My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Larry Burford- There is no pattern recognition error when i see a face in a shadow and say that is a pareidolic face. If i say that face is a real human face then i am crazy, hallucinating under PRE, apophenic etc. Pareidolia is merely a pattern that is similar to the appearance of an everyday material object or being.

<b>[pareidoliac] "... no PRE ..."</b>

Nomenclature.

Have I mentioned that accurate communication is a LOT harder than it ought to be?

***

I walk into my den and look at one of the marble tiles. My built-in pattern recognition software says "DING - naked girl"

I know its not a girl, or even a picture or drawing of a girl. It is just a random collection of lines and areas that mimic a picture or a drawing of a naked girl. And BTW it is a seriously good mimic. Not quite Playboy ready, but still ...

So, my pattern recognizer made (and continues to make) a mistake, and I am aware of this. I can compensate and survive.

***

Assume that we agree to abandon the word pareidolia. (It used to be explicitly about a mental disease. It no longer is, but some people use that history to claim victim status when it is used in their presence.) Do you have an alternative suggestion for a name for this ... phenomenon?

To all - comments?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Larry Burford- There is no pattern recognition error when i see a face in a shadow and say that is a pareidolic face. If i say that face is a real human face then i am crazy, hallucinating under PRE, apophenic etc. Pareidolia is merely a pattern that is similar to the appearance of an everyday material object or being.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree wholeheartedly.

The "error" part of this discussion only came into play when I brought up the new computer algorithms and how they can sometimes find "B" even though they are programmed to find "A". In that case, pareidolia, is synonymous with "error".

<b>But not in the human kind. </b> As Fred said, yes if we actually think "Nefertiti (the Profile Girl)" is a real girl, then we're freaking nutso, but if we know it's a pattern that looks like a girl, that's pareidolia, whether it's here on Earth or in the Martian landscape.

Also, I can go out and find faces in the trees all day long. Or I can look at a HiRise image strip and find faces at will. Or I can look at the wall in Yosemite and find faces all day long. There's no error involved.

We can't change the definition of a word just because someone's feelings are hurt.

rd

<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 /><b>[pareidoliac] "... clouds, wood grain, marble, smoke, shadows, fire or any non-homogeneous everyday material where the material is made by nature without man's intervention."</b>

Iron oxide rich soil, shaped by aeons of natural processes, either similar to those on Earth or perhaps different, fits perfectly as a non-homogeneous material. And it is also everyday. It has been, every day for a long long time.

But, if anyone disagrees we should probably consider adding a new definition to our list. Its name might be something along the lines of "pareidolia (Mars)" or perhaps pareidolia (extra terrestrial).


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

Yes I do agree we can analyze and evaluate the Martian surface as to patterns and structures and processes of its rich iron oxide surface. we can also evaluate if those patterns have been created by natural fluvial or aeolian processes. In addition, we can also evaluate IF there is evidence which shows if the surface has been modified in some way by "unnatural" processes thus defining possible artificiality. This is good science.

BUT DO NOT CALL THE EVALUATION - PAREIDOLIA. This is a human condition/experience which has been misinterpreted and bantered about to be responsible for the anomalies seen on Mars. And it is wrong.

More so because it has led potential researchers to believe that the images observed are merely a process of this human condition and one that has connotations of a MENTAL DISORDER! And, if one refers to the original meaning, this indeed IS the case.

You might not believe this connotation, but for sure, this IS the way this has been interpreted "out there" and as such, has stifled important research into the field of possible real Alien anomalies visible in the image data received thus far.

For me, this is why I am so insistent that this "myth" be dispelled.

If we need to call this anything when an anomaly is discovered and cannot be explained as a natural process and further, that the target data point appears to depict "Intent in a perceived Design" I suggest we name the anomaly a "PAD" for possible artificial design and remove the word pareidolia right out of the equation.

I am not suggesting here that the subject be banned only that it be moved to its rightful forum of Terrestrial Science.

Malcolm Scott

<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 />So, my pattern recognizer made (and continues to make) a mistake, and I am aware of this. I can compensate and survive.

***

Assume that we agree to abandon the word pareidolia. (It used to be explicitly about a mental disease. It no longer is, but some people use that history to claim victim status when it is used in their presence.) Do you have an alternative suggestion for a name for this ... phenomenon?

To all - comments?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I just looked out my back window at the giant fir trees, and there are faces coming out the yingyang. I knew I would find some, so there was no error involved.

Changing the definition of the word pareidolia because someone's feathers are getting ruffled is sort of like changing the word "ebola" to "rash" just because people are getting scared.

I'm totally opposed to it.

"Pareidolia" is a wonderful thing, whether it's found on Earth or on Mars where the landscape is rich and has the exact right spacial resolution needed for pareidolia soup.

rd

<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 />If we need to call this anything when an anomaly is discovered and cannot be explained as a natural process and further, that the target data point appears to depict "Intent in a perceived Design" I suggest we name the anomaly a "PAD" for possible artificial design and remove the word pareidolia right out of the equation.

I am not suggesting here that the subject be banned only that it be moved to its rightful forum of Terrestrial Science.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This topic belongs here, because that's where the controversy rages (as you can see).

You're free to call things what you want.

To me, pareidolia is pareidolia.

Nobody is forcing you to post (or even read) this Topic. Maybe you should just concentrate on posting your "proof" in a new Topic. Let the world see what you got.

rd