, I don't believe Neil has actually claimed that all his images are "elaborate", but to him they "passed muster on artificiality", so he posted them. Then he objected to the notion that they could be considered pareidolia, because nobody has ever seen an example of elaborate pareidolia. However, when I presented Fred's work, he never came back and said, well yes they're pareidolia, and they are more elaborate than alot of my images, he just ignored the subject.

Do you see the dillema? I think Neil has to come to grips with the fact that pareidolia exists, and that there are many examples of pareidolia more elaborate than what he is claiming as having sufficient elaborateness to qualify them as Martian Artworks.

As far as I can remember, all Neil ever said about Fred and Alexander's works is that we have no proof of authenticity. In other words, he cried "fraud."

As O'Reilly would say, "where am I going wrong?"

rd

rd says "And when we approach it this way, it''s very easy to see that Fred''s art is far more elaborate on this scale, then the majority of the images in this topic."
Fred says: "Einstein" with at least 35 countable features is THE MOST elaborate pareidolia ever recorded, by far, not just the majority. It has at least twice as many countable features which makes it at least 1000 times as complex as anything i've seen so far. Maybe Tom could calculate exactly how many times more complex 35 features would be when compared to 16. "Einstein" was a sacred "freak" shot. i have nothing to really compare to it in complexity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />As O'Reilly would say, "where am I going wrong?"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are "going wrong" by reverting once again into thinking that Neil is trying to prove his images are artificial. He is not. Some of them might very well be pareidolia, as Neil has already agreed.

Neil is looking at evidence of possible secondary artificiality -- things that cannot be proved artificial by themselves, but are entitled to be thought of as possibly artificial when trying to piece together evidence of functionality on a planet known to have primary artificiality elsewhere.

So I don't see where the elaborateness issue has any meaning for Neil because he already agrees (I think) that any particular image could be paradolic. Just as you were trying out the hypothesis that "it's all pareidolia", Neil is trying out the hypothesis "it's all artificial" to see where that takes him. Both extremes are wrong, but trying out them is the right thing to do to help us develop objective criteria. -|Tom|-