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 Larry Burford</i>

Good question. Perhaps we ought to re-define pareidolia(??) as 'sometimes things look like other things'.

A good name for this definition might be 'duh'


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

"Pareidolia" (ressler +rev 1 and others) means nothing more or less than pattern-seeing. Pattern seeing or pareidolia (ressler)is one of the most primary and important functions there is. Albert Einstein saw the pattern that formed in his mind by seeing the pattern of the direction the work of other scientists pointed to. Coltrane saw the patterns of "sheets of sounds" like fractal waves. He saw the pattern to no pattern with modal music. Everything is pattern (yin) and consciousness (yang) the two arms of the infinite spiral.

<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 />Most, if not all, of us do this as well. But in the middle of a firestorm you often don't feel like taking the time to go back. It's too much like slowing down.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I understand. My point is that I've always viewed this form of communication (email, blog, message boards) as roughly equivalent to talking. So the same things apply:

<b>A. One person talking:</b>

You have a thought, and you say it. No response is expected. This can be found randomly throughout all communications, interspersed with...

<b>B. Two people talking:</b>

In the ideal case, you're listening to each other, and respond in sort of a linear fashion, responding and/or adding to what was just said. At other times, you're not really listening, but just waiting for the other guy to finish talking (lol) so you can say the next thing you want to say. Either person at any time may throw in something as in "A".

<b>C. A Group Discussion:</b> (as in a business meeting)

There is a primary topic, usually, and each of you have input. At times any one, two, or more of the participants will engage in "A" or "B", but the idea is that everybody is paying attention. If some guy/gal at a meeting on the subject of an approaching meteor starts talking about his dog, not everyone is going to consider that appropriate, but one or two might.

There is a certain amount of turn-taking, interjections, replies to specific people, and so on. If it gets out of control, someone of authority, might rein the meeting back into order, sort of like you did when you forced us to clarify our meanings, and so on.

I think looking at it like we're all talking to each other puts it in the proper perspective, and assigns a certain amount of responsibility to the participants to pay attention.

I don't mean to pontificate, but on blogs where there are a lot of out of context comments and/or criticisms, where you can tell someone just jumped in out of nowhere, I think of it exactly the same as if someone just walked into your meeting and said something totally out of context, and won't take them seriously until they "come up to speed." Usually, that kind of person won't come up to speed.

rd

<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 />
"Pareidolia" (ressler +rev 1 and others) means nothing more or less than pattern-seeing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Fred, a thought just occurred to me about "face-recognition" on cameras. I have a Nikon Coolpix (point and shoot 5x Optical Zoom 7M pixel)camera, that's a very good camera for every day use, but not what you'd call a "really good" or "professional" camera.

But this little camera has a Face Recognition feature on it, that sort of works ok. But what I don't know, because I really don't know much about cameras, and I can't find the book, is if that face recognition algorithm only works for something within a few feet of you. In other words, if you point it at trees you are in "infinity focus" mode, and I don't know if the feature even works for that. I tried pointing it at the trees behind my house with that on, but it never grabbed a capture (of a face).

Do you have that on your camera? Do you know if it can work at infinity? I may try at closer range on some trees or shadows. I don't see why it wouldn't work, except for the infinity question.

rd

Rich - did YOU see a face in those trees?

Look for a pareidolia(modern) face some where (anywhere), then point the camera at it and see what happens. Repeat a few times just for good scientific technique.

Repeat with several dozen different 'faces'(modern) to see if any patterns emerge.

LB

rd- i never used face recognition on a camera. i would just try first hand experience tests. It seems as if faces should be recognized as long as the camera is in proper focus. i would really like to see a high quality pareidolia (ressler) finding camera. i sort of feel the way you do about clock faces when i see the guy with polygon generated face finding. They all look the same- like something from a man made generator (which they are).

For the sake of those who may not have read this Topic from the beginning, I want to re-post something I touched on at the beginning of this Topic on <b>"Face-like Feature at West Candor Chasma"</b>, Mars MGS Image AB108403, <i>{Horace W. Crater, The University of Tennessee Space Institute, B.H. Goethert Parkway, Tullahoma, TN 37388-8897, Jean Pierre Levasseur, Northern Maine Technical College, Presque Isle, ME 04769}</i> This was the famous "Skullface" feature.

Perhaps this will give some people the incentive to re-investigate this whole issue.

Here is the paper from Crater and Levasseur: spsr.utsi.edu/articles/jsesft7a.html

Note Section 2, (copied here):

(excerpt):
<b>2. Comparison of the Two Doctors' Analyses</b>

Two optometrists with no prior awareness of any theories of artificial objects on Mars independently validated the authors' impressions of eye-like features on the head-like formation in the 8403 image. Surprisingly, the doctors required very little prompting, both immediately and independently reaching for their rulers to measure the dimensions of the features. Both also independently noted numerous external parts of the eyes.

The doctors were allowed to use whichever media they preferred. Although Dr. Savage's computer displayed a better image, he was content with more approximate measurements. The printed image Dr. Small used was bigger so may have prompted more meticulous measurements. Dr. Small made more of an effort to measure the eyes individually. Dr. Small made a measurement that Dr. Savage did not do, horizontal lid aperture.

The doctors had slightly different numbers representing known dimensions of average human eyes but they still were compatible. Both doctors found the Skullface eyes proportional to human eyes. In summary (see appendix):

Both doctors saw two Skullface eyes.
Both doctors independently identified the main external parts of each of the Skullface eyes.
Both doctors noted the eyes are slightly different but yet both saw them as a matched pair.
Both doctors stated (although in different ways) that the two eyes seem to work together in tandem, fixing on a target, or staring off. One doctor used the term "binocularity".
Both doctors showed that the Skullface eyes and their spacing are numerically proportional to those of human eyes by making basic measurements of the external parts.
Both doctors expressed the opinion that the Skullface eyes are a very good graphical representation of real human eyes.

Dr. Small also pointed out what he interpreted as the upper tarsal section of the right eyelid, the crease of the upper eyelid where the skin of the lid folds as it elevates. He also said that each of the eyes has two eyelids, a crease of skin under the lower one. He noted how the upper lids are bigger than the bottom ones and how at the nasal corner there is what could be interpreted as a two-part fleshy muscle called the plica/semilunaris. Both doctors noted the white part of the eyes, the sclera.

Fig. 4. Description of the eye measurements made by optometrists.

Although neither doctor is prepared to say for sure these features are artificial, they both concede the eye-like features have the proper proportions and specific detail of real human eyes. As a result, both doctors independently validated our above impressions, immediately identifying the external parts one would expect in a pair of human eyes. Their detailed measurements add significant credibility to our claim that these are realistic eye-like features. Figure 4 shows a human figure depicting some of the measurements the doctors made.
(end of excerpt)

Now some years later, a new and better high resolution camera, again captured an image strip with this feature. I believe it was a "public demand" capture. That newer and better high resolution image (see discussion and images at beginning of topic) pretty much turned out to be a total non-confirmation and took the wind out of both Carter and Levasseur. I think you will find, for the most part, they sort of lost interest after this. The new image was devastating, in that it was virtually proof that they were analyzing a bit of extremely elaborate pareidolia (modern).

But look at the detail from the two doctors. Isn't this proof that "elaborate pareidolia (modern)" exists? Those were two men who weren't even aware of the controversy.

If someone ever comes a long in the years to come and picks this up from here, I seriously believe there is a wealth of material in Neil's "Faces in the Chasma" topic. Imagine if all of those are pareidolic (modern) images? Now that's the direction that face recognition software should be going. Use it on the MSSS strips. It's all documented in Neil's topic, where they are to be found, and what they are looking for.

rd