View single post by Ty
 Posted: Feb 12th, 2011 04:33 PM
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Ty

 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
 Hello, Neokortex.  I think you raise a legitimate point when it comes to pareidolia.  Unfortunately, for many people this word has negative connotations attached to it: it's almost as if pareidolia is synonymous with "seeing things", or creating something out of nothing (or in the case of visual itc, imposing meaningful patterns upon formless images).  I do believe this happens, and that everyone (myself included) is susceptible to this condition of perception.  To my knowledge, however, we cannot state with any certainty how prevalent pareidolia is, nor to what degree it operates when it is present in an experimenter. 

The vast majority of anomalous features I detect in my own water reflection pictures could conceivably be the result of pareidolia; my collection contains hundreds and hundreds of images that, although tantalizingly suggestive of specific objects or lifeforms, in the final analysis elude definite identification.  But should all such images be construed as pareidolia at work?  I would argue that it is equally plausible, if even in a minority of cases, that what we are seeing is simply a weak transmission, if you will, of an actual image.  Admittedly, it is difficult to prove or disprove such an argument; I personally find this to be the most frustrating aspect of visual itc research. 

Lastly, I should state that my main reason for thinking that pareidolia does not apply to all cases of visual itc is that I have seen images (both my own and those of other experimenters) that are simply too well-defined to fall under the category of "imposed meaning".  Take, for example, pictures 1, 5, and 8 above (also, see the picture I posted in another thread that shows an image that was captured outside).  There is no need to impose meaning on these images.  Pictures 1, 5, and 8 clearly show what appear to be human eyes--each one complete with an iris and a pupil.  I believe the level of detail is so pronounced in these images that the possibility of pareidolia is simply non-existent.  You probably noticed that I used the word "appear" when speaking of these human eyes.  I use this word because, although the images of the eyes are very clear to me, I cannot say or know whether these eyes belong to actual people living in another aspect of reality, or if the eyes are even somehow a projection from my own mind, inexplicably projected onto the surface of the water and captured by my camera.  Whatever they might be, they simply cannot be my own reflection, for reasons I have stated elsewhere in this thread. 

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts.  Your last post was very well thought-out and expressed.  I enjoyed reading it.

--Ty