Hello AWADtalk. I've been receiving AWAD by e-mail for about a year, but never checked out the webpage properly. I wasn't even aware there was a chat forum. It was only once I went hunting through Anu's archives after a word when I spotted the link. I hope you can help me with my problem.
I was reading an interesting article about visual perception in the New York Times when I came across the interesting word: "pareidolia", which you've no doubt already heard of and perhaps discussed. I hadn't heard of it, but a google search threw up a slew of articles about faces on tortillas and faces on Mars and even a face (if you can call it a face) in the smoke of the burning World Trade Center. Anyway, in one of these articles I found yet another word: "apophenia". I tried to get to the bottom of exactly what the difference between the two is, and am finally desperate (or curious?) enough to put it to a forum.
Here are the dictionary definitions of the two words:
Quote:
pareidolia
a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague stimulus which is perceived as clearly being something
Quote:
apophenia
the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness in unrelated things; seeing patterns where none, in fact, exist
It looks like a case of tomayto-tomahto to me, but I'm hoping someone will be able to refine the distinction.
Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this,
Nathan.
welcome, Nathan!
I'm wondering if pareidolia isn't more about
visual stimulus, and usually faces, and apophenia more about any sort of experiential connection?
the wikipedia discussions around the two words gives a better comparison:
PareidoliaApopheniaI bet there's a previous discussion here about these two words as well, though I haven't done a search.
Hi Nathan and welcome. My understanding is that the former is just to do with perception of visual stimulus – think Rorschach test – whilst the latter is a much more recent coinage to describe false pattern-making in any data stream.
If this is wrong no doubt our resident sock puppet will be along in force to correct the error.
actually, turns out this IS our sock puppet.
Dramatis Personae:
ullrich, Homo Loquens, iamkim, Stag Beetle, Person Man.
* * *
But is this not a legitimate query? Is Nathan not my most pleasant incarnation? And how can this be a sock puppet if Nathan is my real name?
thanks nathan, i knew of the phenomia, but didn't know there were words to describe them.
the man in the moon, or the canals of mars are illusions of time and lighting.. and imagination. a form of pareidolia
but hearing music in rain drop is (well not seeing, but hearing) patterns were none in fact exist. (apophenia)
i suspect, if you get to the roots of the words, the difference is perhaps clearer..
just looking at pareidolia. is see eido in the center.. and know this root for kaleidoscopes
(a made up word form greet roots--kali a greek root word for beautiy (as in caligraphy) eido (way (process, means) and scope (seeing, being able to see) --kaleidoscopes are a beautiful way to see things. (and they are, aren't they!)
eido in pareidolia is based on the way we perceive things. NH' (now gone) old man of the mountain, only looked like an old man from a certain vantage point. a few miles back on the road, he wasn't there, a few miles further down the road, he disappeared again.
from a single point he existed.. the illusion was real
(the face in the smoke of the world trade center could be seen if you went through the footage frame by frame.. but not if you watched at normal speed--it was there..as an illusion.)
but apophenia--there is nothing there but imagination..
you are more clever than me... I'm anti-apophenistically challenged.
or something.
The question remains, as asked in the parallel thread, why are you asking these questions in this way. If you've already formed an opinion, present it up front. It really presents you in a negative light to go about these things as you have been.
In fact, it seems quite purposeful on your part -- although what that purpose might be is way beyond my ken, Nathan.
I am all for giving people second chances, but the fact remains, you have paid no price for your being banned.
if it were my choice, which it is not, I would advocate for a year, or at minimum, six months. then, if you were ready to come back, as a "pleasant" person, I would welcome you back.
but then, how would we know?
I've been receiving AWAD by e-mail for about a year, but never checked out the webpage properly. I wasn't even aware there was a chat forum. It was only once I went hunting through Anu's archives after a word when I spotted the link. I hope you can help me with my problem.
Lying, even lying pleasantly, is not a basis on which to regain trust once forfeited.