Who /aphantasia/ here?

File: 173 KB, 750x714, 295441DE-82C2-402D-BBE8-6772E1DEE876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:14:45 2020 No.11392348 [Reply] [Original]

Who /aphantasia/ here?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:15:45 2020 No.11392349 And to save you a click and some clacks “Aphantasia is a condition where one does not possess a functioning mind's eye and cannot voluntarily visualize imagery.”

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:16:31 2020 No.11392351

>>11392348
I'm a 5 so I can't relate, but also I can manipulate objects in my head easier with my eyes OPEN, is anyone else like this too? Like staring at a piece of blank paper or a wall its much easier to do things like cut the apple into 4 pieces, and then into 8, make them fly apart or come together, or put a sticker on it and rotate it and keep the sticker in the same spot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:17:20 2020 No.11392352 For me I can imagine things but I can’t visualize them. Like I feel the gears turning and I’ll be in the moment when people are telling stories but I don’t see anything ever

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:19:16 2020 No.11392353 File: 77 KB, 750x714, 1581934485281.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11392348

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:20:37 2020 No.11392356 >>11392349 go back, nigger

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:23:13 2020 No.11392358 >>11392356 t. Feels superior to others for not using social media

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:36:50 2020 No.11392368 >>11392348 (Raises hand.) I think that the visuals may come so easy that we don't know that we do it. I bet you can write in great detail, what you think you cannot visualize.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:38:08 2020 No.11392369

>>11392348
I think I'm halfway there. I can visualize things, but from what other people say it seems like they get a fully rendered object while I just kinda get whatever part I'm specifically thinking about.
What really gets me are the people who have no internal monologue. I always assumed that was a universally human thing, and that my cat, for example, thought more in "feelings".

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:44:30 2020 No.11392376

>>11392369
Wuut that’s crazy to me. I thought everyone has an inner monologue. If I had to guess maybe some people are confused about what an inner monologue actually is, and assume there’s people out there who’s inner voice is talking automatically. Idk

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:49:40 2020 No.11392380 >>11392348 >What do you see? I don't see shit nigga, my eyes are closed. Everyone who says he actually "sees" anything imaginary is either lying or insane.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:51:44 2020 No.11392385 I can imagine a rubiks cube and move each side. I do this every night as an exercise before sleep. I also try to visualize my journey from home to work in the most detailed way possible.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:51:57 2020 No.11392386

>>11392380
I thought people were trolling at first but not true. My roommate whole heartedly told me he can stare at a wall and see formulas get drawn on it when he’s doing math. He said it’s like you have the same thoughts you normally do but you can picture them as well. Apparently when reading a book the landscape pops up in his vision as well

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:55:57 2020 No.11392393

>>11392380
Retard.
>>11392386
This. When you imagine moving your body, what happens is that your brain actually performs the nerve-firing patterns that would initiate such movement, but it gets blocked. In some people (spastics), this blocking mechanism is impaired.
Pretty sure the inner eye is a similar thing, where you don't actually "see" something, but can visualize it in a manner akin to moving parts of your body without causing the actual movement.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:58:19 2020 No.11392398

>>11392348
I can't see the object with my eyes closed as I would see it if it were physically present.
When I close my eyes all I can see is the common red/black color, but if I think about the leaf of the apple, I can construct a "mental map" of it, covering all of the details, from memory+imagination. It's like seeing it without seeing it.
I guess this is aphantasia?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 05:59:11 2020 No.11392399 >>11392348 2 >>11392386 I can't imagine reading books without being able to immerse yourself in them. It's not even something you actively do, it just happens

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:02:59 2020 No.11392401 >>11392386 >>11392393 Nah it's bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:04:48 2020 No.11392405 >>11392401 kek, asocial loser.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:05:39 2020 No.11392406

I have satisfying moments in my day to day life when I let my imagination go wild, and I enjoy like a picture show in my mind. It started as a way to entertain myself on long road trips as a kid. I just stare at no place in particular and project my visualizations to superimpose with the surrounding environment.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:06:57 2020 No.11392408

>>11392398
When you say you see the color, do you mean you see the Apple or just the color alone. If you can see anything at all then it’s not aphantasia. I do theorize that there is levels to this stuff. Some people I’ve asked told me they can only see the Apple, but can’t rotate it or slide it or anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:08:07 2020 No.11392411 like alex listening to ludwig van beethoven in his room in clockwork orange, music helps

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:13:45 2020 No.11392424 qualia make no sense. Give up >inner monologue >abstract thinking >visualizing >inner ear >minds eye >touch/warmth/pain >flavor >color >sounds >balance >hunger >etc. IT'S THE ONLY WAY THE STANDARD MODEL HOLDS WATER!

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:14:14 2020 No.11392426 >>11392348 For me apples are green. People who like red apples need to be culled t b h. Also, 3.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:14:34 2020 No.11392427

im still not sure i understand what im not seeing.

I have a great imagination, i can imagine things and inspect them with my thoughts to fine detail, generating detail as i go, even beyond what one could actually see with their eyes, but i dont 'see' anything in my vision. Seems like if people actually did this it would block what ever they are looking at in reality with illusory objects.

So either im a 1 or a 5

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:17:04 2020 No.11392433 I don't actually see an apple but I can still imagine it being manipulated, its crunch, texture, how it feels to touch, throwing it up in the air, spinning around. Yet I see nothing. Does this make sense to you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:17:35 2020 No.11392434 >>11392406 i do this too and its much easier than trying to imagine something particular. i get very vivid images generated randomly

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:19:39 2020 No.11392438 >>11392427 i can imagine things but i only get the defining aspects of it like im experiencing the colour the shape but not seeing an actual apple.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:23:08 2020 No.11392443 >>11392438 how do you perform on spacial inagination tests, like being shown a shape and having to find the correct rotated one? I just visually imagine the shape and rotate it and "see" the result. How else would you do this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:23:23 2020 No.11392445 I just remember the last apple I saw, i tried this with a cat and imagined the cat I saw on the pavement a week ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:26:51 2020 No.11392454 >>11392443 I do it logically I guess

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:35:12 2020 No.11392469

im still not sure people aren't just confusing themselves with language about this

Lets change the subject to smells.
I can recall a smell, but that smell does not override the smells in the room im currently sitting in, i dont actually smell it, but i can remember smelling it and remember the smells properties. I dont know words to describe smells, so i can not really classify any given smell with out comparing it to some other smell - yet when i imagine the smell, i do not hold a set of comparisons or descriptions in my mind, i instead hold the experience of that smell with out actually smelling it.

Now, what i presume the OP image is doing, from my own perspective, would be the equivalent of saying some people lack this, and could only remember a smell they are not currently smelling in the context of having a list of properties of the smell or things that smell similar in their head, only a structured categorization system of the smells properties, and have no capacity to experience the smell with out smelling.

Likewise i then, assume that to imagine something in your head, you are seeing it with out seeing. When i imagine a thing, my vision simply defocuses, im not accepting visual input anymore, my 'minds eye' is not projecting a hologram only i can see in front of me, but rather it is conjuring up an invisible thing which i experience with out seeing. I thus fully and completely have the experience of seeing the thing, but with out actually having an image of it. I have the thing which the senses produce within the mind with out the intermediary sensory cause of that experience (light in this case)

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:46:31 2020 No.11392495

>>11392348
Reminder: aphantasia is not scientific. The people suggesting they "see" (in any sense of the word*) full-colour, high resolution images in their head are introspectively deficient at best and deluded at worst. Most people answer 5, although it is supposed to be some rare phenomena. Those answering 1 almost certainly do not have visual powers beyond our comprehension. 5 is the correct response.
*This is not a semantic argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:48:37 2020 No.11392503 >>11392495 >noooo, people who can imagine something better than me are delusional

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:49:59 2020 No.11392506

>>11392495
What a cope.
I can absolutely imagine the sandwich I will eat later tonight in full detail. I can see the table, the plate, the bread, the cheese and cucumber. I can also see the littke holes in the bread and the crumbs on the plate. Now, I have to admit that it is hard to imagine all of this simultaneously - if I want to really see the crumbs in detail then the rest might become a bit blurry, but the samd is true for your real vision.
Most people can do this I would think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:50:28 2020 No.11392509 >>11392503 >I promise I'm not a gullible retard, I just have a beautiful mind

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:50:52 2020 No.11392510 >>11392495 My roommate can literally hallucinate math formulas being carved into the wall. I can comprehend how one could to that but that was pretty shocking news to me

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:54:22 2020 No.11392514 >>11392380 >>11392386 yeah anyone can do this shit it's not the same as literally seeing it though. It's like an impression that's not actually there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:54:25 2020 No.11392515 1 = 130 IQ (100 + 2 SD) Every step to the right is 15 IQ less

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 06:55:06 2020 No.11392516

>>11392503
To be honest anon, even a perfect reproduction of an apple would be less useful than the full combined idea of an apple i can conjur up and experience. My experience of 'apple' includes far more than just its appearance.

It also confuses me, as i always do best with spacial IQ, how this would be possible if my visualization is lacking.

To respond to an earlier post directed a tsomeone else asking how to rotate something in mind. I effectively map points on the structure and move them, and can play connect the dots afterwards, not visually, but intuitively. The spacial distance between the points remains the same so as long as you know where two points are you know where everything else on the shape is.

>>11392510
But can he? I can look at a wall and know exactly what it would look like if there were formulas being carved into it, painted on it, written in marker, crayon. I could describe it to you, but the wall in front of me remains blank.
Can your room mate actually halucinate at will?

If people could do this why is there even VR technology being pushed? Why don't people just space out all day projecting entire false realities in front of themselves?

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:03:55 2020 No.11392532

>>11392514
Not everyone. Look what I’m getting at is that there’s a difference between seeing, visualizing, and imagining. I for one could fully imagine an equation getting carved into the wall. I can’t visualize it happening though, but my roommate can. And neither of us can see it.

>>11392516
He can, but I don’t think you can visualize anything too extravagant. I’m not too sure I’m gonna ask him when he wakes up

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:08:54 2020 No.11392541 >>11392515 But that is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:12:23 2020 No.11392547 >>11392427 I think you're alright.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:13:37 2020 No.11392548 >>11392515 kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:28:07 2020 No.11392578 getting a tulpa good or bad idea?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:29:24 2020 No.11392580 >>11392348 oh so it is another label for special snowflakes from tumblr

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:32:38 2020 No.11392591 >>11392532 >I’m gonna ask him when he wakes up it is probably more funny to me than anybody else but I imagined anon forcefully waking up the guy >dude, dude wake up >you know that wall you imagine?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:45:32 2020 No.11392616 >>11392358 You should. Social media is a brainlet tier timesink. So is 4chan btw

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:49:47 2020 No.11392622 >>11392495 Nigga, I can literally close my eyes and imagine looking into a bright light to the point I actually get those glare spots in my vision when I reopen my eyes. shits wild man.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:53:53 2020 No.11392628

>>11392427
Yeah, this is understandable and normal. Notice that the question, like all these aphantasia questions, sets up a false dichotomy as well as a spectrum of responses, but 3/5ths of the answers are ignored by respondents because they are meaningless garbage. People report only either *seeing* the apple as it's pictured or (more honestly) not really seeing much of anything besides the abstractive phantasmagoria your imagination conjures (e.g. shifting forms, malleable and spaceless objects, fuzziness, etc. - anything besides a coloured, high-resolution, two-dimensional image). I mean, what kind of retard imagines a pink silhouette or a brown apple when they think of a red apple?
Again, this aphantasia stuff is overwhelmingly nonsense and after seeing like 5 threads on it now I'm pretty convinced it's being propped up by trolls. Now, thanks to a handful of well circulated articles and images, a whole generation of snowflakes with perfectly normal mental faculties will go thinking they have congenital aphantasia. There's even a support network and forum that's been set up for this purpose (with a Patreon of course), exploring strategies for coping with aphantasia, and asking important questions like: "If you can’t visualize mentally, how can you write?" and "How is it possible to be an original artist if you can’t envision what you’re trying to create?" Imagine coping this hard with a literal non-issue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:55:47 2020 No.11392630 Does anyone have ever managed to cure it or improve someway?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 07:58:58 2020 No.11392639 >>11392616 >Social media is a brainlet tier timesink. So is 4chan btw You're saying that as if 4chan didn't fit the definition of social media to a T

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:01:14 2020 No.11392646 >>11392578 Im not too familiar with that but divided the voice into different people with different expertise and different voices. Good idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:06:45 2020 No.11392653 >>11392639 >So is 4chan btw

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:10:47 2020 No.11392661 >>11392653 >Social media is a brainlet tier timesink. So is [one particular instance of social media] btw

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:11:37 2020 No.11392664

>>11392639
4chan is anti social media

We don't come here to get our egos sucked off. We come here to vent autistic rage that we're not allowed to vent on other websites, because our myopic, narcissistic views on life/society inevitably ends up turning every other site into draconian, totalitarian shitholes that even we can't tolerate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:13:37 2020 No.11392674 >>11392664 social media = media where the content is created by the users

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:17:26 2020 No.11392677 >>11392674 >implying we don't destroy more than we create

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:20:50 2020 No.11392683 My friend is like this, another one can only do still images or a very slow slideshow. Whereas I have high definition 3D video with sound. Is there any science behind why some people are deficient in this regard?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:22:16 2020 No.11392688 >>11392683 low IQ (I am one of those low IQ people by the way) By the way, what does an apple sound like?

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:35:11 2020 No.11392718

>>11392683
No, there is no science outside of more obvious brain trauma cases. Rather than you and your friend having different faculties, it is more likely that you are imagining different things and that the mental imagery you both experience eludes clear and cogent description.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:35:12 2020 No.11392719

How do i know if the image i see when i think of an apple is :
a pure construction from scrap made by my mind
or
a patchwork of images and souvenirs to recreate an apple

also presenting an image of apple and saying think of an apple is retarded. Of course i will immediately make the image pop in my head

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:40:00 2020 No.11392733

>>11392719

You can't think/imagine anything that you haven't seen before, but you can combine things you have seen. Interestingly if you were to draw an apple that would be a completely new and unique thing your brain is looking at which would affect your future imagination.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 08:56:21 2020 No.11392768 >>11392733 >You can't think/imagine anything that you haven't seen before I can think how I would draw up a sketch of an apple and do that in my head and I would never have seen that sketch before, though even if it is a shitty vague sketch

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:11:28 2020 No.11392799 >>11392353 honestly, anything above 2 is already NPC-tier

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:36:41 2020 No.11392834 >>11392353 >>11392348 People without mind eye can still have inner voice. However people without both are true NPCs/P-Zombies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:40:22 2020 No.11392838 sometimes I literally see images with my normal eyes. For instance I had been thinking about thist ime I was in a room with 1 million spiders in real life and then I closed my eyes and I saw hundreds of spiders in my eyes for real not my minds eye.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:41:03 2020 No.11392842

>>11392348
I'm a 1 but my right brain is feeling like pretty shit and I used to visualise images in my head or visualise them in reality. Feel as though this ability is going away, which I don't want it to since I felt safe being in my own little imaginary world. I can visualise feeling someting easily but now it's feels like it's going away. Need to get my right hemisphere checked but doctors in the UK aren't letting me get a CT nor a blood test, and I feel as though no one even understands what I say. I can internally speak and create voices in my head, as if there is someone there to occupy my time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:41:24 2020 No.11392844 >>11392353 I see 1

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:46:12 2020 No.11392854 >>11392427 no one is saying you see things with you eyes niggas

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:47:16 2020 No.11392857 >>11392495 most people answer 1 sorry you dont have the ability

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 09:49:12 2020 No.11392859

>>11392842
to carry on, I can even visualise death or see foresought images in my head, as if I was some mystic. I have made images of intense visualisation, where the person is getting stabbed, beheaded or anything along those lines. Suicide isn't hard to create in my head, my recent one was thinking that I was in kurt cobain shoes and shot myself in the head.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:08:37 2020 No.11392929

>>11392859
For two years, all day long my brain would visualize ways of me dying gruesome deaths. Physics simulations of self-destructive gore. It took a long time for me to be able to wrestle control over my own thoughts. My subconscious wanted me dead but my conscious mind didn't. For example I kept repeating the thought that I may be very happy in the far future, as a combat mechanism to battle the death simulations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:13:09 2020 No.11392944 >>11392443 abstract shapes like that are easy to imagine

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:19:16 2020 No.11392989

>>11392929
I had an image of a better version of myself saving me from drowing from all the hedonism that is ever present in my life. He was a built version of myself that owned a nice made from scratch home in an island that had docks. Was comfy, and always hear voices from him that I'm going to make and be where he is if I just eliminated all the crap from my life. However, ever since I've been having my burning sensation in my right brain, not knowing what the definite cause may have been; I've been hearing less of him and feeling nothing. Pretty much lost a part of myself from this stupid condition or whatever it may be.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:22:38 2020 No.11393006 My sister is a musician and says that when she's writing melodies she sees horizontal lines appearing in her head whose height corresponds to their pitch

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:24:18 2020 No.11393017 >>11392989 So have you even been to a therapist anon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:25:02 2020 No.11393023 >>11393006 a... score sheet?

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:48:58 2020 No.11393120

>>11393017
no because i don't believe in crap like cbt and im not taking meds in case I become something entirely different. I know myself and I know for a fact I lost something crucial. The neurologist at the A&E was going to ask her senior for a CT but he said that the radiation might make my pain worse, and I met him in person. He was very annoying, and I wanted to refute his points that he made to urgently get me checked but I just couldn't, when prior to this problem, I'd immediately get ticked off with anything that doesn't sound right telling myself on why and how.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:49:26 2020 No.11393122 an internal monologue is not literally hearing voices a minds eye is not literally seeing objects saged

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:54:55 2020 No.11393141 >>11393120 CBT is completely harmless therapy which stresses coping techniques and positive self-reflection. What's not to believe in? Completely agree with you on the pills though. Swerve on that if you can.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:58:19 2020 No.11393147

>>11393141
>CBT is completely harmless therapy
It costs a ton of money and is a waste of time. Also it isn't harmless because it basically promotes the idea something is wrong with you and what you are doing rather than the idea that something was or is wrong with your life and your experiences which is usually the more accurate idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 10:58:33 2020 No.11393148 >>11393122 >lol he used one word "wrong" (though this is entirely subjective and nobody else thinks it's wrong) so lets disregard everything he said retard >he doesn't have an internal dialogue double retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:02:35 2020 No.11393156 >>11392386 that's called a visual hallucination caused by mental illnesses like schizophrenia and shit

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:07:51 2020 No.11393165

>>11393147
Uhh anon if you're habitually visualising graphic scenes of you or others getting mutilated and killed don't you think maybe something is wrong? What does it matter if it's something internal or external? Literally thousands of people have been helped by CBT so I wouldn't call it a waste of time

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:10:23 2020 No.11393172 File: 274 KB, 1280x853, 1280px-The_SugarBee_Apple_now_grown_in_Washington_State.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11392348 Do people see the apple actually that bright as the first image shows? What I see is something like picrel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:12:20 2020 No.11393177 >>11393165 Not that anon, nor is he me who thinks of mutilation of murder. I only think of those things due to pure joy. I don't know I just adhere towards that stuff.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:15:34 2020 No.11393183
File: 199 KB, 1600x1304, 1566801203442.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Reminder, guys, actually seeing and recalling or imagining in your mind are two different experiences
what we are talking about is some people can't experience anything visual at all when they close their eyes

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:17:25 2020 No.11393192 File: 8 KB, 625x790, 1572404645926.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11392495

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:18:05 2020 No.11393193 >>11393172 Hello 5 (70 IQ)

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:34:09 2020 No.11393235

>>11392348
This kind of shit scares me.
I thought being a 5 was the kind of stuff that separated us from beast. 4 being for children. Like you all know what an apple looks like. Just have your brain do what it does when it actually takes occular input. The eyes don't see, the brain does. The eyes just take in the light and your brain processes it. Just process it without the light. Wtf.

Like ok, at the very least, for someone who's like a 0 or 1, look at the table/desk/wtvr in front of you. Close your eyes. Can you remember what objects are where? Can you reach out and grab a specific book with your eyes closed?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:34:39 2020 No.11393237 >>11393193 >Hello 5 (70 IQ) But you regulated your monitor brightness, potato man? The apple is there, but it's a bit dark inside my head.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:38:19 2020 No.11393245 >>11393172 Yeah, I don't imagine the apple as perfectly textured and reflective like real life, but it isn't a cartoon version, just a less rendered real world version

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 11:42:37 2020 No.11393255 >>11393237 Ok, let's be generous and say it's a mix between 1 and 5, so 3 (100 IQ). Happy now?

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 12:20:00 2020 No.11393361

>>11393255
>Ok, let's be generous and say it's a mix between 1 and 5, so 3 (100 IQ). Happy now?
Not exactly, I didn't get a real answer regarding if 1 is seeing the apple as if with open eyes.
My apple looks as if it were real, but I still get the visual information from my eyes telling my brain it's dark, because my eyes are closed.
So what I see is the perfect apple + darkness and noise from eyes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 12:25:41 2020 No.11393387 >>11392424 They exist, just not in the way you think they do. They're abstractions of behavior and low level brain processes that compel belief in a literal thing (sensation / qualia) appearing when no such thing literally appears.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 12:29:10 2020 No.11393400 >>11392433 When you are feeling the sensation of spinning it, what image do you see?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 12:34:08 2020 No.11393419 >>11392495 lol are you one of those idiots who also don't believe most people have visual dreams?

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 12:35:48 2020 No.11393428
File: 28 KB, 596x319, 1581284128423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11392348
it's simpler than that
>draw an apple by heart
if you can draw one and haven't learned every pen stroke as a choreographed sequence then you don't have aphantasia
stop attention seeking you absolute fucking scum

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:03:22 2020 No.11393531 >>11392509 No, I just know 2 people with aphantasia. >>11392516 Agree, but that wasn't the point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:10:40 2020 No.11393550 >>11392348 >1 through 4 >>11392349 You're telling me when you close your eyes you can hallucinate at will?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:19:49 2020 No.11393568 >>11392348 So you are telling me you people cannot visualize a realistic apple moving around or rotating in your heads, even with your eyes open? So what, am I schizophrenic? I am seeing one in my minds eye as I type this out

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:21:48 2020 No.11393573

>>11392349
>cannot voluntarily visualize imagery
>voluntarily
What if you use your subconscious to visualizing for you. Like a wake induced lucid dream?

>close eyes
>see apple
>see branch and leaves
>see birds, worm, and insects on branch
>see entire tree
>see park tree is sitting in
>AHHH! I just wanted to see one apple!
>opens eyes cause it's too much

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:24:05 2020 No.11393583 >>11393573 Thats just magnifying errors into new creation Try closing your eyes Look at the black static and see if there are any patterns at all, once you identify one, imagine it. Then imagine details that would go with it and extensions od those

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:28:09 2020 No.11393594

>>11393573

>tfw you feel your head throbbing like a dick when you imagine the tree suddenly glowing red with electricity charging up like a sci gun from the hundreds of games you've played as a kid before shooting a massive apple beam into the skies to make apple juice rain down on the fields so everyone dies off cyanide poisoning
Its vivid and clear in my mind

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:33:13 2020 No.11393606

>>11392348

I'm one of those people who don't see things in their mind or have an inside voice.

To me it seems really inefficient and time consuming to think "Oh no! I'm late for school/work" instead I just think that I'm late. I don't think "What should I eat for dinner?" Instead I just think immediately about what I eat for dinner. No words are said and no sentences appear in my head either.

When I read, I can see the words and the shape of the sentence structure, but I don't "see" the words in my mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 13:41:32 2020 No.11393626 >>11392495 t.golem

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 14:58:08 2020 No.11393845

>>11393568
The term for what 1s are is hyperphantasia, which is a barely researched "ability"(quirk?). Aphantasia is the inability to view images/imagination with your minds eye, hyper is obviously the other extreme side of the spectrum. Oxford started looking into it a couple of years ago, and they even have a little hyperphantasia society dedicated to it that meets annually. However googling such a thing will result in finding a reddit board of self-fellating redditors trying to one-up each other in "mastering" their "mind's eye". Take it as nothing more than a quirky way some people think, similar to that of eidetic memory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 15:03:36 2020 No.11393865 File: 137 KB, 1000x1000, 2347236523658239423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11392495 lmao look at this npc

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 15:42:36 2020 No.11393951 >>11392348 I have a very strong inner voice to the point were I can imitate any voice or music in my head but visual is just nothing maybe some very shadowy lines but hard to tell

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 15:55:03 2020 No.11393974 >>11393951 same, I can hear music vividly, to the point where I can compose songs in my head and hear them as if they were real... but visually I'm a 3 at best.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 15:59:48 2020 No.11393992 >>11393387 Explain their existence in the structures of one's brain. It's just electrons.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 16:22:57 2020 No.11394073
File: 78 KB, 500x600, 23D61B84-66C6-443C-991D-925667145452.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11392348
0.
Be able to rotate it in your mind to see all sides.
-1.
Be able to perceive both sides at once in motion and how different cuts would effect it. Get on my level.
Fun experiment: try drawing a toilets insides and check how accurate you are.
Also try a bike

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 16:31:18 2020 No.11394101 >>11392516 Oh Shit you're not joking HAHAHAHA

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 16:33:32 2020 No.11394106

>>11393992
Behavior and belief explains it.
Unless you think the brain has limitations on how it can lead you to believe not literally true things are literally true.
The compelled belief "I believe I'm seeing blue" and the behaviors associated with it (responding to blue colored objects based on little memory routines for what to do or not do) is the explanation for the abstract fiction of "seeing blue."

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 16:37:53 2020 No.11394117 >>11392348 solid 1 here

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 16:44:29 2020 No.11394132 >>11392348 1-5 here. All it takes is practice and control. A little understanding of passive versus active perception doesn't hurt either. I still find it funny how people decide that because it's not a skill they have, it must be a lie. Sad.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 16:50:57 2020 No.11394150

>>11393606
So instead of a conversational translation of what you want, you immediately choose? Okay. So what happens when you have three choices, Steak, Chicken, or Pork. How do you decide? How do you run through those choices, deciding the pros and cons of each one, before making a choice on what to eat?
You say it's inefficient, but since you don't have the ability to do it, how do you know how long it takes? It's not as if those with a conversations representation of choices and determinations have to physically say these things, it takes no more time for me to visualize a waterfall than it does for me to think "Waterfalls are nice, I like them."

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 17:04:09 2020 No.11394196

>>11392348
I’m still baffled that some people literally see nothing. I always thought the minds eye was an absolute necessity as it allows us to visualize different options and predict outcomes. I can close my eyes right now and visualize and manipulate a multitude of different apples as I would see them IRL, the bumpy glossy way the light reflects off of the shiny ones, those weird little holes they sometimes have, etc.
Is this referring to something else? Certainly most people at least see something, right?

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 17:11:55 2020 No.11394224

>>11394196
I don't visually see the apple in detail though, just a vague idea of it enough to know it's there. This is enough to allow me to "manipulate" shapes in my mind, but I don't literally SEE the image, just the basic idea of it. Same with dreaming, it's all vague ideas and shapes but your brain can put context to it in a way that has meaning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 17:11:59 2020 No.11394225 >>11394196 Honestly I keep hoping it's just some strange meme where the normality of having imagination and an inner voice is thrown into question. Maybe the start of a new "Flat Earth" thing?

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 17:17:23 2020 No.11394246

>>11394224
This I can understand. When you say you don't "see" it do you just mean it's not actually in your field of vision? For me it's almost like a real-time memory from another pair of eyes that don't exist, but it doesn't actually get projected into reality unless I focus on doing so. Even then it's not like I truly "see" it, it's more like a mental overlay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 17:38:59 2020 No.11394303 >>11392348 Obligatory http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Galton/imagery.htm

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:11:52 2020 No.11394421
File: 69 KB, 1054x526, helper.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11394196
>I always thought the minds eye was an absolute necessity as it allows us to visualize different options and predict outcomes.
Definitely not. I can do some low grade visualizing now in my 30s long after having experimented with the proper psychedelics. Back in my younger years though all the way up into my early 20s my conscious thinking was entirely just verbal. And it works fine with the one exception of geographic directions.
I never had any idea how to explain what little in directions I knew to anyone else because it was all just running on muscle memory. And often enough I wouldn't even know directions that much and would simply be completely unable to figure out which way to go at any given intersection (both on foot and in a car).
And as it turns out if you were alive in the past few decades at least and living in a developed nation then knowing how to find your way around buildings or neighborhoods is not at all necessary to get through school, obtain a bachelor's degree, land a home, earn money through a regular full time salaried profession, have a romantic relationship, etc. Might have been a bigger deal if you were spatially oblivious and living thousands of years ago.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:28:48 2020 No.11394482

>>11394421
>Might have been a bigger deal if you were spatially oblivious and living thousands of years ago.
That's more what I meant, clearly our abstract reasoning takes precedence over spatial reasoning today. I'm just confused as to how people whose ancestors didn't have a spatial "testing ground" for various scenarios would have remained in the gene pool, considering how much of an advantage it is. I guess I'm assuming it's a genetic thing, which might be completely wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:33:25 2020 No.11394503 >>11392348 I closed my eyes, imagined an apple, open my eyes, and an apple was momentarily visible in spot 5. Do I have autism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:38:44 2020 No.11394520 File: 153 KB, 1334x455, 3985F1E1-493A-42F6-B092-90F902F56096.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11393148 >>11392376 >>11392369 Eat my dust, internal-monologuers

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:40:51 2020 No.11394526
File: 41 KB, 500x381, 1454218184624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11392348
How can anyone be other than 1? I mean, you know what an apple looks like. It's stored in your mind. It's not like every time you see an apple you're like "that fuck is this?"

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:46:48 2020 No.11394540

>>11394482
>I guess I'm assuming it's a genetic thing, which might be completely wrong.
I would agree with that (you being wrong about it being genetics), yeah. My dad and little brother didn't have any problems with directions. My dad went all the way through boy scouts (I forget what the different levels were, but he went all the way) and my little brother went through the US army and was deployed in Afghanistan having no trouble dealing with what I would guess were plenty of navigation-heavy scenarios.
It's probably just an option you can fall into like being an outgoing bodybuilder or spending all your time indoors reading. Some genetic factors will probably contribute in some way but I doubt it's an entirely genetic thing. Could even be both non-genetic and not related to your upbringing or the activities you end up preferring e.g. I had a febrile seizure as an infant and that (or the treatment administered at the time for that) could nuke your visual aptitude.
Could be a trade-off thing too. I never had a seizure since that one febrile seizure as an infant and was having all my conscious cognition happen through semantics while my little brother did have seizures when he was older and had visual cognition going on throughout his life. Semantic thinking might be less stimulating to the areas of the brain that could trigger epileptic activity compared to visual thinking.

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:49:04 2020 No.11394548

>>11394526
Most of what your brain does isn't conscious, anon. It's not like you need to see what an apple looks like in your mind's eye in order to have processes for recognition of an apple. When you hold a heavy object and a light object, one in each hand, you immediately get the answer of which object weighs more. This is one example of non-conscious thinking. Language in general is another example. You obviously don't go through the work of reconstructing every little sound and squiggly line symbol that goes along with it to form words to form sentences to form what you're going to say in a conversation, do you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:52:30 2020 No.11394559 >>11394526 >How can anyone be other than 1? The data flow path is different in both cases. Seeing: eyes->some shit, likely including memory->visual cortex Imagination: memory->some shit->visual cortex

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:52:55 2020 No.11394561 >>11394520 LOL

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 18:55:05 2020 No.11394568 Lmao all the triggered brainlet NPCs being exposed

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 19:11:04 2020 No.11394611 >>11393992 >It's just electrons The standard model doesn't discount emergent behavior

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 23:42:22 2020 No.11395282

>>11394106
I never thought I'd see someone actually espouse behaviorism nowadays.
Here's how easy it is to disprove this viewpoint - visualize the color red in your minds eye, but exhibit no behavior or motor action. You are now seeing red internally without red seeing behavior.
Debunked you stupid faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 17 23:49:19 2020 No.11395295 >>11394520 one of these retarded image macros thats actually true for once

Anonymous Mon Feb 17 23:55:31 2020 No.11395312

>>11394526
>you know what an apple looks like.
Yet if you ask most people to draw an apple, they will draw a symbol that has the vague shape and colour of an apple rather than a apple itself. Our brain doesn't actually store a detailed representation of what an apple looks like, it just stores a bunch of information that is connected to the concept 'apple'. You can use this information to produce a rough image in your mind of an apple but it likely isn't anything like as realistic as you believe it to be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 00:04:43 2020 No.11395336 >>11394520 >>11395295 This isn't true for a lot of fuckers who don't use the voice. They say, "ugh, you know, that whatchacallit." I ask those dudes if they rehearsed that stuff before they say it and they say, "how?"

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 00:34:52 2020 No.11395377 >>11392348 wait wtf, do people see color when they close their eyes and imagine something??????????????????????????????

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 03:11:21 2020 No.11395616 >>11395377 When you image breasts while jacking it you don’t pick between pink, brown, or black nipples?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 03:44:37 2020 No.11395667 >>11392380 Anon...

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 03:56:05 2020 No.11395682

This thread makes me feel gay but I'll participate anyway

Sometimes I'll space out and for a period of time from a few seconds to a few minutes I'll just be in whatever I'm imagining. Is this what day dreaming means? It's not really vivid but I am totally gone from my surroundings while I think about whatever and it's like I am inside my mind's eye. I thought this was common and normal but I am told I stare off into the distance like I'm fucking insane and I don't see other people do this.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 04:11:14 2020 No.11395697

>>11392348
I did the ball on a table exercise the other day and the only question I was able to answer was the approximate size of the ball. I had 4 other people do the exercise and they were able to answer every question. Really freaked me out. Are people actually "seeing" things when they visualize? I can imagine scenes that are described to me, but I typically don't add any detail that wasn't described. If I'm imagining things (original thoughts or ideas) I don't "see" them in my head, but I can still understand them. Most of the original things I imagine are more like diagrams in my head. It's like I can sense them even though they're not visible.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 04:27:37 2020 No.11395732

>>11392348
how the fuck do people see ANYTHING above a 1? Seriously. Unless it's like a cartoon apple or something then 2 is ok. Also I don't just imagine a sole apple, I'm holding the apple. I can feel it. I can taste it. It makes a distinct crunch sound. I'm throwing the apple up and catching it, and hearing that nice, thudding, WHAP sound it makes when it falls into your palm. I'm pulling out the stem too because those are fucking annoying. I just threw it in a garbage can. Where? No where, the stem is gone I just removed it. The garbage can is no longer there I don't need it.

Anyone who just "sees" things when they imagine things, and doesn't use all of their other senses, is also a thoughtless npc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 04:37:10 2020 No.11395743 >>11395697 >the ball on a table exercise ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 04:45:59 2020 No.11395764 No, I can't see an apple when my eyes are closed. My eyes are closed. Duh. This thread is so fucking retarded. i thought /sci/ was smarter than this

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 04:47:18 2020 No.11395766 File: 44 KB, 800x534, apple-logo-computer-icons-mac-book-pro-macbook-apple.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 04:51:33 2020 No.11395773 >>11394520 I can guarantee you right now that I am able to think "oh im hungry" whilst doing abstract thoughts at the same time.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 04:57:14 2020 No.11395784

>>11395743
>Try this: Visualize (picture, imagine, whatever you want to call it) a ball on a table. Now imagine someone walks up to the table, and gives the ball a push. What happens to the ball?

Do the above before looking at the next section

>Now, answer these questions:
>What color was the ball?
>What gender was the person that pushed the ball?
>What did they look like?
>What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?
>What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?
>And now the important question: Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color/gender/size, etc. after being asked these questions?

Other people I tried this on were able to answer every question instantly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:05:00 2020 No.11395799 >>11395784 I imagined myself pushing the ball. Does this make me rarted?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:05:19 2020 No.11395800 File: 66 KB, 906x1024, 3b6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11395766

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:14:46 2020 No.11395816

>>11395784
>what color was the ball?
the ball was white, opaque.
>what gender was the person that pushed the ball?
female, with long brown hair. other features undistinguishable.
>what did they look like?
read above
>what size is the ball?
it would fit comfortably in your hand, not too dissimilar from a tennis ball.
>what about the table, what shape was it? what is it made of?
It looked like a wooden dining room table that could seat 6. Nothing too special about it. It had a dark wooden finish.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:21:36 2020 No.11395829
File: 842 KB, 2801x2202, clamp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11392348
Clamped, vaccinated, circumcised, prenatal vaccination, ultrasound'd, pitocin'd, vitamin K, irradiated, denied the breast and formula fed, fluoridated, brominated, chlorimated, glyphosated, parents probably didn't read to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:23:51 2020 No.11395835 >>11392386 >I thought something was true at first but then someone told me it wasnt true so it isn't whether its true or not, you should reconsider your beliefs on everything

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:24:52 2020 No.11395836

>>11395829
Point being, we shouldn't accept this as being within the realm of natural variation. It's a defect and is probably environmentally caused, or caused by some other retarded evil thing our society is doing to people that I haven't identified yet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:36:08 2020 No.11395848 >>11392348 I used to be 1 easily, but then I got a brain injury and can now only do flashes of 3 at best.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 05:42:35 2020 No.11395851 >>11395829 based euro schizoposter

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 06:26:28 2020 No.11395885

>>11394073
>>11393235
I think these are more related to spatial ability than seeing pictures in your mind. Not that they can't be combined but I don't think they're the same.

>>11392348
My experience isn't quite that. I can picture things quite vividly but it's like I can only focus on a detail at a time, like a spotlight moving around. Apples or mice are easy but with larger things like tigers it's hard to capture the entire animal; movement, stripes, and all.

One other person I polled about this reported a similar experience, so I think it's fairly common.

On a different note, do you guys imagine smells? I find it difficult to create most smells in my mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 07:05:04 2020 No.11395934 >>11392348 I cant picture anything with my eyes closed, never understood why that is requirement? Eyes open i can easily picture and even rotate things in my minds eye.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 07:06:05 2020 No.11395937 >>11395829 >being this triggered by everything around you Time to grow up, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 07:15:49 2020 No.11395959 >>11392353 kek >>11392380 Naw dude you're just an idiot NPC

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 09:45:32 2020 No.11396168

>>11392348
These aphantasia threads make me feel retarded. I can't "see" anything in my mind's eye, the stuff I can imagine is at an even lower resolution than 4. But I can imagine pretty much everything I want to. It's just not in any concrete shape or form, but more like an vague idea. Like, I can imagine a cube and rotate it and manipulate it however I like in my imagination, but I don't "see" a fucking thing, eyes closed or open.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:09:19 2020 No.11396202 >>11396168 yeah. do some actually see things using their visual part of their brain? but it is kinda weird how we can imagine a cube and rotate it without seeing it. what part of the brain does that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:18:20 2020 No.11396213 Is it normal to dream and imagine things only in black and white?

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:26:02 2020 No.11396223

>>11392348
True success is a combination of inner monologues, ability to see imagery, and another more refined sense which I havent heard anyone talk about before but is a sort of "intuitive understanding" where you can internally express and manipulate a concept without having to visualize it or put it to words. It's an extremely fast way to analyze data.

Anyone who doesn't have all 3 is an NPC. Sorry guys. It's my world, you're all just living in it.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:32:43 2020 No.11396240

>>11396168
I'm someone who can do more than just score a 1 on OP's chart(taste, texture, smells, everything). Let's compile some data between ourselves? You say you can't "see" but you can imagine a cube and rotate it, manipulate it, but still don't "see" anything? How can you imagine something without seeing it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:34:06 2020 No.11396243 >>11396240 Not him, but it's conceptual knowledge. Imagine that your brain works like google images, and his works like a pdf description of the cube.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:37:11 2020 No.11396253 >>11396243 Yeah that's what I was figuring. I was interested in that process behind how he does it, and to put it into words because how each person views thing is completely different. How about yourself? How do you measure, anon?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:41:20 2020 No.11396259 >>11396240 >How can you imagine something without seeing it? isn't that what a thought is? i can walk around places in my head and imagine what's there. imagine, but not see. are you saying you're basically wearing ar glasses without wearing them?

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 10:52:36 2020 No.11396283

>>11396259
Good points, let me see if I can describe what it is like for me specifically. When I think and have thoughts, they're "formless" in the same way you're describing them. I have internal monologue but I don't visually see my words unless I want to. If I'm hungry or tired, I'll think something pertaining to it internally, like "Damn my eyes are heavy, should I sleep?" or "I should probably eat". Do keep in mind I don't exactly -need- to mentally monologue to solve these basic issues, but I do it anyway because the thought is practically instantaneous. Moving on to the core of the discussion, visualizing and imagining, that is a separate beast. I assume we both see things with our eyes the same way others do, and I mean that on a base "Reality is reality as our eyes see it". Sounds lame but I need a word to compare, so I'll use "reality" as what it actually going on vs what I mentally "see"(loose definition).

Now, when I imagine things, if you could, imagine that there are separate "realities", layers if you would. This extra layer is what I can see in my head, and can change however I see fit, given that it is my imagination. As your question asked, I'm capable of seeing things on both the shared "real" layer between us, and in a separate layer that only I can see. In short, I can augment what I visually see(knowing that it is fake) and also separate it mentally on a different "layer". I apologize if what I'm saying is confusing, I'm trying to find words and ideas that can communicate it in the clearest way possible.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 11:52:57 2020 No.11396443
File: 271 KB, 576x3045, dream or simulation.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

is meta-aphantasia such a thing?

>imagine a person
>imagine this person has their own mind, thoughts, consciousness
>this person decides to imagine an apple
>what does this imaginary person see when they try to imagine something?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 11:55:45 2020 No.11396450 >>11392353 holy kek

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 11:58:35 2020 No.11396453

>>11392348
>>11392353
I have an inner voice, I can map things out in my head, I am constantly daydreaming BUT I am a 5. I don't see color in my head, I see "form". I can imagine exactly the positioning of everything in a room that I'm not currently in but I don't see color. It's not black, it's not white, etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 11:59:00 2020 No.11396455 >>11392426 Based. Granny smith nigga

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 12:01:18 2020 No.11396463 >>11396443 I love you.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 12:06:14 2020 No.11396473

>>11395312
>Yet if you ask most people to draw an apple, they will draw a symbol that has the vague shape and colour of an apple rather than a apple itself.
sounds like
>if you don't have the artistic talent of being able to photorealistically draw the object you're thinking about, it's not realistic as it appears in your mind.
I'm pretty damn sure what an apple looks like, but I haven't drawn a picture of one since grade school. Doesn't mean my mental image isn't accurate. I eat apples all the time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 12:10:53 2020 No.11396484 >>11395282 >You are now seeing red internally without red seeing behavior. You aren't. Wittgenstein addressed this shit with his private language argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 12:47:06 2020 No.11396552 File: 644 KB, 1494x1672, Foster_Bible_Pictures_0074-1_Offering_to_Molech.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11395937 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwyjWpP4XA An allegory for childhood. It's time to grow a pair. Unclamp.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:13:59 2020 No.11396607 This doesn't make sense. Surely it's not common to literally see an apple in your head? That's hallucinating. Imagining something is not the same as actually seeing it as if it was there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:26:49 2020 No.11396625 >>11396607 That's why I think this test >>11395784 is more effective. The apple one is too simple.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:35:51 2020 No.11396639

>>11396607
My mother has a photographic memory and graduated high school a year early, she's said when she couldn't remember something she'd just go back and read through the book again. She's also Rh negative, which reinforces my suspicion that some forms of memory "recall" is actually a form of remote viewing, and the Rh factor limits these abilities.

Having been clamped, vaccinated, and being Rh positive, however, my memory is still quite good, but damaged, like a flickering light bulb. Occasionally I can get into a state where I have photographic recall and can walk through places I've been as though I was there. This diminished functionality is likely caused by persistent structural aberrations of the hippocampus against a backdrop of chronic low grade neuroinflammation. I also never bothered with music players because provided it's somewhat quiet I can just replay it in my head, likewise with tastes. Smells are interesting in that they get converted into a sort of colorful blob with some sort of geometry to it, and I associate it with taste.

Anyway, there are two models. These skills for exerting executive control over the subconscious and bridging certain faculties, forms during key developmental periods and some people are environmentally deprived or sat in front of a mind numbing television, parents didn't read to them, and whatever else, thus never developing the more sensory imagination. The other possibility is the NPC-like functioning described here is caused by brain damage and disrupted brain development. It can be a combination of both. I'm guessing there's a brain damage component.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:36:29 2020 No.11396641

>>11395784
>>11396625
So how to interpret the results of test? If you couldn't answer every single question then you are aphantasic? What if you could answer some but not all?

And does not aphantasia mean that you are unable to imagine such vividity? If so, how does f.ex. not automatically assigning a gender to your imagination when it was not specified, mean that you are not able to imagine a gendered person if you wanted to?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:37:30 2020 No.11396642 >>11392661 >>11392661 Jeez you're autistic. I said that because we're using 4chan right now and I see the hypocracy in my own post.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:39:50 2020 No.11396646

>>11395784
>What color was the ball?
blue
>What gender was the person that pushed the ball?
female
>What did they look like?
brown straight hair, white long sleeve shirt
>What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?
dodge ball/kick ball, bumpy texture
>What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?
wooden, rectangular, with a red and green cover
>And now the important question: Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color/gender/size, etc. after being asked these questions?
yes
What do I win?

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:40:42 2020 No.11396647
File: 1.89 MB, 1920x1080, 00002.m2ts_snapshot_00.15.46_[2015.01.21_08.14.23].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11396639
In addition, it's also quiet incredible that people today can't wrap their mind around the oldest sci-fi concepts, like creating a genetically enslaved underclass, bringing everyone of a certain caste down to the same common denominator, procedures at birth to specialize people for their future roles.

So many examples. It's here, it's been here, it's rapidly progressing, and they still can't see it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:42:20 2020 No.11396652 >>11394520 >he can't do both at once okay brainlet

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 13:57:31 2020 No.11396675 >>11396453 Someone who can see color and visuals can do this too (it's much faster), you just skip the subsequent steps where you build up the rest of the scene. I see it as layered. I would like a 5 to try to learn, report back if it can be done.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 14:23:41 2020 No.11396746

>>11396625
It's a fine questionnaire, but let's be clear: it doesn't test for anything meaningful. People can share the same faculties and yet imagine different instantiations of the ball scenario. E.g. one person may pay special attention to the ball (even colouring it) resting on a vague, ungrounded surface with a well articulated hand rolling the ball away. Another person might imagine a colourless ball on a table with legs, pushed by some featureless person. It has no bearing *whatsoever* on an individual's ability to visualise, and does nothing to inform our understanding of consciousness because the visualisations are ineffable, and the responses are too non-specific. This aphantasia meme is silly and unscientific.

>Surely it's not common to literally see an apple in your head?
This is the central point. It isn't common. The people pushing aphantasia suggest that it is rare, but the overwhelming majority (from what I've seen in the many threads) of people report abstract phantasmagoria in a sea of black (5) and NOT full-colour, high-resolution, two-dimensional imagery (1). The people reporting 1 are either introspectively deficient (deluded) OR extraordinarily gifted, because it is certainly not normal. I suspect that the majority of people reporting 1 are introspectively lazy, struggle to describe their mental reveries convincingly, and fail to recognise that those reporting 5s have (most likely) identical faculties to them but are more honest in the descriptions of their internal perspective. In which case, 1 is the small-brained response to what is really quite a difficult question.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 14:30:49 2020 No.11396763

>>11396746
>It's a fine questionnaire, but let's be clear: it doesn't test for anything meaningful.
>This aphantasia meme is silly and unscientific.
Yeah I kind of agree. I still wonder why everyone I tried that exercise on were immediately able to answer the questions when I could barely answer one. It would be interesting to see what would happen with a larger sample size. It's weird to realize how different other people's internal experiences can be. Like, why do they automatically flesh out the scene with so much extra detail when it's totally unnecessary to imagine the scenario?

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 14:36:40 2020 No.11396769

>>11395784
>What color was the ball?
It had no colour
>What gender was the person that pushed the ball?
They had no gender
>What did they look like?
Like the silhouette of a person in motion
>What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?
The size of a tennis ball
>What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?
It came up to the hips, had no legs, and wasn't made of any discernible material
>And now the important question: Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color/gender/size, etc. after being asked these questions?
I didn't know beforehand and didn't assign any unnecessary features afterwards

6/6 right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 14:41:25 2020 No.11396782 >>11392348 I don't see anything, I imagine an apple, I see my room, but I imagine an apple. I hope people know imagination is a zionist conspiracy.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 14:56:18 2020 No.11396810

>>11396763
I'm guessing it's mostly experiential. The problem with a larger sample size is that it would be unwieldy in how qualitative and unreliable the data would be. Even if people do report honestly (probable), you would need to trust that the person knows themselves well enough to answer (not likely). The truth is, most people will say the first thing that comes to mind and will put it under very little scrutiny. Inquires into consciousness like this would require training and a systematic approach. Ad hoc self-reporting about aphantasia is useless garbage.

>immediately able to answer the questions when I could barely answer one
I don't know dude, I just imagined the scene as describe (I imagined it as quickly as I read the sentence) and then answered the questions accordingly. It's not a reflection on your limitations, but a reflection on your decisions. Choosing to detail each element of the scene is a conscious thing, and it's just OTT given the specifications of the question.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 15:08:19 2020 No.11396821

>>11396782
>I don't see anything, I imagine an apple, I see my room, but I imagine an apple.

If you talk about something in your mind, and then say "what do you see", it is shorthand for "what do you see in your mind's eye." Ignores the way people use language isn't clever, it just makes you obtuse and difficult to talk to.

I "see" a 1 or 2, BTW.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 15:40:22 2020 No.11396896 >>11396443 bumping THIS

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 15:50:13 2020 No.11396925 >>11392427 I have, at times, daydreamed with such clarity with my eyes open that I couldn't see in my mind's eye what my physical eyes were fixed upon. Now, this takes great willpower for me to do and it is much easier to do with my eyes closed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 16:21:43 2020 No.11397015 >>11396443 Oh SHIT For once, a new idea in one of these threads

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 16:24:45 2020 No.11397028 Wait, are there people who can only dream in 4? I dream in full resolution 1

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 17:38:44 2020 No.11397269 If you tell me that there are people who don't have full HD dreams with smells and sensations, I'll not believe you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 17:40:56 2020 No.11397276 What you fucking NPCs even call imagination? Is it just a word salad in your head?

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 18:16:38 2020 No.11397362

>>11395282
>Here's how easy it is to disprove this viewpoint - visualize the color red in your minds eye, but exhibit no behavior or motor action. You are now seeing red internally without red seeing behavior.
That's wrong. You're engaging in behavior still. It's just a bit more subtle. You have memories of every time your eyes were in contact with red wavelength light and all the associates brain activity is going to get jostled around by nothing more than your eyes meeting that sort of light again. And to the extent you ***believe*** you're having some direct "experience of redness" phenomenon that's still never more than a belief. A very strong belief compelled by lower level biological processes is not the same as the concept it covers (sensory organ stimulation abstracted into a convenient fictional pseudo-object that [you believe] "appears" to you) being literally true. It's a neat way of getting you to behave about things that never required any sort of acceptance as an actual extra aspect of reality beyond ordinary physics. All that crap is people like you way overrating the meaning in a strongly compelled belief. Beliefs being strong doesn't correlate with beliefs being accurate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 18:21:29 2020 No.11397376 >>11394520 >he hasn't thought out hundreds of possible scenarios for each conversation before it even begins

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 18:32:07 2020 No.11397400 >>11392348 I close my eyes and I imagine a very detailed realistic apple (1)... is this not normal? What kind of people don't see anything?

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 18:49:41 2020 No.11397443

>>11397400
People who aren't that interested in visual aesthetics. I wouldn't care much if I lost my eyesight personally. I don't pay much attention to my surroundings most of the time and that probably carried over to my cognitive processes not investing any in conscious visualization skills. I'm more of a semantics and sound kind of guy.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 20:46:53 2020 No.11397731

>>11396443
This actually tests NPC or not

Its fucking near impossible to get clear language on if someone has aphantasia or not. But if someone can simulate simulating it, then thats some next level shit
I feel like theres no limit in my mental eye clarity other than resolution, and thats a matter of focus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 20:47:57 2020 No.11397735 >>11397028 >>11397269 I dream in very high detail but its sorta like everything has an edge filter applied if that makes sense

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 21:55:37 2020 No.11397855

>>11392348
I can visualize the apple in my head if I really want, but if I just think about apples, my brain just knows what it is. Almost like the abstraction of the concept of the apple is connected to the word, and that's all I need to know what it is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:02:10 2020 No.11398002 >>11396443 i did this. but i imagined a certain person. it was quite funny what she imagined. so typical.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:20:02 2020 No.11398035 to the people who can't picture the apple: can you imagine listening to music?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:37:07 2020 No.11398052 >>11398035 I can hear music with very good detail by thinking about it. "Imagine" makes it sound like you're seeing pictures when you think about music.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:45:44 2020 No.11398067

>>11392348
Interesting observation I observed when experimenting with meditation - mainly an increase in visualization vividness, clarity and stability for some time afterward, this was after sessions of concentration meditation (focusing on and returning attention to the breath)

Now this is where it gets interesting- one time I tried mindfulness meditation (no focus, observing and witnessing all mental phenomena without reaction and getting lost in thought) and after awhile something interesting began to happen, like a movie playing out in my head, it was star wars themed, looked like Jakku with star destroyers everywhere in the sand, platforming, like I was playing a third person game, playing as a Jedi, scenes flashed by but some were quite long and elaborate and this was all 10x more vivid than any mental imagery I can usually conjure, it was vivid like my dream imagery which is most vivid for me. And it went on for a bit but then fizzled out, and that entire time I wasn't controlling anything, since I was just observing, and I was just observing it play out like one observes a dream

This is super interesting, it seems to suggest meditation can trigger spontaneous improvements in visualization, either on the spot or as an after effect, and indeed when I stopped meditating my visualization returned to less vivid, more vague levels like 3-4.

Someone should look into this, see if they can reproduce the effect, etc.

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:48:33 2020 No.11398072

>>11393172
This, but in short glimpses. I can picture it vaguely, with more focus on details than the big picture, like how the specular reflections distort and skew as I turn it in my hand or hold it up to the light.
On the other hand, I can imagine the coolness in my hand or my fingers touching the stem. I can hear the sound of me biting into it, picture the taste and mouthfeel, and recall the way I grasp it without having to mime the action.

>>11398035
Easily. My "mental iPod" is relatively good.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:48:39 2020 No.11398074 >>11398067 Friend, I believe that your meditation may have caused you to fall asleep

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:53:31 2020 No.11398082 I can visualize the apple without even closing my eyes. Do people really have trouble with this or am I being memed? Is the npc meme real?

Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:53:47 2020 No.11398084

>>11398074
No, and it wasn't hypnagogia either, those states come with very direct sensory experiences like drowsiness, tiredness, and mindlessness but this was all happening while I was doing mindfulness meditation so I would only have been aware of having experienced this visualization episode after the fact but instead I was aware the whole time, watching it happening in my minds eye, mindfully.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:56:50 2020 No.11398093 File: 4 KB, 225x225, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11396443

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:57:44 2020 No.11398095 >>11392348 Who 1 here

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 18 23:59:26 2020 No.11398097 >>11392348 how the fuck do people not see 1, also this test is retarded anyway and will make more people believe they have aphantasia even when they dont

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:00:07 2020 No.11398099

>>11398067
I know what you're talking about. You can get to that state way faster and easier by using the ganzfeld technique FYI. Just get your room well lit with normal white lighting, cut a ping pong ball in half and cover your eyes with it while lying down, and have white noise on your computer or phone hooked up to headphones. The idea is rather than trying to induce sensory deprivation the typical way by making things dark and quiet you get an even more thorough sensory deprivation experience by doing the opposite and giving yourself a completely blank white field of vision and a constant source of uninteresting white noise. Doing that does a better job of sensory deprivation because the more typical approach of trying to reduce stimulation leaves phosphenes in the eyes and tinnitus in the ears. Anyway, in relatively short amounts of time you drift into those weird twilight states with super-high quality visuals. It's not particularly pleasurable like a drug. It's more like giving yourself a preview into alzheimer's in that those drifting off into visualization events are heavily correlated with how much you lose touch with where you are and what you're doing (and inversely, if you're not loosened up enough to lose track of what's going on you probably won't have those visualization experiences).

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:03:05 2020 No.11398104 >>11398097 If you don't think it makes sense for people to get a non-1 answer why do you think it would make more people believe they have a lack of visualization ability? The latter would mean you expect people not to get 1 for an answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:03:44 2020 No.11398106 >>11398099 What kind of light do you use, does it have to be bright? Can a paper mask work? Ping pong balls never fully cover the visual field for me.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:03:56 2020 No.11398108

>>11392348
I wonder how many people stop at trying to imagine an apple, instead of trying other objects they may be able to visualize better. Also for how many would get more than 5 if they were instead reading a detailed description of an apple while engrossed in a book or something

A picture like that is a simplification that ignores the very many variations of mental imagery and their reproducibility under different context/conditions, see Galton

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Galton/imagery.htm

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:05:08 2020 No.11398112 >>11398099 That just sounds like self-induced hypnagogia https://www.liminaldreaming.com/practices/

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:09:28 2020 No.11398124

>>11398106
>Can a paper mask work?
Maybe. Ping pong ball approach is standard though. You should be able to cover your eyes fully with them.
>>11398112
Yeah. It's a lot more effective than trying to get there without that technique though. The ping pong ball halves over the eyes to provide a blank white visual field and the white noise in the head phones don't fuck around. I haven't done it in a while, mostly because like I mentioned already it's not like a high or anything. It's interesting to experience at least once or twice but nothing you're liable to want to keep on doing religiously.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:12:02 2020 No.11398129 >>11392348 Lmao NPC’s

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:12:18 2020 No.11398130

>>11398124
>Maybe. Ping pong ball approach is standard though. You should be able to cover your eyes fully with them.
I cannot, perhaps it relates to structure of the brow ridge and cheekbones. I tried last time to use some cotton balls, but this introduced its own problem with keeping the texture and brightness uniform when adhering it to the ping pong ball.

Anyway, I've become inspired me to try again.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 00:33:32 2020 No.11398155

I can't imagine the apple really well but I can imagine a banana just fine, including peeling it and myself eating it. I rarely ever eat apples so that might be the reason. I also think drawing ability is closely related. You know, to draw something you need to see the actual lines; you have to break down what you're seeing in lines, shapes and colours. I'm sure people who develop this ability, mainly artists, can imagine objects much more realistically in their head. The reason you can't draw realistic stuff from imagination is because you're used to seeing things as figures. You don't analyze shapes and proportions. When you start using your perception it'll be much easier to picture things in your head.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 02:34:40 2020 No.11398338 there is no "mind's eye" i quite literally see the apple on my eyelids when I close my eyes and imagine it. if you can't do this you're an NPC

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 02:36:47 2020 No.11398344

>>11392348
Threadly reminder that this twitter event was a psyop designed to gather data on individuals who self-report being unable to synthesize complete thoughts and learn how to better identify these individuals for delivery of targeted media in the future.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 02:44:13 2020 No.11398367 >>11398344 They're assessing how their brain damaging of the population is coming along.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 02:53:27 2020 No.11398376

>>11398367
The literacy rate never really increased, we just necessitated functional literacy. Today in developed nations almost 100% of people are functionally literate, but they are not actually literate because when they read a book, they are unable to imagine anything. They can only read signs, instructions, or other texts that explicitly tell them what they should be imagining. This is also the visual learner cope. The true literacy rate is still probably 30-40%

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 03:26:06 2020 No.11398419 >>11392348 I'm like a -10 where my day dreams are that real that I start mixing them up with real life...

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 03:37:10 2020 No.11398434
File: 518 KB, 1920x1280, 1579710937518.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11392348
I can't see anything on prompt, sadly.
But every time I have trouble sleeping, I'm able to "see" an image of idyllic landscape like a field or a lake.
It requires a lot of focus/willpower though, so when I don't really need to sleep or can do something else I usually don't do this method. Like I need to contract, relax, and move my eyeballs constantly while keeping my eyes closed to keep the image in focus and vivid.
Once the image is as vivid as it can, that's usually when I went to sleep.
So where does that put me?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 04:44:31 2020 No.11398504 >>11392348 Is being a 1 anything special? I can visualize an apple just fine. I can even see It like a tridimensional model and rotate around It like in a videogame.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 05:04:51 2020 No.11398529
File: 82 KB, 640x655, u5hjufi07z141.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is funny. On cue it takes a while but I eventually see a 1 and can rotate it/slice it in half/pluck the leaves/ see the seeds and bite into it in my head.

How would being a 5 affect your day to day?

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 07:43:38 2020 No.11398751

>>11395697
I think I am the same
I can sortof add colour if requested but I did not add any detail to the table thing the first time beyond
>featureless ball without texture, maybe it had a colour maybe it did not -- I did not pay attention to it
>disembodied arm gave it a push and it rolled out of view off the table and that was the end of it

it depends on the degree to which I care about the situation I suppose
I think I make pictures while reading books
but in more theoretical situations I tend to discard details I do not consider important

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 09:43:34 2020 No.11398902 Cant see the apple, no internal monologue but I do have visual dreams and am one of the 15 smartest people of all time.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 09:55:36 2020 No.11398925

When i was practicing wake induced lucid dreaming, i read somewhere that you shoul also practise visualising complicated things, but from the first perspective - like imagining you are riding a bike, or washing your car, and then you just up the ante every time

I never rode a bike and i found it very hard to focus on imagining that for a longer time than a couple of seconds.

But remembering some stuff or imagining somethin i always do is just effortless.

Visualisation takes practise, ask any painter or drawer, how do they improve their skills, at drawing anatomy for example, you need to hold the seen image in your mind for a prolonged time and translate that into a drawing.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 10:00:38 2020 No.11398935

>>11394520
the problem is that people with inner voice can use multiple ways of thinking, and people without it dont really think about complicated stuff at all and just go about their day relying on emotions and instincts and experience, maybe having to think extra hard to find an answer to a problem

No body just thinks with a voice like the beta in the meme, at least i hope so

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 10:09:31 2020 No.11398955 >>11392348 i can't imagine an apple, but i still get sensations in my imagination which feel absolutely real.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 10:40:28 2020 No.11399012

I guess I must be deluding myself because I'd say I see things in my "mind's eye" at level 1.

I'm an artist, though. While I don't have any post-secondary education, I do enjoy independent learning. I'm not sure if I was just lazy in school or legitimately just average, but I was a B student.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 10:59:41 2020 No.11399070 I refuse to believe there are people who can't see things with their mind's eye. They must be misinterpreting something.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:03:22 2020 No.11399080 >>11394520 I used to think using pure thoughts when I was a kid, then I stopped so I almost completely lost it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:22:59 2020 No.11399125 You actually close your eyes to visualize things?

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:39:19 2020 No.11399160

You know, the more I think about it, it seems like how things are in a dream when I visualize. Like I can conjure up an apple in my head easily enough, but it's like some vague uncertain thing where the finer details are "fuzzy" until you focus on them.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:46:00 2020 No.11399187
File: 1.10 MB, 4000x3758, 1350982939484.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11398925
>When i was practicing wake induced lucid dreaming

How'd it go, did you succeed or stop?

WILD holds the greatest potential for conscious dream entry but also takes the most effort and trial & error out of them all

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 12:06:15 2020 No.11399250

>>11396443
I can do this, but I can't do faces. But I actually have an issue where I have trouble differentiating faces(not expressions or moods, just facial features)- I generally use other tags like hair color and eye color, cadence of speech, body shape and posture, etc.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 12:28:38 2020 No.11399303

After reading through multiple aphantasia threads and talking to my friends about it I'm starting to get the feeling that most people don't actually "see" images in their head at all. Most people are probably a 5 when it comes to what they are literally seeing, but they are still able to conceptualize an image that seems fairly complete and detailed (although maybe not all at once). I think people who answer 1 are often misunderstanding the question and think they're a 1 because when they think of an apple, they don't think about poorly rendered cartoon versions or total blackness. The ball on a table test seems better, but doesn't really seem to test for aphantasia as far as I can tell, it just tests how much extra (not described or unnecessary for understanding) information a person will add to a scene.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 12:35:36 2020 No.11399318

>>11396484
You completely misunderstood the private language argument if you think that's what Wittgenstein was getting at. His point was that language cannot be used to discuss what you feel/see internally. He was explicitly not a behaviorist, and in fact went against that position multiple times throughout Philosophical Investigations.
>>11397362
>And to the extent you ***believe*** you're having some direct "experience of redness" phenomenon that's still never more than a belief
See, the problem here is that while it's scientifically unverifiable, literally anyone can prove this is bullshit because they can experience the sensation of red internally. When I remember what some red experience looks like, I can see it internally. That this cannot be measured by some outside, objective measure does not mean it is not occurring, and to claim otherwise is to deny your own experience. I do not merely believe I am experiencing red in some internal manner, I actually am experiencing it. If you dislike the red example, take any kind of sensation or emotion. You really do feel those things internally, you don't just erroneously believe you're feeling them.
>All that crap is people like you way overrating the meaning in a strongly compelled belief. Beliefs being strong doesn't correlate with beliefs being accurate.
I don't see how you could possible think that a belief that I'm seeing red internally could at all be confused with an actual internal view of red. If I see something in my actual visual field, I am actually seeing it, regardless of my belief on the subject. I can believe as hard as I want that I'm not seeing it or that I'm seeing something else, but in the end I cannot deny that I am seeing whatever it is I am truly seeing. In the same way, I cannot deny that when I imagine red in my mind, I really am experiencing an internal sensation of red. It doesn't even make sense that such an experience would be a mere belief.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 12:52:24 2020 No.11399362

>>11399318
>If I see something in my actual visual field, I am actually seeing it, regardless of my belief on the subject.
You *believe* you're actually seeing it. You have no way of differentiating between being compelled to believe something is happening that isn't vs. having a literal unexplained extra-physical phenomenon of "what it's like to see red" happen to you. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe it's really happening. The brain is fully capable of working with very strong not literally true beliefs. That's pretty much its preferred way of operating. Truth is less important than utility when it comes to mental processes.
>I can believe as hard as I want that I'm not seeing it or that I'm seeing something else, but in the end I cannot deny that I am seeing whatever it is I am truly seeing.
That's definitely wrong. Stroke patients with damage to the correct area of the brain are known for insisting a paralyzed arm of theirs isn't paralyzed or that it doesn't even belong to them. Belief absolutely can make you behave as though you're experiencing something you aren't, and I'm not talking about an image appearing to you that doesn't correspond to a real world object. I'm talking about believing you have a literal "experience" to begin with being best understood as just that: a belief. A belief in this context is nothing more than behaving as though a proposition is true. There is nothing mysterious about this, and the impossible / supernatural / unsolvable characterization of how our brains work with reported "experience" falls apart once you stop trying to make it anything more than belief. Any time anyone says anything about "experience" like it's some immediate and undeniable truth you should cut it back down to size with the reminder this is what they *believe*.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 13:05:58 2020 No.11399392

>>11399362
So tell me what the difference is between a strong belief and a real experience. I say I'm actually experiencing it, and subjectively I know this to be true for a fact. How can you claim in any meaningful way that I'm not having this experience? How can your claim be verified?
>Belief absolutely can make you behave as though you're experiencing something you aren't
What's the behavior in the seeing red example, though? There is no behavior attached to it.
>A belief in this context is nothing more than behaving as though a proposition is true.
What if I experience this internal sensation, but never exhibit any kind of behavior as if it was true that I'd experienced it? You, I, and anyone else could experience this internal sensation or any number of other sensations, but never act as if it's true that we had that experience. We could spend the rest of our lives acting as if the proposition "I am experiencing an internal sensation of red" is false, but still have that experience, in direct contradiction to all outward behavior
>There is nothing mysterious about this, and the impossible / supernatural / unsolvable characterization of how our brains work with reported "experience" falls apart once you stop trying to make it anything more than belief
Yeah that's great, but this position relies on a denial of your own experience and has zero means of falsifying the opposing position. In this way, you're only left with your own internal experience of the red, which instead of taking for what it is, you insist it is a mere belief and deny yourself.
>Any time anyone says anything about "experience" like it's some immediate and undeniable truth you should cut it back down to size with the reminder this is what they *believe*
But experience and belief can easily be separated. You can experience things and not believe them, or believe things but not experience them. I get that it fits into a nice reductionist theory, but you're oversimplifying unnecessarily

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 13:12:28 2020 No.11399410 >>11392348 Before 2 days i imagined a color of such brightness and brilliance that it seems as if i could lighten the table in front of me with it. No shizo no drugs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 13:27:33 2020 No.11399444 >>11395816 >>11396769 >>11396646 >>what gender was the person that pushed the ball? >female Either tits or gtfo. Or you guys are gonna, eventually, become tranners.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 13:34:49 2020 No.11399465

>>11399392
>But experience and belief can easily be separated.
They can't. We believe we have an immediate experience of seeing faces but that's not true given people with prosopagnosia can be working with perfect eyesight yet not be able to "experience" faces, taking in all the same external stimuli and being able to report their knowledge of every little detail an eye could capture but still lacking the very much non-immediate face processing we don't notice and take for granted as being an intrinsic part of our "experience." People with blindsight / cortical blindness have fully functional eyes and will avoid obstacles you place in their walking path yet will deny being able to see what they're seeing. They have the stimuli and the processing of visual i formation but they lack access to the higher level belief that they're having some visual "experience" event they can speak to.
I will easily doubt there's any limit on how much the brain can compel useful beliefs in not true premises long before assuming what strikes us as true through the extremely biased and agenda driven vantage point of our own personal biological processes is reason to overhaul our consensus knowledge of the physical reality. We're not important to the universe. Our personal (and unchecked by additional parties / diagnostic tools / abstract models / etc.( instincts aren't reliable for questions on the nature of reality, which makes sense since they developed under conditions promoting more practical to the short term needs like getting nutrition or passing on genes for another generation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 14:36:13 2020 No.11399637 >>11399303 No dude, it's like when you dream, but instead you see what you want awake. Not sleping, its AT WILL

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 14:51:03 2020 No.11399681 >>11392348 How can you be on sci if you cant even imagine a h2o molecule

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:41:34 2020 No.11400005 >>11399637 If visualizing was actually like that for most people why would anyone make a big deal about lucid dreaming? Seems like it would be a very similar experience.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:02:45 2020 No.11400075
File: 52 KB, 805x1024, 29CB050A-FA99-4094-99C4-4D6B69DD8733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11392348
I can see an apple in my head.
I can do whatever I want with it. I can hold it, I can throw it, I can take a bite.
I can imagine an apple in any color I wish, I can imagine the word apple in my head. I can even imagine the smell and feel of an apple.
It completely blows my mind that not everyone can do this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:04:29 2020 No.11400080 >>11400075 >It completely blows my mind that not everyone can do this. Every normal functioning person can. The question is based on a false premise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:16:48 2020 No.11400128 >>11392348 How do people who can't imagine things fap without porn? How do the read books without pictures when their mind's eye can't picture the events described in the book?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:17:44 2020 No.11400133 >>11392834 >People without inner voice What? Is that even possible? They'd be literal animals.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:18:07 2020 No.11400135 >>11400080 You have people in this thread saying they can’t. I’ve seen the OP image floating around for a few days now, and I’ve seen plenty of people saying the same thing, that they cannot see things in their head.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:19:33 2020 No.11400146 File: 406 KB, 687x818, i came here for (you).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11392510 >tfw you automatically imagine graphs when you read fuctions

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:38:58 2020 No.11400253 >>11392348 I feel like 4 or 5 and I have been trying to cultivate my imagination with fantasy books, but I have trouble visualising stuff, can't do it. I must be retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:35:43 2020 No.11400579 >>11400128 >How do people who can't imagine things fap without porn? If most people could mentally conjure up the equivalent of high quality porn there wouldn't exist a porn industry. Not sure how you don't realize this.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:31:33 2020 No.11400890

Are the people answering 5 thinking that everyone else are literally projecting images onto their eyelids like its a fucking television screen? Its called 'minds eye' for a reason, not 'back of eyelids eye'. What my eyeballs see and what I imagine in my head is separate. I can day dream in detail a scene from an imaginary movie while walking around with my eyes open, I can think of all the forms and colours, details and sounds, but I am not literally switching my senses over to hear or see these things, I am imagining them in addition to hearing and seeing real things.
fuck, this is difficult to talk about

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:42:42 2020 No.11400918

>>11392386
>He said it’s like you have the same thoughts you normally do but you can picture them as well. Apparently when reading a book the landscape pops up in his vision as well
What the fuck. Is it just images you can't visualize or can't you recall or imagine sounds or tastes as well?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:46:43 2020 No.11400926 >>11400890 >fuck, this is difficult to talk about This is the one biggest insight my research into meta-cognition, methods of thinking, synesthesia, aphantasia, etc have brought me, our language is truly lacking

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:11:09 2020 No.11400993

>>11400926
>This is the one biggest insight my research into meta-cognition, methods of thinking, synesthesia, aphantasia, etc have brought me, our language is truly lacking
I disagree. Our language is fine. The problem is people keep wanting to talk about convoluted and heavily detailed subject matter as though it were simple and irreducible. And then when that doesn't work they see a lack of simple and irreducible explanations as a problem instead of seeing that starting conviction itself as the problem.
Also people like Daniel Dennett and Marvin Minsky had the right idea with cutting down to size what it means to say "I'm really experiencing something right now!" and how impressed we should be by our innate urge to report this notion, but admitting this is deeply traumatizing for the average anon and mostly results in "HOW COULD YOU SAY I AM NOT EXPERIENCING THIS WHEN I AM LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW!?!' chimpouts.
It's a bit amazing how we're quicker to suspect our belief in "experience" maps to a literal set of direct brute force phenomena being missed by physics than we are to suspect our notions of what is or isn't happening to us is a useful pretense. Everything makes a lot more sense when you move past this and accept the brain is a pathological liar capable of having itself believe anything.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:43:46 2020 No.11401078

>>11392834
>true NPCs/P-Zombies
Wrong/inappropriate use of the term. It's easy to imagine what it would be like to be someone without a mind's eye and inner voice therefore the philosophical-zombie doesn't generally apply its case.

>>11400133
Humans are animals.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:48:51 2020 No.11401092

>>11401078
>It's easy to imagine what it would be like to be someone without a mind's eye and inner voice

No it actually isn't for most people, they keep asking retarded questions like "how do you fucking function and do basic tasks in real life" as if they believe they are speaking to a barely self-aware robot or something, they cannot fathom one bit that someone can have a different mental/cognitive experience than their own and think in a different manner than they do while still thinking in the same capacity and quality as they are. They fall back on the NPC/P-zombie meme rather than acknowledging that other people can perform the act of thinking differently, whether by not having an inner voice, or not visualizing any images in their minds eye, or both.

As someone who initially thought without any inner voice and had basically #5 aphantasia until developing both an inner voice and #2-3 visual imagery quality now it is truly amusing to see.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:48:51 2020 No.11401093 >>11392424 Very anthropocentric of you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:52:21 2020 No.11401102 >>11401092 They are just unimaginative. Two minutes in a sensory deprivation tank might kill them.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 23:04:02 2020 No.11401128

>>11401102
Funny you say that, as someone who meditated during both times (when my thinking was nearly 100% without any inner voice or visualization) and afterwards when I developed those methods of thinking I can say that I do seriously miss the former because meditation was 10x easier, the most I had to content with as distractions were random ideas popping up but without any inner voice component or visual imagery accompanying them it was much easier to stay on task on focusing on the breath or on nothing at all and I even reached the stage of meditative absorption (jhana) doing so after just my first few tries with meditation.

Now years later when I try to meditate, immediately I am distracted by general thoughts, and inner monologue thinking and visual imagery and achieving that level of meditation is much more difficult. I've come to really see the pros and cons of all of these different methods of thinking.

None of this was done in a sensory deprivation tank of course but the experience would likely be the same in both situations. Of course what might compound the difficulty for those people- especially those with an inner voice is if they bring with them that attitude I've noticed they exude - one of superiority for having an inner voice compared to those "brainless NPC's" they would be so identified with this inner voice and regard it as their very own that it would likely be difficult for them to reach a peaceful state of quiet in their own minds without being distracted by it, and the very experience of briefly having that inner voice silenced with deep enough focus and meditation might trigger panic, if they are too identified with their inner voice thinking as to consider it their own (ego).

Having experienced thinking without any inner voice and with one it is easier to realize that you are not your thoughts, and the liberation such a realization brings.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 23:09:00 2020 No.11401137

>>11392348
I have an excellent minds eye. Back when I used to do 3d modeling on inventor, I could easily visualize moving the object in my mind, be that rotating it or expanding the parts from each other then collapsing them together like in a animation showing how it was assembled.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 23:10:39 2020 No.11401140

>>11401128
The NPC meme is all over the place since I'm pretty sure most people who don't have conscious mental imagery do have inner monologues and vice versa. Verbal / semantic thinking and visual thinking are antagonistic to each other. When you do psychedelics or dissociatives at a high enough dose your verbal thinking is eclipsed and visuals become the dominant mode of cognition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 01:13:28 2020 No.11401331 >>11401140 >Verbal / semantic thinking and visual thinking are antagonistic to each other. I do both all the time.

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 01:35:25 2020 No.11401343

I have developed a way to test and demonstrate the difference a bit better, given that I've had this conversation a lot with other people. I call it the "TV Observer" test. I'll write it out the best way I can, and the good news is people who can't mentally "see" or visualize stuff can participate too for a limited time.

Let's say there is a television set in a dark room, the surroundings don't matter at all. Now, whatever you are visually seeing right now is what is displayed on the television set. No imagination needed for this step, as you can just think "A TV is showing what I'm seeing". Move your head left to right, and because you're doing that, the TV displays your vision moving left to right. The next step is to imagine(sorry aphantasia boys) a second television also showing what you're seeing. After a few seconds, imagine it moving left to right like you just did, but the first television stays the same. Was it easy? Was it clear? Could you keep TV #1 from moving while TV #2 moved? Repeat this process as many times as you want, and move onto the next step. Stack/place TV #3 next to the others, still displaying what you're seeing visually. Make TV #1 stay with your sight, then make TV #2 look left, and TV #3 look right. Could you do both at the same time? Keep in mind while doing this you're effectively standing in front of three TVs, and as such you should be able to see all of their displays at the same time(with varying focus). The next few steps are just changing directions. Diagonally, 360 degree turn, etc. If you run out of actions, start adding in new information to the TVs that isn't there like a fire, a gust of wind blowing things in the background, etc. This should all be while the previous steps are still going on.

Don't worry if you can only do a couple of steps, as it eventually becomes an information overload. I can stack 20 or so TV sets with different actions concurrently before I start getting a physical headache.

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:10:41 2020 No.11401374

>>11400005
Let me chime in. For me it's a lot different to imagine(or see with the minds eye) than it is to lucid dream. When lucid dreaming(which has happened to me only a few times) it's a lot more of a physical experience, where you feel, smell, and "actually see" things. What I mean by actually seeing is that when imagining something awake, like other people have already said, what you see is on a different layer of vision. You don't "actually" see things as if they were present physically, where as in lucid dreams and dreams in general, at least for me, I actually see things as if they were right in front of my eyes physically.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:21:30 2020 No.11401386 >>11392348 I looked at the picture so the experiment is fucking fucked. Shit meme.

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:40:01 2020 No.11401413

>>11394106
Explain to me why we have interfaces like PCs have momitors and audio feedback. We should not. We should be analyzing data "blindly". Yet here we are. Where is the space that our visual monitor inhabits. Is it the size of a molecule? A car? A particle? We could have senses without these monitors. We should be machines, but why aren't we.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:41:39 2020 No.11401417 >>11395282 Actually even seeing red in the first place makes no sense. Where does it stem from? It should not have a quality, it should be abstract like our sense of balance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:55:30 2020 No.11401437 I'm just between 2 and 3 but I have extremely vivid dreams. How does this happen?

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 06:14:22 2020 No.11401684

>>11395773
The feeling of hunger =/= the thought "I am hungry". If you actually ever think "I am hungry" you are probably retarded (much slower at interpreting hunger than others). Anyone else gets the feeling of hunger and naturally skips the feeling interpretation step, and instead thinks about the next opportunity to eat

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 06:15:25 2020 No.11401685 >>11395829 for me it's vitamin K

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 06:18:15 2020 No.11401688 >>11399444 >he imagines men pushing his balls You're the faggot. Good thing there's nothing wrong with being gay

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 06:19:17 2020 No.11401689 >>11401437 you'd naturally be a 1 or a 2 but you suffer from a few of those >>11395829

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 14:47:48 2020 No.11402845 >>11395829 dont forget calcified pineal gland

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 15:12:26 2020 No.11402908
File: 13 KB, 251x201, investigating.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11401413
>Explain to me why we have interfaces like PCs have momitors and audio feedback. We should not. We should be analyzing data "blindly".
Already did. Blindsight is an example showing what the added benefit is to having access to an abstract notion of "sensation" as though it were an object of its own. Without it cortical blindness sufferers are still able to do basic tasks like avoiding obstacles placed in their line of vision when walking. But they deny any sort of eyesight when asked a out it and have no idea that was something they did. It's a useful set of behavioral mechanisms to be able to reference a fictional object standing in for the act of responding to ocular stimuli that lets you do much more than just automatically react.
Similar deal with face blindness. You can see there how someone with perfect eyesight could still lack an important collection of processes that the rest of us get a lot of mileage out of not lacking.
We're lead to believe and behave around these fictional reference points for our own benefit even though no such objects ever literally appear to us in reality. And if you doubt useful fictions could be important enough to occupy the center of our believed notions for how ourselves and the world work then refer to the useful fiction of money, or of language, for some similar arrangements

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 15:12:41 2020 No.11402910 >>11392348 But i don't need to close my eyes to imagine an apple. Funny but closing them makes it harder to focus on one single thing since my imagination goes wild easily (apple suddenly turning into a spherical war robot, i saw that)

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 15:21:48 2020 No.11402915 >>11392349 you need to go back

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 15:49:05 2020 No.11402953

>>11392348
This whole phenomenon is a vocal misunderstanding in communication between a bunch of fucking retards.

Everyone sees 5 you morons, but you can pretend you see 1 in your head but you dont actually see a red apple you ficking dogshit stupid retarded fucking retards

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:26:35 2020 No.11403059

>>11402953
>Everyone sees 5
>but you can pretend you see 1 in your head but you dont actually see a red apple
Just because you have no imagination doesn't mean everyone have aphantasia. I can see an red apple, i can see someone holding the apple, i can change the color of it, i can expand and shrink it and many otherworldly things.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:29:22 2020 No.11403067 >>11403059 Yes, in your head retard, you dont ACTUALLY SEEEE A RED APPLE. YOU EYES ARE CLOSED RETARD.

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:30:29 2020 No.11403070
File: 84 KB, 449x800, 1546442501990.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11403059
Retard legitmatley think they should be able to SEEE THINGS they imagine, like a video game or someshit,

imagine if that was the case, everyone would be a perma monk just imagining everything you moron

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:36:58 2020 No.11403085

>>11403070

I literally can play videogames in my own mind, I do that all the time when I gotta wait in boring places. I zone out so much I actually cannot see what's infront of me when I get really into it, and it gets x100 stronger when I am sleep deprived/falling asleep

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:43:03 2020 No.11403097 File: 49 KB, 751x627, 1456509003642.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11403070 holy moly the cope

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:48:19 2020 No.11403106

>>11403085
>it gets x100 stronger when I am sleep deprived/falling asleep
I'm normally a poor visualizer and I've noticed this too. Dissociatives and sleep deprivation both allow you to get the sense you're vividly rendering detailed moving images. One memorable instance of this after a large dose DXM ingestion involved flying over the town I grew up in and being able to zoom in and see random streets and houses and stores and wooded areas etc. Was pretty neat.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:51:08 2020 No.11403113 >>11398099 It is really about shifting the brain into another state. Isn’t it a state of relaxation and “theta frequencies” which allow better visualization?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:53:02 2020 No.11403118 >>11398338 Isn’t it hallucinatory?

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 16:54:14 2020 No.11403124

>>11403113
Frequencies are found to be associated with what you're talking about. That doesn't mean they necessarily cause what you're talking about. A lot of drugs make you feel warm but that doesn't mean making yourself feel warm will lead to hallucinations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 17:22:29 2020 No.11403177 >>11401343 Tried doing this but I always subconsciously merge the three TVs into a big one that displays the entire room.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 17:50:50 2020 No.11403264 >>11403106 Yeah I know what you mean, I got that aswell after a comedown from Dextroamphetamine many years back

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 18:24:28 2020 No.11403356 File: 262 KB, 400x300, Torus_from_rectangle.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11392628 What if we replace the apple with something simpler? Do you think most people can't picture this gif in full HD in their heads?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 19:23:55 2020 No.11403500 my apple is green and doesnt have a leaf >>11394520 fookin kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 19:34:29 2020 No.11403519 >>11395784 red probably a bloke could only see elbows down, dark sweater blue jeans red rubber cricket ball small desk, rectangle, darkwood all but the ball question are past tense. the ball was known before the questions too

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 23:59:05 2020 No.11404049
File: 57 KB, 720x728, 1582261123999.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11403067
But i can SEE shit I'm imaginating even without my eyes being closed you fucking chimpanzee. Some people even call it 'third eye' for that reason. And again, just because you got aphantasia doesn't mean everyone also have it.
>>11403070
>call others retard while failing at basic interpretation
>can't see what you're imaginating
is that wojak a caricature of yourself? Because it fits you like a glove.
>>11403085
This anon pinpoints exactly what i meat.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math