Claim: Pareidolia is bias

it's shaped exactly like a spoon. It's not that the rock looks like a spoon. It's the rock is in the shape of a spoon.
I think most people would agree the random form of the rock looks like, but is not, a spoon, (there is no spoon...probably). This is pareidolia as we commonly understand the definition of the word: mispercieving randomness as purposfulness.
Another image of the same thing: https://mars.nasa.gov/raw_images/276379/?site=msl
Screenshot 2024-06-08 at 14.03.48.png
 
Last edited:
I think most people would agree the random form of the rock looks like, but is not, a spoon, (there is no spoon...probably). This is pareidolia as we commonly understand the definition of the word: mispercieving randomness as purposfulness.
Another image of the same thing: https://mars.nasa.gov/raw_images/276379/?site=msl View attachment 69156

This is also useful in pointing out context. When I saw the original photo, I just assumed it was a long shot and that I was looking out over a vast Moab or Monument Valley type landscape with this incredible spoon-like weathered arch-thing. something it would be cool to walk on if we ever get to Mars. Now seeing this photo above, it looks like it's just a small rock something the size of my hand maybe? Certainly not part of a sweeping vista I had seen in the original:

1717859364543.png


And yes, I now see the shadow in the lower right and realize the scale of the image. Still, a big spoon shaped natural arch formation one could walk on would be pretty cool.
 
My take, for what it is worth:

Whether tagged with the word "pareidolia" or not, something looking like some other thing is not evidence of anything beyond "Yeah, it sure does look like the other thing!" And "I don't understand how this thing can look like that other thing" is no better. "I don't understand" is not evidence of anything external to me and the limits to my understanding.

The world is FULL of things that look like other, unrelated, things.

pareidolia24 abyss.jpg
pareidolia-explained.jpg


GHbSWMNXcAAAxFm.jpg
624ec70b301e6_3wor101tsr671__700.jpg
 
This is also useful in pointing out context. When I saw the original photo, I just assumed it was a long shot and that I was looking out over a vast Moab or Monument Valley type landscape with this incredible spoon-like weathered arch-thing. something it would be cool to walk on if we ever get to Mars. Now seeing this photo above, it looks like it's just a small rock something the size of my hand maybe? Certainly not part of a sweeping vista I had seen in the original:

View attachment 69160

And yes, I now see the shadow in the lower right and realize the scale of the image. Still, a big spoon shaped natural arch formation one could walk on would be pretty cool.

The scale of an image is very important, without out it you can't tell if that "alien body" is ten millimeters long or ten kilometers long. Makes a bit of a difference. Anyone trying to be serious about identifying things in images of Mars needs to add a scale bar to every image. Even though it will usually only be an approximate scale it will at least show the claimant is making an effort to determine actual size.
 
I think when people go looking for shapes on Mars, it's evident that they're people who want to find things to fit a narrative, and this alone can make their findings suspect. It's amusing to find shapes in the clouds. It can be productive to find sites on earth that indicate they might be worth exploring for such purposes as mining or archaeological studies. It is more like science fiction to posit civilizations on Mars based on nothing but shapes on the ground.
But the "gee whiz" photos from Mars (which all look like rocks to me) are often photographed from other angles or at higher resolutions which clarify the shapes, so when these stories periodically crop up, the writer has been extremely selective. For example, the writers zero in on a tiny bright portion of this photo in that article, completely oblivious to the huge area of equal or greater brightness to the left of that which makes it not unlikely that he is seeing a little bit more of the same shiny rock formation. There's another spot to the far right. Nothing but the shape (dare I say Tic-tac?) suggests a craft of any sort. I also note that no scale is given, and have no idea of the size of any of the features. As I recall, the cameras on Curiosity can get down to nine microns per pixel, so some of those pictures may be of things at the scale of a grain of sand.

View attachment 69123

An issue with Figure 36 here is that the image is zoomed in so far that in some portions you can distinguish the boundaries between individual pixels. Pixels are square, so curved boundaries between two tones become stair steps because each entire pixel must be either one tone or the other tone. Zooming in too far can thus make an image less clear then when viewed when individual pixels are indistinguishable.
 
I get that it's impossible for me to see something that isn't a spoon as a spoon and it not being pareidolia. Regardless of how spoon shaped the object is. A spoon sized, spoon shaped alien spaceship SP001\1 could be in my cutlery draw and me seeing a spoon would be pareidolia.

But there's still something wrong with comparing the face on mars to spoon shaped rocks.

I think it might be with the statement "assuming any apparently anomalous object is pareidolia".

Spoon shaped rocks seems like the opposite. Assuming that cos it looks like something to us it must be anomalous.
 

Is the Daily Mail article referencing the same article? What I'm reading is about stealth aliens living among us or out in the woods with Bigfoot. That seems a claim that could use its own thread. Maybe the pareidolia claim is just a part of their bigger argument:

External Quote:

In a new research paper, they estimate there is a one in 10 chance the true solution to the UFO mystery could be 'cryptoterrestrial' — meaning they belong to an advanced species hiding on Earth.
External Quote:

One region, dubbed the 'Alaskan Triangle,' is a remote and sparsely populated area between the cities of Anchorage, Juneau and Utqiagvik that the authors described as 'a prominent 'hotspot' for UAP [UFOs], as well as other oddities.'

The triangle, they noted, has been ground zero for over 20,000 unexplained disappearances since the 1970s, above and beyond its penchant for UFO sightings.

Other major candidates, the researchers put forward, include long-term bases deep underwater in ocean trenches or on the dark side of the moon, whether built by an ancient advanced terrestrial race or our long-term extraterrestrial co-inhabitants.
I'll not delve into their seemingly faulty logic like saying the "Alaskan Triangle" is remote and sparsely populated, yet over 20,000 people have disappeared there in the last 50 years. I would think there has to be a lot more than 20,000 people running around for that many of them to disappear, making it not quite as remote as they claim.

Again, maybe a separate thread. EDIT: Working on one now. There is some interesting things in this paper.
 
Last edited:
Is the Daily Mail article referencing the same article?
Yes, the same one I based the thread [#1] on (although I focus on a particular claim within the paper, as you say, it's part of their argument).
I think there's just too many individual claims in that paper to talk about it in one thread, especially because to evaluate them you have to follow the often weak or non-existent evidence in the references - so it's pretty endless.
Anything with Harvard's name on it will get picked up by the media. Lomas is doing Phase 0 work here.

Screenshot 2024-06-12 at 16.38.35.png

Source:
Source: https://youtu.be/-1QCFtod6i8?si=UWwtkFMcv5JY7snW
 
I think there's just too many individual claims in that paper to talk about it in one thread, especially because to evaluate them you have to follow the often weak or non-existent evidence in the references - so it's pretty endl

Agreed, but I tried anyway. To me they are making one central claim, Stealth Aliens, though as you say with a lot of weak evidence. I guess for me, pointing out how guys like this create mountains of evidence out of dust should be pointed out. And it's kinda fun.
 
Agreed, but I tried anyway. To me they are making one central claim, Stealth Aliens, though as you say with a lot of weak evidence. I guess for me, pointing out how guys like this create mountains of evidence out of dust should be pointed out. And it's kinda fun.
Yeah, perhaps there should be a separate thread about how these papers fit into / compliment the "UAP Campaign Plan" mentioned above. Is this the "shaping" stage, because it certainly doesn't seem like we've got to "demonstrate existence" yet.
 
To me they are making one central claim, Stealth Aliens, though as you say with a lot of weak evidence. I guess for me, pointing out how guys like this create mountains of evidence out of dust should be pointed out. And
Paper author Michael Masters has a number of seemingly logical interests, as described in his own web page, but then adds this:
External Quote:
My new book, Identified Flying Objects: A Multidisciplinary Scientific Approach to the UFO Phenomenon, cautiously examines the premise that “UFOs” and “Aliens” may simply be our distant human descendants, using the anthropological tool of time travel to visit and study us, as members of their own hominin evolutionary past. This text challenges readers to consider new possibilities while cultivating conversations about our ever-evolving understanding of time and time travel.
https://www.mtech.edu/arts-sciences/faculty/michael-masters/index.html

I was not aware that time travel was considered an "anthropological tool", nor that we had any "ever-evolving understanding" of time travel, but hey, a PhD said it so it must be true, right? Right?
 
I was not aware that time travel was considered an "anthropological tool", nor that we had any "ever-evolving understanding" of time travel, but hey, a PhD said it so it must be true, right? Right?
I just asked the nearest Ph.D anthropologist (Cantab., no less), and it appears she can neither confirm nor deny it. Very suspicious, if you ask me...
External Quote:
10:01 <FatPhil> "My new book ... examines the premise that “UFOs” and “Aliens” may simply be our distant human descendants, using the anthropological tool of time travel to visit and study us"
10:01 <FatPhil> You're the anthropologist - tell me about this tool of yours?
10:02 <theanna> Ethics guidelines say I can't do that, Dave
10:02 <theanna> PS Stop doing this to yourself
 
I think when people go looking for shapes on Mars, it's evident that they're people who want to find things to fit a narrative, and this alone can make their findings suspect. It's amusing to find shapes in the clouds. It can be productive to find sites on earth that indicate they might be worth exploring for such purposes as mining or archaeological studies. It is more like science fiction to posit civilizations on Mars based on nothing but shapes on the ground.
But the "gee whiz" photos from Mars (which all look like rocks to me) are often photographed from other angles or at higher resolutions which clarify the shapes, so when these stories periodically crop up, the writer has been extremely selective. For example, the writers zero in on a tiny bright portion of this photo in that article, completely oblivious to the huge area of equal or greater brightness to the left of that which makes it not unlikely that he is seeing a little bit more of the same shiny rock formation. There's another spot to the far right. Nothing but the shape (dare I say Tic-tac?) suggests a craft of any sort. I also note that no scale is given, and have no idea of the size of any of the features. As I recall, the cameras on Curiosity can get down to nine microns per pixel, so some of those pictures may be of things at the scale of a grain of sand.

View attachment 69123

To my eyes, that just looks like black-and-white photo of a bog standard (pun intended) aapa mire, with string-fens and flark-fens.

As here:
1718286965230.png

(photo is cut out from the aerial survey done in Sweden in 1960, from the larger aapa mire complex of Nuolivuoma, a few kilometers south of Lovikka.)


You don't only see what you look for, your perception of what you see is shaped from what you are used to look at. If I had been given just a split second to look at the photo and then describe what I saw, I would honestly say "aapa mire". It's only when I look at it more closely I can see that there are things that are wrong with it such as the complete lack of discernible vegetation surrounding it. It took my quite a while (might be due to the horrible quality of the photo) to not "see" the darker spots as water/water-logged in some way. And without knowing it was a picture from Mars, being way more accustomed to looking at orthophotos of terrestrial origin, I would still assume it was a photo of some natural formation here on Earth even after I saw that there didn't actually seem to be any water.


Also, by pure coincidence, there is an anomaly in the 1975 ortophoto of the same area of the mire (the black "hole" with a white circle around it):
1718290361080.png


Have the cryptoterrestrial beings built a tunnel exit here from their subterranean civilization? Unfortunately, it is completely gone in the next one I have access to, from 1996:
1718290525057.png
This is to the surprise of exactly no one with previous experience of older ortophotos that have been digitized: they were scanned from physical copies and some of those copies have pinpricks.

That said, I wonder how far I could take it if I wanted to perpetrate a hoax and claim that I was some kind of NASA whistleblower and tell some ufologist podcaster that the photo was a "suppressed" Martian photo of a "clearly artificially made hole" that has been erased from the archives by the US government...
 
Yes, the same one I based the thread [#1] on (although I focus on a particular claim within the paper, as you say, it's part of their argument).
I think there's just too many individual claims in that paper to talk about it in one thread, especially because to evaluate them you have to follow the often weak or non-existent evidence in the references - so it's pretty endless.
Anything with Harvard's name on it will get picked up by the media. Lomas is doing Phase 0 work here.

View attachment 69238
Source:
Source: https://youtu.be/-1QCFtod6i8?si=UWwtkFMcv5JY7snW

It's wild how viral that Harvard paper has become. Link to the disclosrue movement.

Source: https://x.com/covertress/status/1801261122579775667

also aided by Joe Rogan.

Source: https://x.com/SkyFireNews/status/1801324679917191272
 
You don't only see what you look for, your perception of what you see is shaped from what you are used to look at. If I had been given just a split second to look at the photo and then describe what I saw, I would honestly say "aapa mire".
Thanks for giving me a few new words to look up!

Before the Curiosity rover was sent to Mars, my daughter was given the job of taking a group of "Martians" (the term the geologists used to describe the "rocket scientists", i.e., people whose expertise was in the technical difficulties of getting it safely to Mars, but who were not geologists) on a field trip to Glacier National Park, so they could learn what they were looking at, and the kind of physical processes that might have created such a geological formation. She said the hardest part was holding her tongue, because once they got to Mars there wouldn't BE any experts to ask, so they would just have to judge what they saw according to the principles of physics.
 
Thanks for giving me a few new words to look up!

Before the Curiosity rover was sent to Mars, my daughter was given the job of taking a group of "Martians" (the term the geologists used to describe the "rocket scientists", i.e., people whose expertise was in the technical difficulties of getting it safely to Mars, but who were not geologists) on a field trip to Glacier National Park, so they could learn what they were looking at, and the kind of physical processes that might have created such a geological formation. She said the hardest part was holding her tongue, because once they got to Mars there wouldn't BE any experts to ask, so they would just have to judge what they saw according to the principles of physics.
They have the same periodic table on Mars, and the electrons pair in the same ways. I'm not sure there should be anything unknown up there at all. As far as we know, *everything* follows the principles of physics, that's a really safe starting point to base your ideas on.

Phil, the "I didn't see you guys all the way over there" guy.
 
They have the same periodic table on Mars, and the electrons pair in the same ways. I'm not sure there should be anything unknown up there at all. As far as we know, *everything* follows the principles of physics, that's a really safe starting point to base your ideas on.
One of the big unknowns is the history of the planet, such as "how much water, if any, did they have at a particular place at a given time". And since new features of geology are still being discovered - and their interpretation hotly debated - right here on Earth, it would be naïve to write off Mars as something we know all about, based on our examination of a few tiny spots.
 
They have the same periodic table on Mars, and the electrons pair in the same ways. I'm not sure there should be anything unknown up there at all.
And since new features of geology are still being discovered - and their interpretation hotly debated - right here on Earth, it would be naïve to write off Mars as something we know all about, based on our examination of a few tiny spots.
I think you're both right!

I would happily bet everything I got that chemistry, physics and the like will be exactly the same on Mars as on Earth. But I would not be at all surprised if different conditions on Mars allow chemistry and physics to come up with a few things we have not seen before and have not anticipated, though in hindsight they may seem like "well yeah, of course." EG: long skinny rocks that look like hovering spoons, that might not be able to form without breaking on a planet with heavier gravity and a thicker atmosphere pushing stuff around when the wind blows.
 
I'm getting a bit lost why pareidolia matters.

Say NASA went to look at "wreckage of extraterrestrial spacecraft?" and found that it was wreckage of an extraterrestrial boat. It would still be pareidolia but that's not what anyone cares about.

Validation doesn't rest on pareidolia.

And that's ignoring that the "?" kinda suggests pareidolia in the first place, never mind assuming it. Same with "bone-like". At least stand behind your guess so we can assume pareidolia instead of telling us!

And despite the face of Mars 100% being pareidolia, undisputable, Corlotto seems to want to find SOMETHING about that mountain/hill. Even if he does, that won't make it not pareidolia.
 
UFOs and paranormal/supernatural/conspiratorial beliefs are rife with all types of apophenia.

Faces on Mars.
Jesus in toast.
3 lights are a triangular (or even a pyramidal) craft.
UFOs over nuclear sites.
etc
 
I suppose the question is, is it possible to guess what something might be and if it turns out to be that thing then it isn't pareidolia?

I'm not sure it's possible to guess without the use of pareidolia, regardless of the outcome of the guess.

The guess has to be cos it "looks like" , and looks like IS pareidolia unless referring to art/sculpture.
 
Here's an example of how powerful paredolia can be. I recently looked through some old school books of mine from when I was 5. One of the images (which just happens to have UFOs in it) had some funny sketchmarks on it. When I looked at it I immediatly thought of Francis Bacon’s Portrait of Innocent X. Which is quite an obscure painting I'd have been unlikely to have seen at that age, but do remember seeing, and liking, years later.
Screenshot 2024-06-17 at 00.07.24.png

The illusion only seems to get stronger when you compare them side by side. But, maybe it's just me?
1718578832561.png
 
we must also be wary of simply assuming any apparently anomalous object is pareidolia, as doing so would equally be a cognitive bias that hinders us from studying evidence with due openness and objectivity
What's the alternative? If it's not pareidolia, what is it?
 
What's the alternative? If it's not pareidolia, what is it?
His implication seems to be that it's (woo to follow) little green men, or ancient advanced civilizations, or time travelers, or whatever "they" don't want us to know about. Yes, it's true that if we see shapes and instantly write them off as pareidolia, we may miss something significant. Similarly if we see something that looks significant, it may turn out to be mere pareidolia. I'm reminded of archaeological investigation of aerial photographs, in which a circular crop mark might be either a Bronze Age roundhouse or the mark left by a portable animal pen by a modern farmer, and a line might be a medieval field boundary ditch or might just be a gravel lens in an ice age earth crack.
 
His implication seems to be that it's (woo to follow) little green men, or ancient advanced civilizations, or time travelers, or whatever "they" don't want us to know about.
But that's not not pareidolia.

I'm currently of the opinion that it HAS to be pareidolia. I don't see what alternative there is. There's no assumption cos there's nothing else it can be.
 
I'm currently of the opinion that it HAS to be pareidolia.
Depends on the "it," doesn't it? Some things look like a specific thing because that is, in fact, what they are. Example:

not a duck.JPG
duck.jpg

Looks like a duck but Looks like a duck because it is a duck!
is not a duck.

To my mind, such as it is, the importance of thinking about pareidolia in our "line of work" is not that stuff HAS to be pareidolia, but that anything MIGHT be -- that "it looks like a duck (or ghost, or UFO, or bigoot)" that is not sufficient to prove anything in and of itself, that is where an investigation would start, not where it ends!
 
Depends on the "it," doesn't it?
I'm specifically talking about these its that we supposedly shouldn't be assuming are pareidolia...

Joseph and Schild (2023) for instance,
published “a sample of official NASA Mars photographs of what appears to be the wreckage and debris from
extraterrestrial spacecraft, partially buried bones, the body of a “humanoid” stretched out on a “cushion;” the
head of a “humanoid” still wearing a metal device on the front of its “face” adjacent to a cratered debris field,
two “humanoid” skulls including one that is atop what may be a raised elongated burial mound, UAPs/UFOs
photographed in the skies of Mars and a silver-saucer shaped structure upon the ground” (p.54).

But if not pareidolia, what is it?
 
But that's not not pareidolia.

I'm currently of the opinion that it HAS to be pareidolia. I don't see what alternative there is. There's no assumption cos there's nothing else it can be.

I'm not sure what you're arguing? The definition pretty much sums it up:

External Quote:
Pareidolia (/ˌpærɪˈdoʊliə, ˌpɛər-/;[1] also US: /ˌpɛəraɪ-/)[2] is the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous stimulus, usually visual, so that one detects an object, pattern, or meaning where there is none. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

External Quote:
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

So, if one sees a constructed Face on Mars and there is NO REAL constructed Face on Mars, that is by definition, pareidolia. We see patterns, meanings and meaningful connections where there IS NONE. Our brain searches for patterns and finds meaning in some random patterns or specific patterns that were not meant to be what our brains perceive them to be. Partially I think it's because our brain is very good at abstraction. Look at this electrical outlet that lots of people see a "face" on:

1718637195229.png


Why do we see a face? There is no nose or ears, the eyes are just black circles and much of what makes a face is missing. Yet we see a face, because we also see a face in this image:

1718637393609.png


Again, most of what makes a face is missing, but there are just enough visual clues presented, on purpose here and unintentionally above, for our brain to recognize a pattern of 2 eyes and mouth and conclude "human face". So then, we do the same with random patterns that can mimic the same visual clues, like the original Face on Mars:

1718637697993.png


The opposite would be looking at the Face of the Sphinx:

1718637835287.png


Still an abstract pattern, especially with the nose broken off, but clearly, we see a face. In this case that's because someone actually and purposefully carved the visual clues that make us recognize a face. This is not pareidolia. We are not perceiving a face from random or unintentional stimuli, rather from an intentional arrangement that makes us think face. Just like the smiley face.

The authors of the paper seem to be arguing we should not just apply the concept of pareidolia in situations where it seems to make sense, such as the Face on Mars, because we may miss actual evidence of aliens. The Face on Mars MAY be more like the sphinx and not like the electrical outlet. Or something like that.

As noted here and the other thread about the rest of this paper, the main thrust is to shift the burden of proof for aliens to the skeptics. Having established, at least to their likening, the notion that UAPs are a real and serious phenomenon to be delt with, the authors trot out all kinds of theories, speculations and outright fictions as equally viable solutions to the UAP problem. Everything from interdimensional beings to the Shaver Mysteries might explain UAPs and if that's the case, it's up to the skeptics to DISPROVE each suggestion. Richard Shaver says aliens come out of the Earth, while he's probably wrong, it's up to the skeptic to prove aliens do not come out of the Earth. If they can't, then Shaver's idea is as viable as balloons and stars. I think.

For the authors pareidolia is a form of evidence to show why there is NO civilization on Mars. Skeptics pointed out that the Face on Mars was likely pareidolia when it was first made popular. The Face on Mars is therefore NOT evidence for a civilization on Mars, something the authors want to assert or at least suggest is equally possible as not.

The authors, I would argue rather weak, counterargument to the pareidolia explanation is that while that might explain the Face on Mars, it's bias to say so because it really could be a Face on Mars. It seems rather convoluted to me, as they are well aware that later photos showed that the Face on Mars was in fact a case of pareidolia. The argument seems to be, "yeah just because that explained the Face, it may not explain the other claims about stuff on Mars like a building and skeptics shouldn't use pareidolia as an argument until they prove it's not really a building". Once again attempting to shift the burden of proof.
 
The authors make a very weak argument that Joseph and Schild's paper examines the "evidence" with "due openness and objectivity". When on review they're just adding together instances of paredolia (that looks like a fort, those look like bones, plus that looks like a pyramid, etc) and claiming their addition means a weight of evidence "tip the balance towards the plausibility", of it being something anomolous (alien). It seems "openness and objectivity" would require (as @FatPhil says up-thread) breaking it apart for anaylsis rather than constructing something new.
 
Jesus in toast.

That reminds me of this old idea, from our dim distant history, back when SETI@Home and GIMPS were the only collaborative computing projects, before Folding-at-home or BOINC existed:
http://theanna.org/jesuspizza/
External Quote:
You might have heard your friends talk about a project, called Jesuspizza, to use thousands of Internet-connected computers to help in the search for the perfect pizza, the pizza containing the face of Jesus.
No joke, we got actual death threats for that. If you're going to try and guess why, take a second guess, you are almost certainly wrong with your first guess. Back in those days (early 2000s) we were hosted on a very friendly ISP that would have never have blocked our server no matter the complaint.
 
This is also useful in pointing out context. When I saw the original photo, I just assumed it was a long shot and that I was looking out over a vast Moab or Monument Valley type landscape with this incredible spoon-like weathered arch-thing. something it would be cool to walk on if we ever get to Mars. Now seeing this photo above, it looks like it's just a small rock something the size of my hand maybe? Certainly not part of a sweeping vista I had seen in the original:
Great point NorCal Dave. I also thought the same thing when seeing the picture. What went through my head:

That's a cool rock formation.
I wonder how much weight it could hold, even on Mars.
That's really long, maybe the lower gravity makes it possible?
Maybe that's just really brittle and things like that wouldn't last on earth because of the denser air/wind/etc?

If I had just skimmed past the thread, I might have "learned" some nonsense about Mars that I didn't know before. I need to keep in mind that only military personnel are trained to not misinterpret what they see, and I wasn't in the military.
 
It's worth mentioning that most (there are people with conditions that affect their perception of faces) humans are very massively inclined to take notice of faces and our brains are heavily engaged in face recognition and analysis.

This is evolutionary, based on our existence as a highly social species, we rely heavily on recognising other faces and also reading clues from those faces as to the intentions and mood/emotions etc of other humans.

This article is useful in showing the role of face perception for humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_perception

So our brains are highly primed to to be looking at faces and pareidolia and the ability to see a face in even the crudest intentional representations are linked to this feature of our cognition.
 
Back
Top