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 Zip Monster</i>
<br />
See - The Journal of Mental Science, Volume 13, Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England), Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Medico-Psychological Association, Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, Oxford University, 1867, p238.

Link: books.google.com/books?id=UpIEAAAAQAAJ&q...q=pareidolia&f=false

Zip Monster

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

Didn't they still use leeches back in 1867?

++++++++++++++++++++++
www.livescience.com/25448-pareidolia.html

excerpt:


Carl Sagan, the American cosmologist and author, made the case that pareidolia was a survival tool. In his 1995 book, "The Demon-Haunted World Science as a Candle in the Dark," he argued that this ability to recognize faces from a distance or in poor visibility was an important survival technique. While this instinct enables humans to instantly judge whether an oncoming person is a friend or foe, Sagan noted that it could result in some misinterpretation of random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces.

Leonardo da Vinci wrote about pareidolia as an artistic device. "If you look at any walls spotted with various stains or with a mixture of different kinds of stones, if you are about to invent some scene you will be able to see in it a resemblance to various different landscapes adorned with mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, plains, wide valleys, and various groups of hills," he wrote in a passage in one of his extensive notebooks.

Sometimes artists use this phenomenon to their advantage by embedding hidden images in their work. Observers often view other objects in Georgia O'Keeffe's flower paintings, for example.

In 1971, the Latvian writer and intellectual Konstant#299;ns Raudive detailed what he believed was the discovery of electronic voice phenomenon (EVP). EVP has been described as "auditory pareidolia." The allegations of hidden messages in popular music have also been described as auditory pareidolia.

The Rorschach inkblot test uses pareidolia in an attempt to gain insight into a person's mental state. Since the cards have been designed without any specific image in mind, this is an example of "directed pareidolia."

rd

Words can change in meaning over time. This is especially true in the world of politics. For example, 'liberal' used to mean pretty much what libertarian means today. (Not exactly - pretty much.) By the middle of the 20th century liberal was a nice thing to say about some one. People we would call left wingers these days began using it to refer to themselves so that by the 60s it was common to hear it used to describe both groups of people but also common for the average person to not be aware of this dual meaning.

So scholars and some writers began to talk about 'classical liberals' vs. 'liberals' to make the distinction explicit. JFK was a classical liberal but was almost always called a liberal in the press.

***

If pareidolia originally had a meaning with psychiatric implications, it seems to have changed over the decades. It is clearly not being used that way here. So to say that this discussion is based on a 'fabrication' (because of using this word without it's alleged original connotation) is to suggest intent. I think that would have to be demonstrated fairly strongly to not be chuckled at.

But suppose it is? Then what?

Here is one possibility - we all just pick another word (maybe one that is easier to read/say? - but similar in some way - such as monodolia) and replace each occurrence of the old word with the new word.

***

And of course we have the fabricator shot at dawn. Discussion?

Regards,
LB

<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 />Words can change in meaning over time.

... It [pareidolia] is clearly not being used that way here. So to say that this discussion is based on a 'fabrication' (because of using this word without it's alleged original connotation) is to suggest intent. I think that would have to be demonstrated fairly strongly to not be chuckled at.
***LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I couldn't agree more. I think the evolution of the word is pretty clear by now, although it would be interesting to see if one could track the migration of the word from 1867 to 1994.

skepdic.com/pareidol.html

I think by now we're all pretty clear on the modern day meaning with the exception that there are sub-categories. As I've said before, I'm not really interested in man-made objects like a radio, whose dials knobs give the impression of eyes and a mouth. That type of "face" is often lumped in with the image of Jesus in a piece of toast.

I prefer to stick to those images that are clearly not man-made in that shape deliberately. So, Toast Jesus would count, but the radio wouldn't.

Regarding being shot at dawn, I do detect a certain amount of frustration in the AOH crowd, so I wouldn't want to give them any ideas! [:0]

rd

Pareidolia further discussion in relation to the images observed on the Martian surface

spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2013/10/Hebes_Chasma

The difficulty in evaluating Martian imagery is that in examples where artificiality is claimed, the image typically shows only one striking formation with familiar dimensional properties. Rarely noticed is there more than one form or impression that exhibits a message or pictorial continuity.

So what is it, in an apparent vision of an image that makes; what we see an artificial design (that being of a preconceived production of intelligence) as opposed to a fabrication of something we think we see? In many ways, this lies at the essence of pareidolia.

So to determine, if photographic evidence has a perceived design or an apparent artificial construction, we must first evaluate if there is any discernible signs of intelligence in addition to the initial viewpoint qualities. Moreover, if there is any indication of intelligence that can be reasonably observed either as intent or conceptual (to the degree of recognizable morality or integrity), then in this case, the result should dissolve the probability of Pareidolia and lend credibility to the possibility of artificial origin.

By contrast, if an image of Jesus is found in a slice of toast, most will conclude that in all likelihood, the image is a natural formation. This is because the probability of an intelligence having a hand in its production can be presumed; highly unlikely. However, there is always the exception of course; if the observer is of the persuasion that subscribes to the magic of their faith; he/she will promptly declare; this must be the work of God! And who can argue with that.

I think it is fair to say that in most creations of design whether symbolic, hieroglyphic or pictorial, the motivation and purpose behind its creation is to communicate. So, in communication, we see one form of intelligence who conveys..and another intelligence who in meant to receive.

For example; If we can imagine for just a moment a hypothetical prehistoric man who lives in just his three dimensional world of pure survival, one day enters into a cave and there before him, sees on the cave wall some paintings of wild animals, although he may recognize their shapes, out of fear he promptly throws his spear at the cave wall.

i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsev...ting_zpsca7247d4.jpg

So, the images our prehistoric man is experiencing for the first time - has something missing; the cave art have only two dimensions and as such, for a moment, the cave man experiences the reality of a different dimension perspective and thus becomes utterly confused!

In this example, a more advanced intelligence is attempting to communicate and being received by a lesser intelligence. As the caveman has no idea how the renderings were conceived, he experiences a paradigm shift of consciousness and for that one simple reason.

In the Hebes Chasma region, we see a similar parallel. Clearly observable are images which represent familiar life scenarios. For example, one image portrays the process of live food consumption by means of a huge pictorial rendition of a Labrador type dog in motion with the head of an alien bird of sorts in its mouth. The bird appears to have been killed with a quite discernible arrow through its beak. The resulting damage to its beak can be seen and is ingeniously contrived.

The point which I am trying to make is; the images we see here in Hebes appear to have been created by a means of a yet unknown application and as a consequence, we have great difficulty in understanding the resulting forms and even greater difficulty in accepting their message.

i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsev...ated_zps589dd332.jpg

This cleverly portrays the need to possibly hunt for either survival orfor sporting reasons. A feasible duplication of ethical morality perhaps? And, as we see further down the Mesa wall about 25 kilometers west, is a similar birdlike rendition as seen in the Labradors mouth but this time, the flying bird has in its mouth.the head of a snake, presumably signifying the acquisition of food for the birds survival.

i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsev...t001_zps474e65f6.jpg

What is also quite apparent is the obvious impression of depicting almost cartoonish features of caricature impressionism. For future note, it is important to grasp the use of this technique as case in point; the cartoon seems to have some great significance to the creator(s) as this surrealistic signature is seen quite frequently throughout the surface.

In another image we will see a deep message of the principle of greed and how humanity has vilified excess and labeled it as that of the devil with the distinctive shape of a leaping goat headed creature. (This pictorial rendition shows better if the image if Hebes image is rotated right by 80 degrees).

i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsev...Head_zpsd11ed110.jpg

As the message unveils, we see a huge pictograph of that which I have termed "The Pirate". This is a beautiful creation and can be seen quite clearly where the Pirate is observed from his right side as he strides forward and his right arm is swinging up across and towards this viewpoint. His shoes can be seen in the lower length of his stride. In his hand, there is a conceptual mass of something valuable. As his arm swings, it seems directed toward a contrived "treasure chest" located on his right side. Now what makes this image so ingenious is that this chest is interwoven as the head of the demon goat! And, to the right of the body of the goat, another portrayal of a devils head is seen in profile showing his left facial side looking on, sporting a distinctive and appropriate pointed chin.

Note: For the researcher, pay particular attention to the artwork of the Pirates jacket sleeve and epaulet and viewed from distance, under the armpit, one can just make out his musket.

i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsev...lose_zps9c08a410.jpg

I was personally quite taken back at just how very clever morality is portrayed. Immediately I remembered the saying; that greed is the route of all evil! A truly remarkable construction in esthetic design and creation!

In another, we see the age old Japanese fable of the Three Monkeys classic; "hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil". Interestingly; this huge plateau protrusion located on the south wall of the Mesa wall has been morally adjusted. We see here the modification whereby the Monkey who speaks no evil is shown depicting a long forked tongue. Again, we acknowledge the message being conveyed. It is deep and quite profound.

i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsev...blue_zps640f81c4.jpg

There are a number of other artistic renderings in this huge Chasma, can you see them?

Here is the overhead image of Hebes with locations (should be downloaed)
i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsev...ious_zpsf56ead12.jpg

Malcolm Scott

Malcolm,

In my experience, what's obvious to one person is rarely obvious to another...unless it is:

No one could argue that these are artworks, created by an intelligent hand. Since we started this thread back in 2006, I have not seen one image from the Mars data that had this kind of impact on a person upon close inspection.

I came across and interesting discussion of "computer pareidolia":

www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2...in-computers/260760/

This quote seem appropriate:

<i>"Pareidolia was once thought of as a symptom of psychosis, but is now recognized as a normal, human tendency. Carl Sagan theorized that hyper facial perception stems from an evolutionary need to recognize -- often quickly -- faces. He wrote in his 1995 book, The Demon-Haunted World, "As soon as the infant can see, it recognizes faces, and we now know that this skill is hardwired in our brains. Those infants who a million years ago were unable to recognize a face smiled back less, were less likely to win the hearts of their parents, and less likely to prosper.""</i>

What I don't like about the article is that it's almost exclusively based on the type of pareidolia that I ruled out at the very beginning of this topic. The kind I called "man-made faces" that aren't really faces but are everyday objects as seen on this site:

www.flickr.com/groups/hellolittlefella/

Here's an example:

In my opinion, this type of thing muddies the waters. We aren't interested in man-made objects that look like faces, we were trying to determine if something <b>WAS man-made (Martian-made) or not.</b>

I find it a little disturbing that the discussion of pareidolia has gone almost exclusively in that [wrong] direction.

rd