My pareidolia knows no bounds.

>> is to kick the object in question

Ah, you are saying that you need more data. I infer that you agree that on first observation, you could not determine which one was the balloon and which was the rock.

Oh yeah.

That's probably the main sub-topic or sub-theme of a thread like this. An image of something that looks like a thing we recognize may or may not be the thing we think we recognize. More data will probably help us resolve the issue.

How much more data? Not much, if you can reach it with your toe.

A whole bunch, if we have to wait for something like "Tires On The Ground" (a very interesting topic elsewhere on this board).

LB

After reading all the new posts, I'd like to define two words: <b>"psychological" and "real" </b>

<b><u>Reference:</b></u>: encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

<b><u>Definition:</b></u>

<b>Psychological</b>

1. Of or relating to psychology: psychological research.
2. Of, relating to, or arising from the mind or emotions. (***we're using this definition)
3. Influencing or intended to influence the mind or emotions: psychological warfare.
4. Of or being any of certain primary colors whose mixture may be subjectively conceived as producing other colors.

<b><u>Name:</b></u>: modern

=====================================================================

<b><u>Reference:</b></u>: encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

<b><u>Definition:</b></u>

<b>Real</b>
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness. (***again, this one)
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.(***and this one)
c. Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.

2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility.
3. Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend.
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.

<b><u>Name:</b></u>: modern

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br />
You may want to print some of Neil's images before you try this experiment.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Good point, shando. I will take that into consideration.

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 />Perhaps definitions that refer to pareidolia(most defs) as being 'psychological in nature' are now obsolete?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Perhaps.

This latest discussion has forced me to realize that I am an adherent of the version of pareidolia (ressler).

Up to now we've been discussing (defining/recording) the <b>definitions</b> of pareidolia. But now, we're getting into the question of <b>which definition do we believe in</b>.

As you can see in the previous post where I define "Psychological" and "real", the question is which came first: the idea in the mind, or the pattern?

I say in the vast majority of cases, the patterns are real. Then the mind captures the pattern and "creates" or "becomes aware of" the fact that it looks like something unusual. In Larry's case, obviously the nude lady wasn't laying in the tiles. There was no physical human naked lady there. But the pattern <b>was real.</b>

I think that's true in almost every case. The patterns are real, and we see them, and we think they look like something we know.

Now, on the other hand, if you're sitting in an all white room, and you see a little green man sitting in the corner, and there really isn't one there, that's a hallucination which falls under the category of pareidolia (original).

So, I'm going to be forced to say, I agree with Larry's supposition and that pareidolia (modern) is obsolete. I can't think of a reason why or when or how we've been talking about something that arises in the mind first. Nefertiti is there just as much as you or I are here. It's a <b>real </b>pattern. It's not a real artwork though. That's why it is an example of pareidolia (ressler).

And so on...

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br />
(Hmmm ... define REAL please.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Done.

rd