My pareidolia knows no bounds.

A very intriguing topic to say the least and a wonderful insights provided by all, I do have to say though, a my two cents worth, Walt posts, even though they were accompanied by biblical quotations, one may agree that the imageas which have been grey scaled, not only of the surface of mars namely cydonia, but also of various constellations (i.e. orions belts, etc)begs the question, it is a Grand design, a architectural orchestra of intelligence which was poured in to its creation.

It seems though through good argument it has been accepted that Malcolm's premisses for intelligent design, though the term parabolic architecture is deemed to be an acceptable truth, we may kindly look at Walt's work in the same magnitute, where its accompanied by scripture or not, the fact remains he got it right, would you agree Malcolm Scott?

An error is something that does not conform to a previous man made idea. There are no "errors" in reality (Hindu/Perelman/Bohm). Categories are other than imperative. How about speaking like will be people someday hopefully and get beyond Kant and Newton and Descartes and into QUANTUM most likely HOLOGRAPHIC reality. Can we as least agree that Descartes had it all wrong about DUALISM and separation of mind and body as well as separate objects which act mechanically. MATTER is an idea. Some ideas match up closer to reality (all) than others. Consciousness and pattern match up closer. We have been made to think like mechanics day and night. There are at least 6 higher levels than this mundane mechanical scientific level. A monist can not converse with a dualist.

LB- If you are a scientist interested in pareidolia (all)and are in touch with the scientific community how about getting someone to study pareidolia (all) to see if there if there is a connection between the mind and the body. Does the pareidolic shadow photographer influence what he sees the way Nietzsche and the Hindu school imply.

Looks to me like the word 'error' is being used here with several meanings. And as long as that continues it will be very easy to miscommunicate. In fact, miscommunication is essentially guaranteed.

Hmm.

<b>[rderosa] "... a false-positive ... &lt;is&gt; not an error(?)."</b>

HS - false positives and false negatives are the epitome of an error(?). Almost by definition.

***

Of course, if either of us knew for sure what the other meant by 'error'(?), we might not be arguing.

If one predicts the likelihood of false positives and gets them then they are not in error.

I hereby remove any and all objections to Larry's new definition. After all, just because we don't agree with a particular definition, doesn't mean it isn't one (for instance: pareidolia (original) we all agree is false). In the case of pareidolia (new) we also have a fundamental disagreement, but so what, that's what makes this interesting.

So, we now have four official definitions of pareidolia:

*4 ****************************************************

Reference: Discussion earlier in this thread with rderosa about the evolution of this word, especially since the rise of mechanical computing systems capable of sophisticated pattern recognition. (Ref. for discussion: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2...in-computers/260760/ )

Definition: Pareidolia is a simple pattern recognition error in any system/organism/process/organization/concept/etc. capable of performing the function of pattern recognition.

For example, a system processes some input (sound, image, text, etc.) and produces a positive result ("the input is recognized as 'A' with very high confidence") when in fact the input is B. 'B' is used here to mean 'not A' (something, anything, significantly other than 'A').

Name: New


I think the simplest way to resolve this is to add a fifth definition, which I will do shortly.

rd