Aphantasia

[dystopian]

I have a very conceptual imagination (words, concepts, systems of ideas), but lack the visual imagination, which probably makes me a bit more analytic than someone who can imagine things visually.

Bullshit.

1) people who can visualize normally also think in words, abstract concepts, and so on. I am equally proficient at both. Just because you can't or are not as good at visualizing, doesn't mean you're better at other types of thinking. Thinking that not being capable of 'x' means you're better at 'y' is just empty ego stroking.

2) Many forms of visualization actually require good analytical thinking skills.

 

[Kharakov]

Closing eyes does nothing for me, except when there is something really distracting.
Never had troubles with sheep counting. I think mental image is what you get when somebody says a word like "elephant" or "aircraft". I mean it's not just a word or sound, You instantly get the mental "image" that word describes, and the keyword here is "mental" not a real image in your eyes.

I suppose what gets to me is the comparison to dream images.

I actually had a dream this morning, and the dream was totally visual (I saw someone walking before I opened my eyes upon waking up, and realized it was a dream). One thing that I've read is that people with aphantasia can dream images, but they cannot do the same thing voluntarily, which describes me perfectly.

I dream fully interactive worlds (when I do dream), although very rarely, they become sort of like computer driven worlds that I can control a little bit. When I attempt to visualize, eyes closed or open, I do not get the same imagery (maybe faint concepts that feel a little bit visual/spatial, but they are not visual/tactile/sound filled like dreams).

 

[Kharakov]

I have a very conceptual imagination (words, concepts, systems of ideas), but lack the visual imagination, which probably makes me a bit more analytic than someone who can imagine things visually.

1) people who can visualize normally also think in words, abstract concepts, and so on.

Yeah. What I said isn't even remotely true. For whatever reason, I think of being focused on abstract symbolic manipulation as analytic, but I don't know why I associate the term analytic with abstract symbolic manipulation.

2) Many forms of visualization actually require good analytical thinking skills.

I tend to think they would require synthetic thinking skills, because you are creating images. Do you mind providing some examples?

 

[barbos]

Closing eyes does nothing for me, except when there is something really distracting.
Never had troubles with sheep counting. I think mental image is what you get when somebody says a word like "elephant" or "aircraft". I mean it's not just a word or sound, You instantly get the mental "image" that word describes, and the keyword here is "mental" not a real image in your eyes.

I suppose what gets to me is the comparison to dream images.

Dream images are not related to mental images.

 

[Kharakov]

I suppose what gets to me is the comparison to dream images.

Dream images are not related to mental images.

People with aphantasia cannot create voluntary mental images (while awake), but see involuntary mental images when they dream. In other words, dream images are something everyone sees. According to the article (which I have doubts about), about 1 in 50 people lack the ability to visualize stuff voluntarily, although they generally still visualize (see) stuff in dreams.

So if you see involuntary mental images in dreams, but can not make the same type of images voluntarily, you have aphantasia. At least that's what I get from the articles, which may be sensationalized, taken out of context from what Adam Zeman said, or plain old fashioned fabrications to fuck with people. I actually doubt that the majority of people can visualize stuff in a similar manner to dream level visualizations.

 

[barbos]

Dream images are not related to mental images.

People with aphantasia cannot create voluntary mental images (while awake), but see involuntary mental images when they dream. In other words, dream images are something everyone sees.

So they say, and it does not prove these two things are related in any way, in fact it suggests the opposite.

According to the article (which I have doubts about), about 1 in 50 people lack the ability to visualize stuff voluntarily, although they generally still visualize (see) stuff in dreams.

So if you see involuntary mental images in dreams, but can not make the same type of images voluntarily, you have aphantasia.

Again, these are claims of people who have no reference. There was the only one guy who had reference before he had brain damage or something.

At least that's what I get from the articles, which may be sensationalized, taken out of context from what Adam Zeman said, or plain old fashioned fabrications to fuck with people. I actually doubt that the majority of people can visualize stuff in a similar manner to dream level visualizations.

Unless they have access to LSD.
The thing is, they don't have a well defined test, it's all just self-reporting from people.
Mental image are not supposed to be real images. It's just a tool brain use to do the thinking.

 

[Kharakov]

People with aphantasia cannot create voluntary mental images (while awake), but see involuntary mental images when they dream. In other words, dream images are something everyone sees.

So they say, and it does not prove these two things are related in any way, in fact it suggests the opposite.

Yeah, but the people who have the ability apparently think that dream visualizations are similar to voluntary visualizations.

Again, these are claims of people who have no reference. There was the only one guy who had reference before he had brain damage or something.

It would be interesting to see if that specific guy says whether his ability to visualize was on par with dream visualizations. I asked my immediate family, and all of them said they could create mental images like dream images, but then again, they could be bullshitting me.

 

[dystopian]

I tend to think they would require synthetic thinking skills, because you are creating images. Do you mind providing some examples?

Mental rotation/extrapolation, which I've already touched upon. Take an image of a shape or space in your head; and rotate it around along any two or three dimensional axis. We use this in a number of different ways; for instance when we get lost/confused in an area we have some familiarity with we might take a mental map of the area and rotate it around/mentally explore it in order to determine where we are. We also use this in visual recognition; if we see a pattern from an unusual angle, we might need to mentally rotate it around before we can compare it to something else; allowing us to recognize it for what it is. In the former case, you're generally engaging in conscious thinking that requires a fair amount of analytical skill, in the latter case you're doing it quickly enough that you're not generally aware of it. Put another way, the former is an example of vertical thinking, the latter an example of lateral thinking. Either way, this ability overlaps with analytical ability to various degrees: proficiency in this type of visual thinking can only help you in analytic thinking.

 

[dystopian]

Yeah, but the people who have the ability apparently think that dream visualizations are similar to voluntary visualizations.

That's just because it serves as an explanatory analogy. I thought you said you were good at analytic thinking, which would require you to be able to read between the lines and not take everything so literal? Surely you can understand that people would draw comparisons between mental visualization and dreams on the basis that *neither* of them involve actual visual input from the eyes? It's just an easy way of explaining what goes on because the majority of people share the same experiences and will be able to comprehend the meaning. That people compare the two doesn't mean that the two experiences are at the same level of fidelity; and indeed one should severely question anyone who claims that they are; since the vast majority of people are incapable of recalling their dreams to begin with, and even when they do recall them the recollection tends to be vague, disjointed and remembered for only a brief period following waking at best. This would naturally lead people to think their dream experiences are on the same level as their waking mental visualizations, because in order to recall their dream experiences they have to engage in mental visualization to begin with.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I tend to think they would require synthetic thinking skills, because you are creating images. Do you mind providing some examples?

Mental rotation/extrapolation, which I've already touched upon. Take an image of a shape or space in your head; and rotate it around along any two or three dimensional axis. We use this in a number of different ways; for instance when we get lost/confused in an area we have some familiarity with we might take a mental map of the area and rotate it around/mentally explore it in order to determine where we are. We also use this in visual recognition; if we see a pattern from an unusual angle, we might need to mentally rotate it around before we can compare it to something else; allowing us to recognize it for what it is. In the former case, you're generally engaging in conscious thinking that requires a fair amount of analytical skill, in the latter case you're doing it quickly enough that you're not generally aware of it. Put another way, the former is an example of vertical thinking, the latter an example of lateral thinking. Either way, this ability overlaps with analytical ability to various degrees: proficiency in this type of visual thinking can only help you in analytic thinking.

Here's a slightly more concrete example along the same line.

Sometimes when I'm tightening nuts and bolts, I don't always have a very good angle to work with. Like many people, I get confused about which direction I'm supposed to be turning the bolt. "Righty tighty, lefty loosy" assumes you are approaching the bolt or nut from a heads on angle. So, when going from these awkward angles, I have to mentally rotate my visual perspective to the heads on angle. From there, I figure out which way I'm supposed to turn the nut.

Can people with aphantasia do such mental perspective changing?

 

[barbos]

Oliver Sacks (The guy I was talking about with respect to Prosopagnosia) died today, weird.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Oliver Sacks (The guy I was talking about with respect to Prosopagnosia) died today, weird.

Oliver Sacks died! That's so sad. I liked him.

 

[Kharakov]

I tend to think they would require synthetic thinking skills, because you are creating images. Do you mind providing some examples?

Mental rotation/extrapolation, which I've already touched upon. Take an image of a shape or space in your head; and rotate it around along any two or three dimensional axis. We use this in a number of different ways; for instance when we get lost/confused in an area we have some familiarity with we might take a mental map of the area and rotate it around/mentally explore it in order to determine where we are.

I still don't see how the visualization part (synthesis of mental images) is analytic, instead of synthetic. You're talking about engaging in visual analysis of the image, after you synthesize (visualize) it.

I engage in visual analysis of images after I draw them, this doesn't mean the creation of the images was analytic- it was synthetic.


Can you provide an example of how visual synthesis is analysis, rather than synthesis?

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah, but the people who have the ability apparently think that dream visualizations are similar to voluntary visualizations.

That's just because it serves as an explanatory analogy. I thought you said you were good at analytic thinking, which would require you to be able to read between the lines and not take everything so literal?

"Our participants mostly have some first-hand knowledge of imagery through their dreams: our study revealed an interesting dissociation between voluntary imagery, which is absent or much reduced in these individuals, and involuntary imagery, for example in dreams, which is usually preserved."

That's a quote from the conductor of the study. I have vivid dreams, yet my voluntary mental imagery is much reduced. Get it?

When, pray tell, did I say I was good at analytic thinking? I'd say that from our conversations (which are obviously not the only demonstrations of your analytic skill, but they're all I've to judge your skill by), I am better at it than you are, but being better at it than you doesn't mean I am good at it by any means. That's ludicrous.

 

[dystopian]

That's just because it serves as an explanatory analogy. I thought you said you were good at analytic thinking, which would require you to be able to read between the lines and not take everything so literal?

"Our participants mostly have some first-hand knowledge of imagery through their dreams: our study revealed an interesting dissociation between voluntary imagery, which is absent or much reduced in these individuals, and involuntary imagery, for example in dreams, which is usually preserved."

That's a quote from the conductor of the study. I have vivid dreams, yet my voluntary mental imagery is much reduced. Get it?

except as I explained that is a poor argument, since in order to actually remember your dreams you NEED to engage in mental visualization because otherwise you would not be able to remember any visual content they had and thus would not be able to determine whether or not your dreams are more vivid than regular visualization (or lack thereof). If you can not visualize then you can only rely on the vague 'feeling' that they were vivid in a way you can't reproduce while awake; and a feeling like that is useless as any sort of accurate metric.

I'd say that from our conversations, I am better at it than you are, unless you are feigning lack of ability, or providing some sort of intellectual contrast by presenting incorrect interpretations of what is said (as in the case of you still believing I said I was good at analytic thinking... where is this quote?).

Uhuh.

I'd say something about basic analytical thinking requiring the ability to overcome one's own overly literal thought processes; but I've already said that before and it didn't seem to help anything other than to elicit ah "no, you suck!" type response that centers; predictably; on a minor insignificant detail which anyone who doesn't take everything literally would've glossed over entirely.

Being better at it than you doesn't mean I am good at it by any means. That's ludicrous.

Actually, it would; since being better at a thing than someone who'se demonstrably proficient at said thing does make you good...

...but then, that's assuming that when you were rambling about being better at said thing than myself you were actually making an objectively true observation rather than simply stroking your own ego because of a perceived slight.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to enter dreamland so that I can promptly forget whatever I dreamt about in the morning.

 

[Kharakov]

"Our participants mostly have some first-hand knowledge of imagery through their dreams: our study revealed an interesting dissociation between voluntary imagery, which is absent or much reduced in these individuals, and involuntary imagery, for example in dreams, which is usually preserved."

That's a quote from the conductor of the study. I have vivid dreams, yet my voluntary mental imagery is much reduced. Get it?

except as I explained that is a poor argument, since in order to actually remember your dreams you NEED to engage in mental visualization because otherwise you would not be able to remember any visual content they had and thus would not be able to determine whether or not your dreams are more vivid than regular visualization (or lack thereof).

Here is a test for you:

1) look around you
2) close your eyes
3) is the visual imagery you experience of the world around you more or less vivid after you close your eyes?
4) how do you know that the imagery of the world around you is more or less vivid when you close your eyes?

If you can not visualize then you can only rely on the vague 'feeling' that they were vivid in a way you can't reproduce while awake; and a feeling like that is useless as any sort of accurate metric.

I know because of my experiences of lucid dreaming- I was consciously aware I was dreaming, and interacted with an awesome world. When I come out of the dream, I am aware of the visualization of the dream world dissolving or disappearing as rapidly as the image of the room I am in disappears when I close my eyes.

Being better at it than you doesn't mean I am good at it by any means. That's ludicrous.

Actually, it would; since being better at a thing than someone who'se demonstrably proficient at said thing does make you good...

You need to stop literally taking comments in order to understand them.

 

[barbos]

That's just because it serves as an explanatory analogy. I thought you said you were good at analytic thinking, which would require you to be able to read between the lines and not take everything so literal?

"Our participants mostly have some first-hand knowledge of imagery through their dreams: our study revealed an interesting dissociation between voluntary imagery, which is absent or much reduced in these individuals, and involuntary imagery, for example in dreams, which is usually preserved."

That's a quote from the conductor of the study. I have vivid dreams, yet my voluntary mental imagery is much reduced. Get it?

Reduced compared to what?

 

[Kharakov]

Dream imagery.

 

[barbos]

Dream imagery.

It is supposed to be "reduced" compared to that.

 

[dystopian]

4) how do you know that the imagery of the world around you is more or less vivid when you close your eyes?

Because 1) unlike you, I understand my ability to visualize; it's abilities and its limitations, and 2) because as I've repeatedly explained, there's no actual images appearing in one's field of vision when visualizing, regardless of whether or not one has their eyes closed: which means that it is *impossible* for the visual input from my open eyes to be less vivid. That, by the way, is basic analytical thinking; which you would have been able to do yourself if you were actually as good or better at it than myself, as you seem to believe you are.

I know because of my experiences of lucid dreaming- I was consciously aware I was dreaming, and interacted with an awesome world. When I come out of the dream, I am aware of the visualization of the dream world dissolving or disappearing as rapidly as the image of the room I am in disappears when I close my eyes.

Except lucid dreaming is something to take a very large chunk of salt on one's spoon; there is no way to verify it whatsoever. We're supposed to believe that someone has experienced a lucid dream purely on the basis of them saying so, but most people who claim to have experienced lucid dreams can't even hit all the markers that qualify a dream as a 'lucid dream' when they describe the experience. Personal experience is a horrible metric, as I've already explained to you. We have no way of determining that you actually experienced a lucid dream at all, or whether in the moments after you woke your brain produced a feedback loop that gave you the strong *impression* that you had a lucid dream. It is not even possible for *you* (or anyone in a similar situation) to distinguish between these two.