/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6992296
Condemned to /lit/ for a thousand years.

>>6992296
For me the apple keeps morphing but is pretty clear

>>6992296

Meme, if anyone could do 1, you didn't even need to learn art, you would have photographic memory and could just draw anything directly from your mind

>>6993344
having a photographic memory doesn't mean you can just plop it onto the canvas

>>6992296
if I think hard about entering a dark room, my pupils dilate, and if I think about staring at the sun, they constrict.

>>6992296
You could do calligraphy

I always feel like this graph is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't account for your own sense of the accuracy of the image, or how long you can hold it. Also, an apple is really fucking easy. Imagine waves crashing and see how well you can really See everything, or a crowd of people, a tree, people in action, different perspectives. What the fuck does 0 mean anyway. People who say they're 1s probably haven't actually tried hard enough to realize "No i don't literally see an apple as clear as day, i just think i do, because it's There and it looks nice." And people who think they're 3 or 4s are just insecure because they don't realize all thought is abstract and photographic memory is very, very rare, and photographic memory also still has limits.

>>6992296
I think people who say they imagine clearly are just a little crazy. Their brain tricks them into thinking they're seeing what's in their mind. If you don't have a perfect photographic memory and can recall every detail as if the picture is in front of you, you're not seeing shit in your mind. Your brain tells you you do and you believe it.

I think I have a pretty good imagination and creativity, but I cannot see or hear anything that isn't there. I can think of sound or a picture, vaguely. But I don't see it. I can't see/think of details I can't recall. I can imagine and build stuff, manipulate shapes, but I don't see it. I never hallucinated or thought I saw a ghost or anything like that, but I guarantee you that the people who think they can see in their minds are the same people who report seeing things that don't exist. On top of all of this, I'm a better artist than a lot of people, not a pro though.

>>6993447
pyw

>>6993341
kek mine has boobs

>>6993450
Unfinished piece.

>>6993360
It literally does tho, lmao

nigga got hit with a baseball

https://youtu.be/JL6NAIVpl54

>>6993456
If I asked you to imagine a coke bottle, can you remember and 'see' the nutrition label on it? Or do you just think you're seeing it with no actual legible text on it?

>>6993462
personally, i can remember the label yes, but very blurry and with gaps in the text.

A person with photographic memory could remember everything about it, and could cite you the text backwards. These people are 1 in a million though, this is why I think OP's picture is a meme, everyone can think of an apple and remember it's colors, but it doesn't mean they literally see the colors and shape of the apple, they just have a rough idea of it in their head. They can remember colors, but they don't see the actual color inside their head.

>>6993465
A lot of these people claim to literally see things in their minds, like there is a monitor inside their heads.

>>6993447
I think you are right. They may visualize better in some sense, but not "see". to prove it, get someone who claims 0-1 to draw a famous face from memory, or a famous cartoon character they have not drawn before and not seen so recently.
I bet they think they can see officer wiggam perfectly in their head, but come drawing time, it is not so clear.

>>6993447
I don't think so.
I can see all sorts of things. I can imagine Paul McCartney's face, fruits, cities i've been in, it's hard to imagine very busy scenes or movement with accuracy (It either gets blurry, is unseen, or just doesn't work correctly and falls into abstraction or inaccuracy) but I can definitely see it.
Yes, it's different from seeing something in real life, but that's like saying no one actually sees their dreams because you make them up in your head.
I also have very, very vivid dreams regularly and many dreams per night, most of which are fairly negative.
I do believe there is a connection between being "crazy" and imagination, but it can go both ways (I know someone who hallucinates who has had many years of being unable to dream, to regular horrible dreams/waking nightmares, or hallucinating)
It's not as simple as "You just think you see it" just because you can't.

>>6993478
>I can imagine Paul McCartney's face
draw him and post it.

>>6993483
Hanging out with someone
Also artistic skill does not show what you're imagining, and even if it could, it doesn't mean my imagination of Paul McCartney is all that accurate, but I think it would be more accurate than most because i used to like him a lot.
Better test would be to draw multiple celebs and see how they compare to each drawing.

>>6993478
I do dream, and had like 2-3 extremely vivid dreams in my entire life. But when I'm awake, all I have is the memory of a vivid dream. If I had a monitor in my mind, I would never need to look at a photo reference more than once. I would just put the image in my mental monitor. If you can't do that, then you're not seeing or looking at anything in your mind. You just convince yourself that you're seeing it, and your brain is just better at it than mine.

>>6993488
both of you draw him.

>>6993455
its all wonky but it’s lit
>tfw cannot detail feet otherwise people think you’re into them

>>6993497
I didn't say I was good. But I'm certainly better than a lot of people who claim to have monitors inside their heads. They should be able to put their mental image on the canvas and trace it.

>>6993492
>But when I'm awake, all I have is the memory of a vivid dream
Can't that be said about all life events that aren't happening to you in the present moment.
>If you can't do that, then you're not seeing or looking at anything in your mind
Thought, images in the mind, memory, are abstractions. No one gets to have that monitor. Even those with photographic memory do not have an exact video in their mind, they don't remember every shit they took, every wrong turn on a road, and so on, like a very long movie.
Just because you may not be good at seeing what you do, and even if it's not the most accurate, abstract sight is still sight. It's not about convincing yourself entirely, it is an aspect, but it's more about how dynamic your mind is, rather than how perfect it is.

On dreams again, i think we are just different people. I have dreams that are deeply impactful, dreams that feel like events. Sometimes I have dreams that cover very large aspects of time, for a dream, or go through different periods of my life, different feelings. Places I could have conceivably been in, but not exactly. Or places that were supposed to be placed I had been, but I knew it wasn't the same. But when you're dreaming you focus on the feelings, the fact that you're there, even if you do acknowledge it's all off. This doesn't support the idea that mental sight is just convincing yourself of something, because this is when you are asleep, and even then you are aware of the Situation, the dream itself, to a degree.
When i remember my dreams, i remember images, generalizations, stills, mostly like a 2d image. My imagination does the carrying, where i can imagine moving in my dream. In my dreams I don't have to try because it's happening to me, but it is also me, and it's not Just convincing myself something is happening, because dreams have physical/chemical (One in the same) proof. Thought is very similar. Idk where i'm going with this I just think it's interesting.

>>6992296
i had to imagine porn in my head for myself when i was teenager because my parents were insanely religious. id imagine whole lengthy scenes with characters, events happening, dialogue and conversation.
I can imagine a red apple in my head. i am doing it right now, it's spinning.

>>6993579
i just rotated it 90 degrees

>>6993456
>nigga got hit with a baseball
That's an entirely different savant retard

>>6993456
lol so for people without a photographic memory, they can also perfectly replicate something if... you give them a photo?

>>6993572
To an independent observer, a typical person with 1 has no measurable differences from a typical person with 5. There is no difference in recall. No difference in creativity. The only difference is in their reported experience, In fact, the person with 1 will sound like a crazy person. I know this one guy who claims to be 1, and often he'll stare into the distance with a goofy smile on his face, and then suddenly snap back into reality. He failed at everything he tried and is a complete delusional mess.

But there is also this famous computer engineer whose name I forgot who claims to be able to take any object and rotate it in his mind and look at it. But he talks more like he's a savant or something or has a perfect photographic memory. I can find his name if anyone's interested.

>>6993868
If you give them a photo, they can trace it.

>>6993344
A lot more skill goes into a good looking peice than just copying it from your brain. If you don't beleive me, then look at how beglets trace when the picture is literally right on front of their eyes.

>>6993874
>But there is also this famous computer engineer whose name I forgot who claims to be able to take any object and rotate it in his mind and look at it
Jim Keller?

>>6993930
Yes.

>>6993874
DYED

>>6993939
Normie: like; no like
Permabeg: *rolls dice* it’s the saturation
Int: can point out what is wrong but no insight
Master/art director: can precisely point out what is wrong and how to fix it

>>6993344
Try drawing with your non dominat hand. Are you as good at drawing as with your dominant hand? No. There are other skills that you have to acquire other than having epic 3D imagination.

>>6994045
There's a lot of artists who say they're 1 and are able to trace with decent results, but they can't trace from their minds.

>>6994061
do you know what tracing means?

my brain functions far surpass any and all of your brain functions.
also my shit doesn't stink
not pmw because i am king shit and can see the entire universe and shit it all out exactly how it appears in reality.

>>6992296

>>6993447
>>6993344
>Eidetic memory is typically found only in young children, as it is virtually nonexistent in adults.[6][7] Hudmon stated, "Children possess far more capacity for eidetic imagery than adults, suggesting that a developmental change (such as acquiring language skills) may disrupt the potential for eidetic imagery."[7] Eidetic memory has been found in 2 to 10 percent of children aged 6 to 12. It has been hypothesized that language acquisition and verbal skills allow older children to think more abstractly and thus rely less on visual memory systems
you literally get worse at visualising as you get older, and start relying on abstract thought instead, it’s part of why it gets so much harder to learn visual art if you start late and why children are so much into drawing

>>6993501
>But I'm certainly better than a lot of people who claim to have monitors inside their heads.
funny I always found skill acquisition to come easiest to low iq people. It has most to do with being able to slam your head into a wall repeatedly without ever getting bored.

>>6994542
easy on the copium

>>6994542
yeah, stupid people are often very skilled
wtf are you talking about?!

>>6993344
everyone has this memory thing, it's just that you can't actively recall it because you don't give a shit about a subject you wanna draw
You can't convince me people don't have this
How do they recall their first kiss and shit like that? In words?
"Uhh yeah she told me she loves me and then we kissed" without any images or active tactile feel recall? I remember that and a LOT of other stuff and can cycle through it, bring images back to my mind etc, if I relied only on words I'd kms

isn't like. not having it better since you need to draw what see not what you think something is

>>6993939
never 5get

They key to vivid visualization is low brain frequency that's why your visualization drastically improves as you're trying to drift off to sleep

>>6993939
>colossal retard narcissist can't even trace properly (note the top contour of the toilet bowl) and blames anon
People like this should just give up and go away, instead they linger here like schizophrenic poltergeists harassing people who are actually trying and can accept their mistakes with dignity

>>6995014
How do you go low hz? I tried binaural beats and isochronicorwhatever beats. None of it works.

>>6995056
While being able to remain active? I don't know. But if you're into this stuff you can try a float tank

>>6993344
ngmi

>>6993344
>>6993456
>directly from your mind
nigger you can't even copy a drawing while looking at it directly, what the fuck are you even talking about, retard

>>6995001
>yeah, stupid people are often very skilled
Think about it. This IS true.

>>6992296
5 does not exist. If you ask these people to draw an apple they are not going to be crying and peeing their pants. But they will if you remind them of something embarrassing they did in 7th grade because, guess what, they are visualizing it in their head. This "disorder" belongs in the woman moment hall of fame.

No one has explained what 0 means yet

>>6993456
Anyone can if they are sufficiently sleep deprived.

>>6995423
how do you explain color to a blind man?

>>6995544
That's a retarded response. The rest of the numbers represent how well you see an apple, which is red, it doesn't matter if we can describe its color or texture, we know it's there. What the fuck does 0 mean, why is someone thinking of thinking of an apple. The apple is right there why is there another silhouette no one thinks of someone else thinking of an apple.

>>6995547
don’t worry about it

>>6995547
there should be a final one with me thinking about when i banged your mom last night

>>6994542
You sound really butthurt about something personal, and you're here throwing punches at the first thing you see that doesn't fight back, a fucking 4chan thread. Take your meds. Your doctor is right.

>>6995544
>how do you explain color to a blind man?
>>6995547
>The rest of the numbers represent how well you see an apple,
anon, you can describe seeing a red apple to a blind man, you can tell him the color, you can explain the emotions or focus... but he will never be closer to understanding how you can "view" it.
anon, you can describe imagining a red apple to an NPC, you can tell him the color, you can explain the emotions or focus... but he will never be closer to understanding how you can "view" it.

>>6995621
How is that different from 6

>>6995621
The retard whose brain is half asleep and cannot discern reality from the fiction in its mind calling me an NPC for not being delusional like its retarded ass.

>>6995631
>calling me an NPC
That wasn't you that was me don't be mean

>>6995631
hit a bit close for comfort huh

>>6995624
I don't think it matters between the two. 6 is pretty much just people who, instead of staring at objects in prepubescence from multiple angles and thus trained their 3d imagery skills in their mind instead read many books and thus more quickly and readily associate it with a string. So, it's more like 6 would be the equivalent of I guess a 3 or 4. 6 is not normally in the image anyway.

>>6995631
It's pretty crazy how NPCs always react with obvious programming even at the most mundane targeting.

>>6995879
>I don't think it matters between the two.
Yeah that was my thinking. It makes no sense to include it if it's just "I can't see it so I try to describe it" - or, implying someone is imagines describing an apple to someone else, and imagines what they imagine, or something like that. No one does that.
>6 is not normally in the image anyway.
I've seen it before, never 0

>>6993447
I think people take this too literally.
It’s entirely possible to think in sounds and images, I do it all the time, but I don’t literally see and hear them, otherwise they wouldn’t be daydreams, they’d be hallucinations.
I can imagine a picture of an apple.
Hell, I can imagine an apple growing from an apple tree, being picked and being eaten, but my eyes don’t see shit, that series of images is in my brain.
Do your ears hear a song when it’s stuck in your head? Of course not, so why should you expect your eyes to see a daydream?

>>6992296
I was 5 a couple years ago when I started really getting into art. I'm now a 3 or 2 but it takes a lot of concentration and focus.

>>6992296
I’m pretty sure I’m a 2.
I can imagine 1 if I focus on it, but I most naturally imagine things simplistic and cartoony.

>>6997188
based progresschad, congratulations on your graduation from NPC to human bean

>>6993903
>>6995232

a mediocre artist is going to make something more convincing copying a photo than making it all themselves though

I'm ~2 but hardly visualize at all for art, I think it doesn't really help. You don't have to recall things that much, that's why you're "recording" it in front of you anyhow

>>6992296
Missing something.

>>6992296

>>6993344
Could a non-pianist play Moonlight Sonata just because it's their favorite piece?

>>6992296
arby's is pretty good when people shut the hell up

>>6999999

>>6992296
lmao I will never be a real artist because I'm an adhdnigger without talent, but I don't think it's the same case for everyone.
It's not over. never give up bro

if people could imagine things as clearly as they proudly proclaim whenever the meme comes up, they could just overlay it on top of the canvas and trace it. they can't. they don't.

I have a feeling we are all "seeing" mostly the same thing, some are just more honest about it

I can picture stuff in my head but it's like a memory of something I've seen before.

>>6992296
so much of illustrating has been quantified into essentially math and rendering tricks and you dolts are still struggling?

>>7000892
That's called prophantasia and some people like Nikola Tesla could do that apparently.

>>7000892
I think there is still a spread but people are definitely delusional

>>7003578
thats some literal schizo shit lol

>>7000892
>>7003589
It's crazy how NPCs are incapable of understanding:
>The difference between seeing something in the mind vs seeing something irl (i.e. waking hallucinations)
>the physical ability to trace something that isn't visible in the same plane, or the physical comfortability with the drawing tool
>the fact that plenty of artists do this but don't talk about it because why would they? Most people who can visualize things think everyone is able to
>the fact that you can see clear examples of artists incapable of visualizing things and drawing things in awful, inaccurate conditions
https://road.cc/content/blog/90885-science-cycology-can-you-draw-bicycle

>>6995887
yeah 0 isn't in the image normally either, it's normally just 1-5.

>>7003590
Yeah probably. but it's still a thing. Some people even experience it for a brief moment while waking up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnopompia

>>7000892
>they can't. they don't.
some can, most don't
mental hallucinations translate poorly to physical mediums

Good thread but I'm surprised no one has mentioned that seeing incredibly clear and detailed mental images, being able to hold them and being able to process information nonverbally with chains of shifting/"animated" images is a normal thing for autists and aspies

>>7004055
well most of us here are autists and aspies, right? So it's kind of implicitly understood.

>>6995232
just overlay your photographic memory over the paper and trace over it, bro.

>>6993344
I can do 1 but it's exteremely fleeting and it makes my brain hurt trying to keep the image still

>>7004395
If you push through the pain, a real apple will form in your brain, killing you instantly.

>>7004398
Aw cool

I'm glad people are starting to call out this faggy little meme. It was a nasty little bit of social contagion when it blew up circa 2020, like the nonbinary/trans shit. Obviously you expect cases like this in the extreme (Temple Grandin, the skyline drawer, both autists btw), but it can't possibly be the case that neurotypical individuals *commonly* have the remarkable ability to visualize in parity with actual seeing. It doesn't even make sense on its face, why would you be able to IMAGINE as well as you can SEE? What purpose could that serve evolutionarily? It would be an incredibly inefficient allocation of precious brain resources. I've always thought the outlandish claims of perfect visualization were more revealing of low self awareness/metacognition than anything.
t. skilled artist

>>7004414
>but it can't possibly be the case that neurotypical individuals *commonly* have the remarkable ability to visualize in parity with actual seeing.
anon the whole point of it is that a significant portion of the population, i.e. (You), are NPCs incapable of forming images mentally. The aggressive non-rebuttals throughout this thread of people not believing it's possible at all are tacit proof that those without the ability are incapable of higher reasoning.

>>7004414
> but it can't possibly be the case that neurotypical individuals *commonly* have the remarkable ability to visualize in parity with actual seeing.
Who knows, but as you said it exists in autistic savants so it's real. As for evolution, evolution isn't always a perfect linear path is it? But I believe everyone can have realistic waking visualizations akin to what one would see in a dream while in certain states, buddhist monks are probably great at it for example. And are you going to go as far as to say that the visualization ability can't be improved and say what the limit on it is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_effect

>>7004425
And I contend these supposed "(hyper)phantasiacs" are low IQ normalniggers with poor metacognition (understanding of one's own thoughts). You have it all wrong, for one. The studies don't claim aphantasia is represents a "significant" portion of the population - figures are usually placed in the sub-5% zone in actual studies.
Yet, it's supposedly very common in popsci and social media. Again, like the trans thing. Gender dysphoria, if it's a real phenomenon, isn't supposed to occur frequently in the population. Yet it seems like every artist and musician is some brand of queer or genderconfused these days.
I can imagine very well, but I've always known I'm not literally seeing the thing. It's only retards who think they're envisioning a high resolution copy of the thing. See this anon's >>7003596 bicycle link for more.
You can explain most dumb-looking memes, by realizing most people are absolute mongoloid Dunning Kruger idiots. Something like 80% of people rate themselves above-average drivers. 15% of the population has an IQ below 90. Think about that before trusting self-report.
>>7004443
>But I believe everyone can have realistic waking visualizations
Brother, I'm not going to get into altered states of consciousness too much, except to say that practically speaking, this is self evidently not true. It isn't actually a GOOD THING to suffer from schizophrenic delusional hallucinations. It's actually a very bad, maladaptive thing, which is why it's so rare.

>>7004447
So it's true but it's rare and you don't want to entertain the fact that it could be improved upon

>>7004460
>it's true
What is true??? What are you talking about?
I acknowledged neurodivergent individuals like Temple Grandin exist, but I never conceded that "aphantasia is true," if that's what you're getting at (wtf does that mean?).
Are you talking about altered states of consciousness being true...? I mean, yeah... I'm trying very hard to understand what your argument even is. I was talking about the validity of the aphantasia meme, not ingesting ayahuasca to see stars and rainbows

>>7004471
I never once mentioned aphantasia and neither did you till just now. I was merely pointing out the science that enabled even ordinary people to have realistic visualizations without being one of the two autistic savants you think are the only people that have it. And pondering you if you thought it could be a regular skill that people could improve upon similar to how buddhists supposedly do.

>>7004488
>and neither did you till just now
What the fuck? In my original post that you replied to, I was obviously talking exclusively about aphantasia, which is the thread topic by the way. You're the one bringing Buddhist monks and altered state of consciousness into this.

>>7004494
In your original posts you're talking about people with great visulisation abilities, do you even read what you post?

>>7004414

>Obviously you expect cases like this in the extreme (Temple Grandin, the skyline drawer, both autists btw), but it can't possibly be the case that neurotypical individuals *commonly* have the remarkable ability to visualize in parity with actual seeing.
>why would you be able to IMAGINE as well as you can SEE?
> I've always thought the outlandish claims of perfect visualization were more revealing of low self awareness/metacognition than anything.

Where's the mention of aphantasia in your original post?

>>7004497
I refer to a "meme" from "circa 2020" in my post. The thread image is a variant of a popular image widely circulated on social media to "test" for aphantasia. What meme did you think I was referring to? Are you simply new? That might be forgiven, but I assumed anons simply understood what I was referring to with the context I gave.

>>7004501
We all know what you were talking about dude, but you were clearly coming at it from a hyperphantasia angle with your original post. And now you're playing the fucking retard flipping to BUT I WAS TALKING ABOUT APHANTASIA. No you were not, reread your original post. I'm done arguing with someone with number 5 writing comprehension abilities

>>7004526
>he knows what I'm talking about, but argues in bad faith anyway
Hyperhantasia and aphantasia are two sides of the same coin, retard. Of course I'm talking about both, they're related! It's all stupid bullshit, it's all fake. Except, maybe, in very extreme cases. Stay on topic next time and debate in good faith, you shit-knob.

>>6992296
If you are a wordcel you should kill yourself by stabbing your throat with a pencil multiple times. You don't have a soul.

Genuinely creepy to me that wordcels exist
Imagine needing words to speak and not being able to think about things unless you have words
Someone a little earlier in this thread mentioned evolution is nonlinear
It also isn't insured, so to speak, we have a much higher chance of evolving back into brainless arthropods than we have of evolving into some kind of higher beings with expanded consciousnesses, vast perception and astonishing levels of sentience and I think something about the world we're living in today is promoting the genetic success of human-shaped animals that are just void of any animating spirit or soul
Flesh automatons driven (clumsily) by (erratic) neurotransmitters

>>7004447
how are you so stupid

>>7003590
Nah, that's sleeping.

>>7004447
>>>/mu/119934987
they done got em
they done got viper

>>6992296
Apul?

>>7004447
Just got a realisation that based on whay you wrote i have a special talent/curse

>>6995232
yes i can permabeg

>>6993456
if he's drawing it from memory, why was he taking photos in the helicopter?

>>7004728
KAW
Kill all wordcels

>>6992296
Wordcels don’t actually exist
You just need to use emotionally significant descriptors and sensory deprivation to get your imagination going.
That’s why aphantasia is associated with higher IQ. Greater reasoning diminishes the impact emotional events have.

I'm not a 5 but I'm pretty far from having a clear sillhouette like 4, what I do and like to think helps is imagining tact, which can be you touching the subject or it being a part of you, can't do much about colors but for defining form it's pretty useful I think

>>7007055
cope

>>6992296
I can do 0 but my output is 6.
How do I become a writer AND drawer?

Your entire post does not make sense because you are implying that people with aphantasia think in words, which is just stupid.
Anyway, it would not hurt you to read a little more I guess because your writing is disgustingly bad, just like your imagination.


Good with being pathetic and drawing, you sad little trolly.

>>7007153
use AI
(adobe illustrator)

>>6993344
you still need to learn how to draw it
most people cannot draw a thing that's right in front of them accurately

>>6995017
Pure cope. You're just fighting imaginary ghosts everyday. Talking to the wall. Your supposed values mean nothing for real people.

Try to walk to some person IRL and tell them all the same "constructive criticisms". Find yourself with a punch to the mouth

>>7007987
Congratulations
This is how aphantasiacs think about us
"You can think in pictures? That's ridiculous and not possible. Everyone thinks in words like me"
Aphantasiacs think in words. All their thoughts are literally held in the form of an internal monologue where they basically talk to themselves internally. If you removed all their vocabulary from their mind they would literally be mind dead.

>>7000826
unironically you have to believe in yourself, i'm too am an adhd nigger yet i manage myself. If you think you can't, you won't.

>>7004414
Peak pseud post.
>It doesn't even make sense on its face, why would you be able to IMAGINE as well as you can SEE?
Do you know what you are talking about? sentience itself doesn't make sense in an evolutionary sense, yet, here we are.
>outlandish claims of perfect visualization were more revealing of low self awareness/metacognition than anything.
it translates well to:
>how can this be real if i can't experience it?
You never experienced the touch of a woman, but it exists. Retard

>>7004447
>these people with a skill i don't have are actually stupid, their IQ (pseudo science that does not correlate to artistic skill) is very low btw. Also trannies

>>7010232
>>7010241
Post your hyperphantasiac art. I'll wait.

>>7010257
being able to see shit with your third eye does help with drawing, doesn't mean i magically learn how to draw. I recently started being hyperphantasiac or however that's called, i'm still learning how to incorporate it in my art.
Your posts deny the existence of hyperphantasia and deems anyone who claims to have it to be retarded, which is stupid. kys nigger

>>7004414
>It doesn't even make sense on its face, why would you be able to IMAGINE as well as you can SEE? What purpose could that serve evolutionarily?
full confidence admittance to not having an imagination; hylic poster detected

>>7010290
>i'm still learning how to incorporate it in my art.
lmao
thought so

>>7010297
so you admit it's real?

>>7010295
You're not going to believe me, but I have a fantastic imagination. Tons of ideas comes to me with incredible facility that almost surprises me at times. I actually make art of them too. But I don't literally see them photographically, nor have I ever believed I do, unlike delusional Dunning Krugers itt.

>>7010299
post your worke

>>7010298
You don't have it or you'd be using it

>>7010301
Why would i anonymously claim to be able to imagine things well?

>>7010304
why don’t you anonymously post your work to prove it?

>>6993344
Yes that's what is called Talent.
If you're a 1 or 0 you don't have to work as hard to get good

>>7010304
I think you sincerely believe you're seeing the images in 4k. People are simply not great at accurately assessing their internal, subjective experience. I'm not the first person to say so.
All I ever ask is for supposed visualizing-gigabrains to demo their amazing skills, and they never can. I once challenged an anon on his absurd hyperhantasiac claims, and he produced beg shit. The thing is, he really believed what he was doing was impressive until I pointed out the glaring issues. And that only made him angry.

>>7010314
Fascinating. Why don’t you post your work to one up them?

>>7010311
>>7010314
visualization does not correlate to skill. You can stare at a tree, it looks perfectly realistic and in-reality, but it's not as easy to translate that image to paper. Visualizations are even harder because they are abstract

>>7010311
Because i don't want to, make a real argument, nigger

>>7010328
>i have a great imagination
>no I won’t post evidence fuck off nigger
posting work has never been harder

>>7010322
I don't care that much. I just want you to know what I think. Be honest with yourself, first. Are you REALLY a visualizing supercomputer, or more like a regular dude who can't draw a face that isn't skewed?

>>7010337
retard, you can be both. Some people have great voices yet they never become good musicians/singer

>>7010337
I’m a visualizing supercomputer who can’t draw a face that isn’t skewed. Being able to visualize helps a lot but it isn’t everything

>>6992296
I don't see the point of pursuing a discipline if you find no enjoyment in it. Same goes for the wordpeople, your talent is in writing, so go into writing and not something that'll frustrate you every moment.

>>7010334
Read>>7010340
>>7010326
>>7010312

>>7010338
At minimum supposed hyper(phantasiacs) should be able to produce more accurate, detailed, true to life drawings than "aphantasiacs", but this hasn't been demonstrated. So it remains an unfalsifiable dick waving contest as of yet, no better than claiming you can see ghosts.
>>7010340
Why should I believe you then?

>>7010349
Tell me, how would anyone benefit from claiming they have a good imagination on the anonymous green mongolian forum?

>>7010354
Ego stroking. Happens all the time.

>>7010359
you are the only one egostroking in this thread. also who the fuck is proud of having a good imagination? something most consider childish

>>6993456
Guys I have an idea on how we're finally gnmi. I just need someone good at baseball

>>7010365
If you're not proud, why call me a hylic? A sour grapes fox? You're proud of your imaginary 6th sense.

>>7010375
Because you called me low iq tranny in the first place, you are proud of not having a good imagination

>>6993344
>The mind of a rendercel

>>7010381
Anon, I have a great imagination, again. I "perceive" imagery, but I don't see it literally in the way my eyes would 1:1. It seems quite extraordinary to me that a person could imagine as well as he sees. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence...some kind of externalization that can be observed. Hyperphantasiacs never supply. So I start to think they're maybe a bit dim, describing the same "qualia" as me in different terms. In a wore, Dunning Krugers, Donkey Kongs, Dunkin Konuts.
Don't you think psychics and other spoon benders are a bit cuckoo?

>>7010397
nigger, i never said i could see 1:1, stop using buzzwords

>>7010400
>buzzwords
Where?
>i never said i could see 1:1
Then what are you seeing? Are you aware some phantasiacs claim to see the apple as if they were looking at it eyes wide open? Refer to the OP image. What do you suppose Stage 1 represents? Looks photographic to me. I'd call that "1:1."
Anything vaguer than 1:1 shouldn't need its own specialized term, we already had a term for that for centuries, and got along just fine -"imagination." Which never implied "seeing" in any actual sense, until someone decided to psyop the population for clicks.

>>7010411
>Hyperphantasiacs
>qualia
>psychics
>spoon benders

>Then what are you seeing?
your mother's fleshy vagina and her blown out asshole

>>6993344
Even very talented artists still make mistakes, still need references and (some degree of) construction, etc. Clearly they’re not just pulling up a photograph in their mind and copying it. But still, normal people can do a certain kind of mental visualization that people with aphantasia can’t.
A small number of people have hyperphantasia and they can essentially hallucinate on demand. They really can just think up an image and copy it like they’re looking at a photo ref. But this is extremely rare, probably rarer than aphantasia.

>>7010439

>buzzwords buzzwords
>bzzt bzzt bzzt
just draw lazy niggers

>>7010397
You wanting some kind of evidence doesn't even make sense. If someone hasn't reached the level of reproducing properly from photo refs then having perfect visualization won't change shit

what do 5 and 6 even dream about?
>5: bro it was so scary I saw literally nothing but it was spooky it was like a feeling just trust me bro
>6: omg a dictionary

>>6992296
I can imagine the apple, I can resize it, change the color and place it anywhere but only for a short moment