My pareidolia knows no bounds.

More
10 years 9 months ago #21725 by Marsevidence01
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Doc</i>
<br />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?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am not of the mind that subscribes to the concept of a separate duality of a grand watch maker and that we (life) are but the cogs in some unfathomable plan. I sense that all consciousness IS the universal construct. As I have said in a prior post, that time (or the measure from beginning of this current universe) cannot (and could not have) exist without consciousness observing its passing. Is there a who or a what that came up with the idea in first place? I sense neither, nor do I see any evidence of this. I do experience my own segment of the universe (my being) and see that this mirror resides in all life which, as the evidence shows unequivocally on the Martian surface, that (consciousness) does reside there also. Now to what extent that life has any similarities to humanity remains (at least for me) yet to be seen.

I will read up further on Walt's work.


Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 9 months ago #21618 by Marsevidence01
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><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 />Rich, you have me at a disadvantage. What is your objective here?
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's always been my contention that if we can see something clearly enough, we'd all pretty much agree what it is.

All I'm attempting to do is compare the resolution of an image we can't see clearly with one we can see clearly.

Just like I said, if you find the resolution is much worse (land-based pixel size is bigger) than my Mt Rushmore image, than we can conclude we need more resolution to clear up the matter.

On the other hand, if your land-based pixel size is smaller than my Mt. Rushmore scene (i.e., you have better resolution)and yet it still looks questionable like that, than in all probability it's merely a case of pareidolia (modern).

You might not agree with my reasoning, but I think it's logical and valid.

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

Interesting. I have shown this particular image to several people over the past year and on every occasion, each person has seen the same, indeed, precisely the same image of the specimen even to the fine detail of the footwear on the specimen's exposed leg. I have to say however, that the entities in the surrounding area have been met with mixed scrutiny. I am quite confident in saying that it is not the clarity of the image which is the problem here but rather the content.

In many ways in history, we naturally have a tendency indeed a propensity to shoot the messenger (the pixels) and not the message (the image content).

Btw, I do agree with your reasoning as well as your logic but I do not beleive that it is valid in this instance.

Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 9 months ago #21726 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
When I started this Topic, I never claimed to have my own personal definition of pareidolia, but rather wanted to explore the subject. I started out using this definition as the backdrop for discussion:

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

* 1 ****************************************************
Reference: encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

<b>Definition:
Pareidolia</b> (/pr#616;#712;do#650;li#601;/ parr-i-doh-lee-#601;) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant, a form of apophenia. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records when played in reverse.

The word comes from the Greek words para (#960;#945;#961;#940;, "beside, alongside, instead") in this context meaning something faulty, wrong, instead of; and the noun eid#333;lon (#949;#7988;#948;#969;#955;#959;#957; "image, form, shape") the diminutive of eidos. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia, seeing patterns in random data.

Name: modern
NOTE - formerly named 'rev 1', changed on 12/20/2013
============================================================================================================

But as I re-read the topic while fixing the images, it occurred to me that all throughout the discussions and debates, I had my own idea of how it broke down and what the subtleties are. I still think pareidolia (ressler) zeroes in on the essence of it, but I'm going to add a few things that I think settles some of the more recent debate and clarifies why I say there is no "error" involved. My reference is basically this topic, so I'll link to Page 1.

[Proposed new (fifth) definition of pareidolia]

* 5 ****************************************************
<b>Reference:</b> www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...C_ID=873&whichpage=1

<b>Definition:
Pareidolia</b>

1. The manifestation of a personal human trait, in which we perceive images (or sounds) in random patterns that appear to be man-made (or God-made, or Martian-made, etc.), but in fact aren't. They are merely patterns which our mind interprets and fills in the blanks to create what seems to be something that is man-made (or God-made, or Martian-made, etc.)

2. On close inspection, all pareidolic images are interpreted from a rational standpoint (i.e., they either go away totally, or are understood for what they really are.) Some examples might be: faces, bodies, armies, buildings or vehicles in the clouds, in shadows, in trees, in wallpaper, on the Moon or Martian surface. All which appear man-made, but when examined closely, are understood to be everyday objects, or natural features of the landscape, etc.

3. Pareidolic images are essentially the "partial hallucinations" described in Def 3 pareidolia (original) with the exception that they are the manifestation of a normal human trait, rather than a mental disorder.

4. An important element of this definition is the <b>question </b> of whether or not the object in question is real and/or man-made or merely an image we have constructed in our minds from the pattern. For this reason, clocks and the back of trucks and the like are specifically excluded, since we already know they are real and man-made. Without this underlying question, we are not dealing with a pareidolic image under this definition.

Name: derosa
NOTE: This definition <b>specifically excludes </b> any and all images of the type shown on this page ( www.flickr.com/groups/hellolittlefella/ ) which are, in fact, real and man-made, but have shapes that can sort of look like something else (a face). Because we know them to be real and man-made in the first place, they don't apply.


rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 9 months ago #22007 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<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 />
Of course, if either of us knew for sure what the other meant by 'error'(?), we might not be arguing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We have no dispute over the meaning of "error". It occurred to me, I was arguing about the definition of pareidolia itself, and I was mixing up my argument with words like "error".

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 9 months ago #21619 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<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 />Interesting. I have shown this particular image to several people over the past year and on every occasion, each person has seen the same, indeed, precisely the same image of the specimen even to the fine detail of the footwear on the specimen's exposed leg. I have to say however, that the entities in the surrounding area have been met with mixed scrutiny. I am quite confident in saying that it is not the clarity of the image which is the problem here but rather the content.

In many ways in history, we naturally have a tendency indeed a propensity to shoot the messenger (the pixels) and not the message (the image content).

Btw, I do agree with your reasoning as well as your logic but I do not beleive that it is valid in this instance.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Malcolm, one of my basic tenets in this Topic has always been that at some level of resolution <b>there is no further debate! Common sense prevails.</b>

That's why it makes sense to "shoot the pixels" because they tell us how clearly we're seeing the object, objectively. It puts a firm foundation under our dispute.

I sort of see what you are describing, but in "sort of" lies the rub.

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 9 months ago #21620 by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
We are conscious.
We perceive patterns. If we perceive them in line with the voids that require necessary filling we are in frictionless quantum reality. If we interpret the patterns in a way that stimulates us to fill voids "inappropriately" we feel friction having dropped into Newtonian reality.

Pareidolia (ressler) is a secondary pattern recognition (see ressler definition of pareidolia) on top of the underlying pattern of everyday Newtonian objects which are the primary patterns presented to us on the most basic material mechanical level.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.726 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum