posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:21 AM
a reply to: shawmanfromny
Pareidolia is a poor argument, every time.
Reason 1: We are good at recognizing patterns, sometimes we see things that aren't the object perceived, but hand in hand, that does NOT mean that we
will not see positive positives. It only means that we have the possibility of false negatives.
Reason 2: Pareidolia is used as a blanket argument and as a method to dismiss someone's finding and/or pattern that they did recognize. The logic
behind that, is because are brains are capable of pareidolia, that the information we obtain via perceptual pattern recognition is somehow flawed. If
that is the case, why can't we build a machine that has facial recognition on par with the human mind?
Our brains are VERY powerful computers for facial/pattern recognition, so we are unlikely to miss a positive positive...
Yet... We are told the very phenomenon backing our Darwinian evolved pattern recognition is somehow flawed?
Pareidolia must have saved our asses a few times in the past, to be hanging around in the present.
Maybe you should grasp what Pareidolia is actually telling us, rather than using it to dismiss data without consideration. Pareidolia doesn't mean a
positive positive is impossible, only unlikely.