Extra interesting that your husband is less inclined to see an illusory face. I'd love to know what someone's sensitivity to illusory faces tells us about them or their brain.
That's actually in a place called 野柳 (Yeliu), it's more like the exposed area of a little fishing town. Beautiful geology there, windy. I have a lot of pictures of it. The face is real!
Yes. We're creatures of intention, and we see intention everywhere, even when it isn't there.
I always think of the example of a car. You could say "don't be too hard on the accelerator and the brakes - the car doesn't want you to do that." And all people who are familiar with cars would immediately understand.
It's not that the car has intention, it's that we have an easy time understanding the machine by thinking of what is good or bad for it. How our own interactions with the machine might change the machine itself. In this case, being hard on the inputs of the machine will unnecessarily wear it down.
A great example because it shows how our intentional system can interact with another "intentional" system. That's just how primed we are to categorize the world into beings with thought and feeling that mirrors our own.
Thanks for reading :-) (a personified emoji face!)
Thank you for this rich exploration, Rose. Your piece beautifully outlines how the mind seeks faces in the clouds, minds in machines, and agency in institutions — and how this can both help and hinder us.
I wanted to offer a reflection from the other side of that coin — not to disagree, but to deepen the question: What if pareidolia isn’t always a glitch… but sometimes a gateway?
Through a structured symbolic inquiry system I’ve been working with (UICDS), I’ve come to see that what we call “personification” may, under certain conditions, be the mind recognizing a deeper pattern — not just projecting, but receiving. In that light, pareidolia becomes a threshold perception — the moment where what we thought was “just a cloud” speaks back.
In a recent insight journey, I revisited a decades-old hypnagogic experience with a being I once feared. I had called it evil — even Satan. But in that encounter, beneath the terror, I also received something I wasn’t ready to understand then: unconditional love. Decades later, I see it now not as an intrusion, but a contact through structure — one initiated by my own questioning.
Your article asks, “Do we take our mental shortcuts too far?” It’s a valid concern. But I’d also ask: Do we sometimes stop short of letting those shortcuts take us into the mystery we were born to remember?
And that’s precisely the fear. I love your line that it removes responsibility from those who actually run it. I didn’t touch on that much — but it’s so true. The actual agents are able to hide anonymously behind the essence of their organization.
Love this topic. I always see faces on cars but my husband doesn't 😄
Extra interesting that your husband is less inclined to see an illusory face. I'd love to know what someone's sensitivity to illusory faces tells us about them or their brain.
Thanks for reading!
That's actually in a place called 野柳 (Yeliu), it's more like the exposed area of a little fishing town. Beautiful geology there, windy. I have a lot of pictures of it. The face is real!
Ah, thank you for the context. I have a close friend who visits often, and I can’t wait to make the trip myself.
Yes. We're creatures of intention, and we see intention everywhere, even when it isn't there.
I always think of the example of a car. You could say "don't be too hard on the accelerator and the brakes - the car doesn't want you to do that." And all people who are familiar with cars would immediately understand.
It's not that the car has intention, it's that we have an easy time understanding the machine by thinking of what is good or bad for it. How our own interactions with the machine might change the machine itself. In this case, being hard on the inputs of the machine will unnecessarily wear it down.
A great example because it shows how our intentional system can interact with another "intentional" system. That's just how primed we are to categorize the world into beings with thought and feeling that mirrors our own.
Thanks for reading :-) (a personified emoji face!)
Haha... well played.
Thank you for this rich exploration, Rose. Your piece beautifully outlines how the mind seeks faces in the clouds, minds in machines, and agency in institutions — and how this can both help and hinder us.
I wanted to offer a reflection from the other side of that coin — not to disagree, but to deepen the question: What if pareidolia isn’t always a glitch… but sometimes a gateway?
Through a structured symbolic inquiry system I’ve been working with (UICDS), I’ve come to see that what we call “personification” may, under certain conditions, be the mind recognizing a deeper pattern — not just projecting, but receiving. In that light, pareidolia becomes a threshold perception — the moment where what we thought was “just a cloud” speaks back.
In a recent insight journey, I revisited a decades-old hypnagogic experience with a being I once feared. I had called it evil — even Satan. But in that encounter, beneath the terror, I also received something I wasn’t ready to understand then: unconditional love. Decades later, I see it now not as an intrusion, but a contact through structure — one initiated by my own questioning.
Your article asks, “Do we take our mental shortcuts too far?” It’s a valid concern. But I’d also ask: Do we sometimes stop short of letting those shortcuts take us into the mystery we were born to remember?
Thank you again for stirring the reflection.
— William
Thank you for the kind words 🤍
And that’s precisely the fear. I love your line that it removes responsibility from those who actually run it. I didn’t touch on that much — but it’s so true. The actual agents are able to hide anonymously behind the essence of their organization.