My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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 />that just proves the validity of what they are testing for: If you believe they are there, you'll find them, if not, you won't!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But as I explained, that is because subjects tend to trust what they are told by professionals, and the power of suggestion.

If I were told that "S"es were there, as I described, I would learn to lower my expectations until something I saw qualified as an "S", even if it was not a credible "S" to me. Believing they were there would most emphatically not cause me to start seeing "S"es, but would cause me to lower my expectations of what the scientists were calling an "S" shape to include any sort of vague, fragmentary "S". -|Tom|-

<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 />Because the subject IS TOLD to EXTRACT the letter S from white noise, the subject attempts to match his/her knowledge of an S with the incoming white noise. To the extent that white noise correlates with all possible patterns, if there is a SMALL but systematic correlation between the knowledge of the subject and the incoming white noise then the subtraction explained above will capture it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay, now I get it. That wouldn't have worked for me because I saw nothing in the instructions about the "S" being upright or the size of the image. I would have been looking for small "S"es at random orientations and would never have selected images that would sum to anything but more white noise.

Also, believing that a pattern existed and producing a statistical sum did not enable any real "S" images to be found in any single image.

So how can this be applicable to what we are seeing on Mars, which consists of a few cases of single images with impressive and unique details that anyone can see? -|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 />Also, believing that a pattern existed and producing a statistical sum did not enable any real "S" images to be found in any single image.
So how can this be applicable to what we are seeing on Mars, which consists of a few cases of single images with impressive and unique details that anyone can see?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

These are great questions, and now we're getting to the heart of issue. Remember, I mentioned that I had one question (which was answered) and one follow-up question, which I'm waiting on? Well, my follow-up is right to the point of your first point here. I'll report back when I get more information.

Regarding your second point, I would like to give you one idea I have. The key word is "find" rather than "see". If someone <b>finds</b> an image in a noisy background, they can usually (although not always - ask jrich) explain that image, or draw keys to depict it, such that others can see it also. But, it is during the <b>finding</b> phase that these ideas come into play. Once the small but systematic representation of a face or whatever is found, it can be pointed out.

Now, remember where I stand on the whole issue of artificiality. I still think it's possible that some of this stuff is artificial (the city of Parrotopia is the best example I know of), and that someday we may be forced to accept that an ancient civilization once populated Mars. I'm certainly not in the camp that says: "No civilization, therefore no artifacts." But, I'm also not in the camp that says, "I see it, therefore it is." What I am saying though, is that the vast majority of the so-called faces could easily be random chance harvested from the landscape, much the way Fred Ressler learned to harvest people from the shadows. Once they are "found", the controversy begins, but the mere act of finding them doesn't make them any more <b>real</b> than Ressler's subjects.

rd

<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 /><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 />So, I made the same mistake you are making.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What is that mistake? I still don't get it. How did an "S" get into the sum of white noise unless it wasn't really "white"? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, your statement is like claiming that because all lottery drawings are random, no winning number will ever be chosen.

JR

<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 />"My point of relaying this to you is to show that even under the worst possible condition of information (i.e. absence of it, white noise), people will systematically perceive things. I wish to stress this: they will PERCEIVE something. They are not deluding themselves. If they were (i.e. if there was no systematic correlation between some white noise templates and their knowledge), box a would be a uniform gray." (PG Schyns)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I want to make one more point on this, and how I think it relates to the Mars dilemma. The key sentences are: "I wish to stress this: they will PERCEIVE something. They are not deluding themselves. If they were (i.e. if there was no systematic correlation between some white noise templates and their knowledge), box a would be a uniform gray."

As it pertains to Mars, I think that last sentence would read: <b>If they were (i.e., if there was no systematic correlation between some noisy landscape, and their knowledge), they would never, under any circustances, be able to point these features out to another person.</b>

When viewed this way, you can see that they really are finding faces. Real faces. But artificiality is a whole nuther issue.



rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />But the chance of an entire face being so "absolutely correct" that one would identify it with some person down the street....

the odds against this being natural are astronomical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's why I leave the door open to the possibility that some of these really are artificial. What I'm attempting to show, is that the line between pareidolia and artificial can be very gray and wide, and that it's personal. As a matter of fact, there may even be something paradoxical at work, where the better one is at finding faces, the more likely they are to be pareidolia.

rd