/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16090081]

Is aphantasia real, or is it merely a symptom of being mentally retarded?

[Anonymous No.16090097]

>>16090081
the brain is lazy, it'll "see" things in whatever way is most efficient at that time and place

[Anonymous No.16090100]

Anyone claiming to visualize objects inside their mind is either schizophrenic or lying for attention.

[Anonymous No.16090111]

>>16090081
A symptom of the mentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.16090113]

>>16090081
I firmly believe most people misunderstand the question completely. I can imagine objects. I don't "SEE" them. I think them. I can close my eyes and focus better on my thoughts. I don't "SEE" the object with my eyes when I close them.

[Anonymous No.16090119]

ask anyone what their childhood bedroom looked like and most people could tell you. I bet they even visualize it.

[Anonymous No.16090123]

>>16090113
They misunderstand the question because they’re mentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.16090130]

this comes down to existential isolation - it's impossible to share phenomenal experience
do some people actually see objects? how do i know they aren't lying? who the fuck knows

[Anonymous No.16090131]

>>16090119
It's impossible to see something without experiencing it first hand, unless you are hallucinating in which case you are undergoing a psychotic episode.

[Anonymous No.16090134]

I don't see anything. I can for a fact say that any normal people will not visualise any random object immediately after they're being asked. One reason being your mind is usually preoccupied with other things and switching to a new topic isn't instantaneous, let alone visualising it. Next once your mind understands/remembers the object in question, it will simply acknowledge that object is something that's known to you, unless you're a super retarded autist who uses pictures to interpret every word.

[Anonymous No.16090138]

>>16090130
While true, the brain isn’t the eyeball, and assesses things differently. You’re not -supposed- to see using your brain alone, fuck.

Stay dumb.

[Anonymous No.16090145]

>>16090138
let me guess, you think the retina is a camera that projects images onto a homunculus inside your head?

[Anonymous No.16090150]

>>16090145
Lol. You sound fucking unhinged.

[Anonymous No.16090154]

>>16090145
Does light hit the brain before it hits the eye, anon? Are thoughts made of light?

[Anonymous No.16090161]

>>16090150
>>16090154
>fell for the neural identity and encoding memes
many such cases

[Anonymous No.16090177]

>ITT: visualiselets coping

[Anonymous No.16090190]

>>16090130
>how do i know they aren't lying?
Motherfucker, we have MRIs.

https://news.mit.edu/2000/faces-1108

[Anonymous No.16090195]

>>16090190
>muh fishing expedition, correlation fmri study
since when did BOLD signals become causative?

[Anonymous No.16090196]

Fun Fact: When you daydream, you stop consciously processing visual information.

And by fun I mean horrible. You don't want ADHD people driving off their meds. Whenever you hear them bitching about an Rx shortage in your area, you should experience abject terror if any part of your routine involves being on or near roads.

[Anonymous No.16090198]

>>16090154
Technically if they are electrical signals.

[Anonymous No.16090200]

I unironically fluctuate between 1-5, but when with 1-2 there's like a transparent, black layer over everything.
If I get super high (from THC) the black layer sometimes goes away.
I can do crazy audio in my head, like full orchestras.

[Anonymous No.16090201]

>>16090195
If you want to prove science wrong, you're welcome to have your visual cortex surgically removed.

[Anonymous No.16090202]

>>16090081
2,3 and 4 are redundant. I refuse to believe that anyone sees 2d artistic simplications when they imagine.

[Anonymous No.16090203]

>>16090198
Shut up.

[Anonymous No.16090204]

>>16090198
rookie mistake, ionic currents are not electric currents
also the frequencies found in the brain are low enough so that quasistatic approximations to maxwell's equations apply

>>16090201
the visual cortex seems to be necessary, but is it sufficient?
there's way more fuckery going on in the brain than the simple "input-output" meme would have you believe

[Anonymous No.16090205]

I'm somewhere around a negative 0. Not only is the apple 3D for me, but I can spin it around, taste it, feel it, smell it, hear it, and mix it with other things like peanut butter in my head.

[Anonymous No.16090214]

how do people that cant picture things in their mind visualize memories?

[Anonymous No.16090216]

>>16090204
>there's way more fuckery going on in the brain than the simple "input-output" meme would have you believe
No. There isn't. It's an overly complicated if not chaotic input-output device, but it is an input-output device.

And you don't need to perfectly map the brain to map imagining visual information onto visual processing.

Especially when you can do the same shit for other senses. Imagining sound and hearing sound also triggers the same sections of the brain.

Are you going to tell me getting a song stuck in your head isn't real next?

[Anonymous No.16090217]

>>16090214
no one knows

[Anonymous No.16090224]

>>16090214
Nobody can "visualize" memories. You just remember stuff.

[Anonymous No.16090225]

>>16090131
If the hallucination is as real as reality itself can it really be called a hallucination?

[Anonymous No.16090226]

>>16090216
neural correlates will never give you phenomenal facts
are you aware that there is significant representational drift in the brain? what you call a "map" is unstable over time
how is it that perception, knowledge, meaning are all stable over time?
no one fucking knows
just accept that the connectome meme failed, hubel and wiesel were wrong, and so on

[Anonymous No.16090227]

>>16090214
Very badly. It's linked to memory issues as well.

>>16090224
>Nobody can "visualize" memories. You just remember stuff.

[Anonymous No.16090231]

>>16090202
Yeah, this test looks like it was made up by a five who can't accept that the possibilities are: "functional" and "retarded"

[Anonymous No.16090234]

>>16090113
I think that's it. Same for hearing voices in your head.

[Anonymous No.16090236]

>>16090226
>how is it that perception, knowledge, meaning are all stable over time?
They aren't. And frankly if you think they are, I question your ability to take care of yourself. That is a level of mental incompetence I wouldn't ascribe to my worst enemies. Legitimately what is wrong with you?

Glad we sorted that out.

[Anonymous No.16090243]

>>16090236
okay, so now we're going with the daniel dennett tier grand illusion meme to cope

[Anonymous No.16090244]

>>16090202
There *are* different levels of visualization. I don't know about black and white and shit, but I know some people can't imagine moving objects.

They have to reimagine something in a different position to adjust how they're seeing it in their head. Their thoughts can't move.

[Anonymous No.16090249]

>>16090243
Don't know who that is and I wasn't coping.

People forget shit, remember new shit, develop false memories, and remember shit differently. People's tastes and senses change. People associate different meanings with shit as they age and their experiences change who they are as a person.

Not being able to do any of this would be crippling brain damage.

I doubt hearing the name "Christ Chan" would trigger the same regions of your brain now as it did years ago.

[Anonymous No.16090248]

>>16090081
Our active conscious reality we see/live/experience has the same mechanism as the inner picture.

Input -> process -> render "image"/"sound"/etc
In waking moment, the input is eyes/ears/etc.

When our eyes are closed, its recalling from recent memory/past memories/etc -> process -> render.

Those with apantasia prob aren't connecting the input properly or memory isnt working properly

[Anonymous No.16090250]

>>16090244
Yes there are different levels, but the nature of those levels are not anything like a 2d drawing.

[Anonymous No.16090260]

>>16090248
I don't think its normal or healthy to hallucinate when you close your eyes. When I close my eyes I see blackness.

[Anonymous No.16090266]

>>16090260
>When I close my eyes I see blackness.
You appear to be a 5

[Anonymous No.16090268]

>>16090249
nta but different regions might activate differently over time
but I thought Chris chan was a faggot back then
and i still think the same now
how does that work? Meanings have stability to some degree.

[Anonymous No.16090269]

>>16090249
the brain resists change when it can avoid it, but the correlations drift anyway
what if i told you there is a severe bottleneck in retina -> LGN -> V1?
that spontaneous activity has the same, if not greater, amplitude than task-evoked responses?
none of it makes any sense the deeper you look into it

[Anonymous No.16090284]

>>16090268
>Meanings have stability to some degree
Meanings can have stability. But they can also not. We *literally* see examples of that every day.

>>16090269
>none of it makes any sense the deeper you look into it
Just cause you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

>>16090260
Technically you see eigengrau.

[Anonymous No.16090285]

>>16090260
>I don't think
we know anon

[Anonymous No.16090294]

>>16090284
how does neural activity produce phenomenal experience then?

[Anonymous No.16090299]

>>16090100
>t, schizo

[Anonymous No.16090309]

This is a topic I've been interested in for a while, a friend of mine with hyperphantasia says he visualises people in his head except for their face that's just blank, I asked if he'd ever seen a ghost he said yes when he was younger he saw somebody without a face looking down at him from a window. My step dad also has hyperphantasia and has also seen a ghost. Another friend of mine has hyperphantasia and is schizophrenic, he constantly hears voices and sees things that aren't real.
It seems to me that people with hyperphantasia are the odd ones, they're probably responsible for almost every supernatural and religious experience.

[Anonymous No.16090318]

>>16090266
I can hallucinate when I’m falling asleep/dreaming. It’s not adaptive to do this while you are awake.

[Anonymous No.16090324]

>today /sci/ can't comprehend artist drawing
There is an entire board that you guys could study. They draw all the time and is a place where new and experienced artists meet. It is called /ic/ and if you guys aren't too gay, maybe you could arrange a meet up and rent an mri machine to see how thier brain works when drawing.

[Anonymous No.16090326]

>>16090294
If I could tell you how, I'd probably win like every fancy science prize. Hell, if I could definitively prove it even does, I could probably win at least once.

[Anonymous No.16090331]

>>16090294
just like that. where nobel

[Anonymous No.16090360]

>>16090331
59°21′24.52″, 18°1′9.43″

[Anonymous No.16090480]

>>16090081
Fantasia is real. I've seen it. Good movie

[Anonymous No.16090485]

>>16090260
I created 2 stories that I could easily write as novels in my mind.

[Anonymous No.16090493]

>>16090113
> I think them. I can close my eyes and focus better on my thoughts.

This doesn't describe phantasia either

Like if I have a song stuck in my head, I'm not hearing the song like it's really coming through my ears, but I wouldn't say I'm just "thinking and focusing on the thought of the song" either. It's not abstract. It's not something you say figuratively. It's a real experience.

[Anonymous No.16090515]

>>16090130
Nigger, why would I or anyone lie about being able to see shit in their head?

[Anonymous No.16090519]

>>16090081
I am not aware of any connection between an inability to see things in your head and mental retardation. After I piss, I shall check Google scholar and see if anything interesting comes up. Later, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16090534]

>>16090309
I'm not entirely sure what the bounds of hyperphantasia are, but given my allure towards religion and my experienes of visual and auditory hallucinations I would be inclined to agree.

[Anonymous No.16090654]

>>16090081
It all comes down to the hordes of midwits overestimating their experience of perception in their accounts. If dunning-kruger occurs in how people evaluate their own skills and intelligence it stands to reason it also happens when people evaluate their own perception, and even more relentlessly as that kind of personal experience cannot be falsified.

[Anonymous No.16090824]

If you can think, you can visualize in some form.

Aphantasia is really fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.16090900]

>>16090081
>Is pain real or just a symptom of a broken leg?

[Anonymous No.16090902]

>>16090113
"Visualisation" may not literally use the faculty of sight but the metaphor is so obvious and self-evident that I can't believe someone who is capable of it would misunderstand what is meant by it.

[Anonymous No.16090990]

Do people with schizophrenia actually see clowns?

Is it a consistent clown always, or is it shifting by the second like the imagination?

??

[Anonymous No.16091004]

>>16090990
I see clowns every day when I come to /sci/

[Anonymous No.16091033]

>>16090294
it simulates it with memory just like how a song or a scent makes you remember something that wouldn't have otherwise occurred to you

[Anonymous No.16091039]

the people who say they can't see such things are just trolls. ignore them.

[Anonymous No.16091051]

>>16090515
quirky zoomers with autism so they can post about it on tiktok

[Anonymous No.16091065]

>>16091004
Yeah but on /sci/ it's the clowns who are schizophrenic

[Anonymous No.16092178]

>>16090654
>It all comes down to the hordes of midwits overestimating their experience of perception in their accounts.
this is a big one
t. midwit (1 btw)

[Anonymous No.16092232]

>>16090081
I cannot imagine how it must be to not able to imagine shit. Ironic isn't it.

[Anonymous No.16092485]

>>16090081
You dont see with your eyes either. The image is formed in your brain.

[Anonymous No.16092486]

>>16090260
You dont need to close your eyes

[Anonymous No.16092523]

>>16092485
Your eyes receive light, then send the information to your brain.

Does the act of thinking send light? Does it send light to the eyes?

[Anonymous No.16092639]

>>16092523
>Does the act of thinking send light?
The act of thinking sends information to the brain.

Is eyes receiving light sight? Do dead people see? Is there any way to not turn that into a Sixth Sense reference?

[Anonymous No.16092711]

>>16090113
That sounds like a stretch, in the end it's still visulization, whether I get any imput from eyes or not is irrelevant, I literally SEE the object in the same modality as other visual input. I doubt someone capable of this could get it mixed up to such a degree

[Anonymous No.16092845]

>>16090100
How the fuck you solve physics problems involving vectors that are moving and rotating if you can't visualize them?
You must be retarded or something.

[Anonymous No.16093015]

>>16092845
Invent spin. Obviously.

[Anonymous No.16093027]

>>16092845
How can you see without your eyes? A physical impossibility.

[Anonymous No.16093046]

>>16092845
you use tools I suppose? visualizing tools?
I remember this aphantasiac chick from some documentary and she didn't knew she was "special" thought nobody really sees shit in their mind. and she was working as a graphical designer/artist bullshit, of all jobs. she was doing fine, she had an iterative process when drawing. she had no fucking idea how it would look, she just started drawing then morph/edit it into something that she liked.
I guess you can work around it.

[Anonymous No.16093048]

>>16093027
Because you don't see with the rods and cones in the retina of your eyes, you see with your visual cortex at the back of your brain. When you are asleep in REM the visual cortex is also working, you are literally seeing things.

[Anonymous No.16093055]

My dad was telling me about accidents that he was involved with doing surgery a bit ago. My brain just buildt a nice 3D model of the accident site when he described them.
Also works for descriptions of hardware and such, I'm an engineer.
When I read books, stuff happening also gets built like that. Things that I don't know about, like characters that were never described in detail, may end up as non-textured but in the form of a human (if they are even human).

Anyways, I find the "no inner monologue" thing much wilder.

[Anonymous No.16093059]

....yea its real lmao, I know a couple people that have it. My ex gf had this and it was a fascinating things to be around. She could remember details of what things looked like. But....in a way thats hard to explain. She remeberd them more as facts. Zero images. Everytime we'd go a few days without hanging out, and then have a hangout, she would be like, "OH yea that's what you look like!"
She also didn't have an inner monologue. I asked if she can visualise, and she can't hear words in her head, how does she think? She said she doesn't.

[Anonymous No.16093060]

>>16090081
just shut hte fuck up about this

[Anonymous No.16093238]

>>16093055
I kinda want to hear that you guys also build 3D models in your heads. Right? You do?
It also does help solving IQ tests, I'm aware. And pretty good at it.

[AIFag !Gy8L8Ggb7w No.16093247]

>>16090081
is there a research about this with race information, I'm sure we can figure something out about intelligence.

[Anonymous No.16093260]

>>16090196
True and accurate. If I'm unmedicated I have to put a considerable amount of effort, that I'm entirely convinced most people aren't capable of maintaining, into paying attention to the road when there's nothing going on.
>t. level 0 (I can not only visualize the apple, I can visualize the worm and seeds inside the apple, as well as the opposite face of the apple) high IQ (tested in the 3rd grade, never got the score but was admitted to a GATE program) diagnosed at 27 ADHD
Just to put into context how delusional aphantasia copers are, when I'm flying I can shift my perspective from the cabin to space or the ground and see the plane/myself traveling as if I were there physically, other than obviously information I don't have that has to be imagined. I can view the Earth-Moon-Sun system as if I were looking at a computer model and turn the bodies about in my mind with appropriate lighting. In fact, that's how I reckon details about it when needed. If you were to ask me a question about the lunar phases I didn't have the answer for off the cuff, I would visualize the three bodies, turn them about, and then observe the transformation from the surface of the Earth. Looking at my desktop I can see the components inside my non-windowed case if I want to. Designing things I can build them in my mind, and if needed look at them from a perspective of my choice and copy that view onto paper/paint. As in, I superimpose my mental image onto the medium and trace it. Nikola Tesla was known for building things using a similar ability. You're all coping hard.

[Anonymous No.16093269]

>>16093260
visualization is a primitive retard skill. your brain is literally showing you images of things because you are too retarded to understand it in any other way. like the retards looking at the pictures in a book and skipping the text because not interesting.

[Anonymous No.16093306]

>>16090309
It's plausible. I have no emotional or qualitative difference in response to what I see versus what I visualize or otherwise imagine, other than I generally am aware if something is coming from my eyes or myself. That is a car I see and a car I visualize next to it are equally real in my mind; there's no perceptive difference to me other than an intellectual awareness one is from photons hitting my retinas sending a signal to my brain and the other is a signal originating within my mind. This isn't actually universal. From VR I'm aware that more primitive functions of my brain respond to visual stimuli only; playing Quake in VR puts me into a primal flight or fight state whereas imagining it doesn't, but consciously there's not a difference.

[Anonymous No.16093320]

>>16093046
Honestly having a strong mental ability can be a hinderance at some point without special care. The latitude of an innate ability is limited, and with a strong innate ability it becomes easier to neglect learning important skills because you can compensate, until you hit a wall with your ability and suddenly have no skills or foundation to deal with a problem that exceeds said ability. Something similar to gifted kid syndrome could easily affect people with hyperphantasia.

[Anonymous No.16093343]

>>16093269
NTA, but if "primitive retard skill" is true, why does it make solving IQ tests easier?
Touche!

[Anonymous No.16093345]

>>16093269
Extreme cope. I can think about things in any way I want to. Visually, linguistically, abstractly, mathematically, etc. If I want to design a desk I can conceptualize it abstractly without form, shape, or description, and then describe it to put it into words (mentally or verbally), or render it into a 3D model I can see. Then I can take that render and refine it within my mind as if I were using CAD software. Or if I need to make a drastic change I can go back to an abstract representation for all or part of it, and then go back to a concrete representation to see what it would look like. When I read, for what it's worth, I usually don't perceive individual words, I just pull the abstract meaning of the words, though if I want to I can perceive it as if I were reading aloud to myself. For instance, when I'm watching subtitled media I often forget I'm reading subtitles, because I take a minute glance, perceive the meaning, and never consciously process the text or words. It's a problem because my wife is legally blind and I'm supposed to read subtitles for her, but I can fail to notice them coming on. I have gotten up and walked out of my living room during a show, realized after a moment I can't understand what's being said, and then remembered that I was reading subtitles and that the show is in Japanese.

[Anonymous No.16093437]

>>16090225
life is a hallucination nigga. the moment you came out of your mother's cooter was the moment the dream began. the moment you die alone is the day the dream ends. then you wake up in a shitty little cardboard home and get dressed to go back to the shein factory (you're a 6 year old chink)

[Anonymous No.16093475]

>>16090100
Please tell me this is just bait

[Anonymous No.16093532]

>>16090113
I can imagine things vividly enough that my optical vision basically vanishes when I'm in deep thought.
When people say they can literally see what is in their head, they mean it.

[Anonymous No.16093593]

>>16093532
It doesn't interfere with my regular vision. It all happens in my head.

[Anonymous No.16093655]

>>16093059
You can't convince me this ain't mental retardation

[Anonymous No.16093762]

>>16090100
I would agree if you said see instead visualize. A big part of this type of discussion is people wanting to feel special. I can visualize things like an RC helicopter from different angles. You have to to be able to fly them.

[Anonymous No.16093769]

>>16092711
No, you don't literally see things in your mind the same as you see with your eyes. If you did you could have put them over a paper and traced them. You'd have mostly no need for AR. You should have a number of superhuman abilities. Which you don't. Prove me wrong. But if you say that because you actually think you do then I think you instead have some kind of cognitive deficiency that makes you not realize that you're not looking at something complete and real. I'd question what you're able to see with your eyes.

[Anonymous No.16093776]

>>16093769
>If you did you could have put them over a paper and traced them.
Human attention can't focus on two things at once. Being able to see shit in your mind wouldn't mean that you can overlay it with what you're looking at. You either look at shit in your mind, or what you're seeing in front of you, not both.

This would be similar to how you can't think one word while saying another. Brains don't work that way.

[Anonymous No.16093920]

>>16093776
Heh, nice excuse. I've had people say they can overlay it like literal AR and yet they also had excuses. You have special powers but they're only in your head and can't be shown in any way. How convenient.

[Anonymous No.16093924]

>>16093762
No you can't. Stop lying. You remember, you don't "visualize".

[Anonymous No.16093925]

>>16093920
Imagine being such a retard that you think being able to imagine what things look like is a "super power" holy shit.

[Anonymous No.16093930]

>>16090260
don't worry. that only means that you have no soul.

[Anonymous No.16093934]

>>16093924
Visualize doesn't mean that I literally see something. I'm imagining what it looks like.

[Anonymous No.16093937]

>>16093925
Imagine being such a retard that you think that's what we're talking about. Please learn to read.

[Anonymous No.16093953]

>>16093937
>No, you don't literally see things in your mind the same as you see with your eyes.

[Anonymous No.16093970]

>>16093238
NTA, but making and rotating 3D models in my head is easy for me.

[Anonymous No.16093971]

>>16093953
If you wanna stop meme talking and act like a civilized person then I'm still willing to have a discussion.

[Anonymous No.16094076]

>>16090081
So the reason why low IQ people suck at math is because they can't visualize stuff in their mind?

[Anonymous No.16094147]

>>16093776
>This would be similar to how you can't think one word while saying another.
You've never memorised a song or poem and been able to recite it on autopilot while thinking about other shit like what you need to get from the shops?

[Anonymous No.16094173]

>>16093924
I am currently visualizing a sheep rotating in my head, it's not something I really remember seeing

[Anonymous No.16094183]

>>16094147
>>16093776
Feynman talked about this. You should be able to do several things at once provided they use different systems of your mind. You can sing a song while dancing because one is auditory and the other is body movement.

[Anonymous No.16094185]

You "people" sure love to debate semantics

[Anonymous No.16094188]

>>16093269
If you can't serialize information any other way than words, you are the definition of an NPC midwit, because for thought you rely on tokens pre-masticated by other people for your own consumption.
What happens if there is a concept that literally has no name? Can you just not think about it? (You don't have to answer: Yes, NPCs can not think outside repeating cliche phrases, as mentioned above)

[Anonymous No.16095236]

Definitely a symptom of the mentally retarded

[Anonymous No.16095241]

>>16090081
>>16090100
How do you think artists and engineers conceptualize things?
Getting really blackpilled on the majority of the species rn fr fr.

[Anonymous No.16095242]

>>16090113
You can "project" the image in your mind's eye and it will appear. FOr example, visualize the apple sitting on a desk or something, it won't physically be there but your brain will subconsciously put the apple there for you. It will be translucent and kind of fading in and out of reality

[Anonymous No.16095245]

>>16090234
Wait, you don’t hear voices in your head? What the fuck bros!!??!!??

[Anonymous No.16095371]

what the fuck how in the shit do you hear voices in your fucking heads? isn't that something that schizos do? quite literally?
we all know the world is fucked, we all know most people are legitimately fucking insane, and now I notice most people see things that don't exist, in their heads, and are also fucking hearing voices! yeah bro, that sounds legit sane.

[Anonymous No.16095667]

>>16095371
"Hear" and "see" are metaphors in this case, not a hallucination. It's a conscious process.

[Anonymous No.16095668]

As a musician, I'm quite curious about this one: those who can't "hear" inside your heads, how can you find the proper intonation or pitch? Like if you want to sing along to something? Or if you want to remember what key something was in? You just have to memorise the key?

[Anonymous No.16095713]

>>16095668
I think everyone can subvocalize or "hear" in their heads. Or they can't talk or sing.

[Anonymous No.16095750]

>>16090081
If you can really visualize something as claimed, wouldn't that mean you could play blindfolded chess with no training just by visualizing current the board state? The fact that most people find this very difficult suggests that it might just be a confabulation.

[Anonymous No.16095755]

>>16095750
I can visualise a chess board right now, doesn't mean it corresponds to any chess board in real life

[Anonymous No.16095772]

aphantasiacs have limited attack surface. it's a feature not a bug

[Anonymous No.16095803]

>>16095755
Don't you find that strange? If you can visualize a chessboard with the pieces, shouldn't you be able to visualize it in an arbitrary configuration and hold that stable in your mind?

If I ask you to visualize the starting configuration and we start playing and you update your visualization after each move, is there a point when you lose track of where the pieces are?

[Anonymous No.16095814]

>>16093475
It probably is bait, but considering the average intelligence of 4chan's userbase, it's just as likely that it's a seething retard.

[Anonymous No.16095868]

>>16090100
spbp

[Anonymous No.16095884]

>>16090227
I'm at a Loss for words anon.

[Anonymous No.16095906]

>>16095803
NTA, but why would we expect coherence / stability and clarity of visualisation to correlate?

[Anonymous No.16095911]

>>16095750
If you can remember/recall a song perfectly in your mind, doesn't that mean you could sing it with perfect pitch?

[Anonymous No.16095920]

>>16095803
It gets harder to visualize more complex things.

[Anonymous No.16095968]

>>16095906
If your visualization is incoherent and unstable I'm not sure what "clarity" even means.

>>16095911
I'm not sure what you're getting at... In my example I'm not expecting you actually play good chess, I'm just asking if you are able to even keep track of the pieces.

>>16095920
When a visualization gets too complex what happens exactly? Is there some level of complexity where the visualization collapses and everything goes dark?

[Anonymous No.16095981]

>>16093769
Your AR strawman as nothing do with visualisation, think about what modality means in that sentence, you don't need to be able to overlay mental images on your visual input for them to be the same modality. Same with sound, same with smell, same with ANY other input when it comes to recall capability, you're using the same neurons that translate the actual sensory input, albeit usually in a reduced capacity. Your point was "people might think seeing things in their mind means acutally seeing them with their eyes", you might as well say "people might confuse image recall with being able to hallucinate!" the premise is equally retarded

[Anonymous No.16095999]

>>16095968
Processing sensory visual information is relativley easy, for the brain to "simulate" them by itself is harder, especially in an awake state that's constantyl influenced by external stimuli. The processing power and focus to visualize in an awake state varies, some people have an easier time doing so, these people also tend to have a high visual-spatial IQ. There are defintly people who can simulate a chess board in their mind, professional chess heavily selects for that very ability.

[Anonymous No.16096045]

>>16095981
You don't know what strawman means.
>Your point was "people might think seeing things in their mind means acutally seeing them with their eyes
No.

[Anonymous No.16096046]

>>16093769
>You should have a number of superhuman abilities
Yes exactly, but when people hear the tracing example they seem to have many excuses such as, "I'm not a good artist of course I can't translate my imagination to paper" or "Once I open my eyes I can't overlay my imagination on the real world".

That's why I like the chess example as you can keep your eyes closed the entire time and skill doesn't matter.

>>16095999
People can be trained to play blindfolded chess just as they can be trained to be an artist, but if they can visualize with the clarity that they claim, such abilities should be trivial.

[Anonymous No.16096057]

>>16096046
>Yes exactly, but when people hear the tracing example they seem to have many excuses
You can "hear" a recalled song in your mind, exactly as it sounds in real life, but you can't sing it pitch perfectly, why?

[Anonymous No.16096063]

>>16096057
Fluoride in the water.

[Anonymous No.16096066]

>>16096046
>but if they can visualize with the clarity that they claim, such abilities should be trivial.
There's a difference between visualisaing and simulating, and it's relativley trivial for people with a very high spatial IQ, there are 12 year old Grandmasters in Chess

[Anonymous No.16096079]

>>16090081
It's entirely plausible that imagining things could be a consequence of neural crosstalk betwen the brain's optical center and the rest of the cortex. Something like the foot fetish theory but for eyes.

[Anonymous No.16096094]

>>16096046
I liked your chess example. The problem with it is that you don't need to see a chess board in your head to play chess well. Magnus Carlsen talked about that and I don't remember exactly what he said but he doesn't see a chess board literally. He just remembers a shit ton of chess positions and visualizes the moves like a normal person I presume.

[Anonymous No.16096102]

>>16096057
When I sing a song I don't "hear" it at all... Just like when I talk I don't "hear" my words before I speak them.

I have heard that people can "hear" music in their head and if that's true, having a song stuck there all day would be pretty annoying.

[Anonymous No.16096104]

>>16096102
Can you not recall songs? If you think of a specific song you know well, what does that for you?

[Anonymous No.16096106]

>>16096057
Nobody expected you to paint photo-realistically with no experience. But if you can see a perfect image you should be able to outline it and draw as anyone else who traces after a photo.

[Anonymous No.16096110]

It's not an exact science, at least in my case.
If I imagine a full chess board, it's not all sharp and perfectly defined from the far, more like rough contours with pieces like the king sticking out because they're big. (ESL, sorry)
Closer up, whatever I concentrate on is sharp and resembles real life pieces.
We can start playing chess, but my memory, which is far from exceptional, can only hold that many moves, I probably can't even do twenty. TBF, I never was a big chess player, partially probably because of my memory.
Now, someone, for example, describing a tour that they made into a cave. They just tell and my mind builds a 3D model of it. It happens naturally, I don't have to invest energy into that. There are pretty hard limits too, I won't be able to follow say twenty changes of direction and different size, water at the bottom, whatever.
It doesn't really have that much to do with the information my eyes receive either, whatever imaginary stuff is normally imagined, roughly happens in the place where my brain rests, so just in my head. (there is a brain there, I have MRI confirmation). I can push that out and say project into the front of me. But it's all happening in a different space, even if I imagine solid opaque stuff, any actual visual information behind it remains perfectly visible.

[Anonymous No.16096112]

can any schizo answer this, really curious. when you see shit, like IRL, is it perfectly mapped to the environment, or does it move with your eyes moving? say you turn around, do you still see the hallucinations or do they remain behind you? really curious. if brain perfectly blends it with your environment that's some serious heavylifting compute wise.

[Anonymous No.16096114]

>>16096102
What the fuck, you can't "hear" music? You've really never had a song stuck in your head? Can you even remember songs then? If you think of a song what do you experience?

[Anonymous No.16096123]

>>16096106
You get no hand-eye feedback from a visualised image, tracing relies on hand eye coordination which obviously doesn't apply to internal images. You can still draw from memory, but the specific feedback you get from moving your hand while seeing it that makes tracing so easy doesn't apply here.

[Anonymous No.16096134]

>>16096102
>>16096114

Not really... but it really depends on what your mean by "hear". I know how the song "goes" but it's hard to explain.

I always thought the "getting a song stuck in your head" thing was just a metaphor.

[Anonymous No.16096135]

>>16096123
I don't know what you mean. What do you mean by internal images then. Are you saying you literally see two are worlds at the same time but you can't overlay them?

[Anonymous No.16096152]

I have a degree of aphantasia, possibly as bad as "4" in OP's image. However, I can recall both sounds and smells with astounding detail. I can replay well-known songs in my head as if I were actually listening to them, and I can smell a vast variety of smells in my head as if they were *right in front of my nose*.

FWIW I have an extensive musical background from a young age, have developed solid relative pitch, and frequently compose music in my head for fun, but my nose hasn't seen any formal training.

Do any of you aphantasia anons also have really good mind's visualization of other senses?

[Anonymous No.16096155]

>>16096135
>Are you saying you literally see two are worlds at the same time but you can't overlay them?
Yes, there's a clear sensory input from the eyes and an internal image, they're sperate but have the same basic quality to them, though the mental image is usually a little less "percise" since it's not in a strictly static space. If I close my eyes it's easier to focus on the mental image, but I can still visualise it with them open though it decreases my focus on the sensory input from eyes if I do so. Tracing works well because you copy in a 1:1 with strict spacial relations, painting from an internal image doesn't allow that, it would just be regular painting

[Anonymous No.16096156]

I have a degree of aphantasia, possibly as bad as "4" in OP's image. However, I can recall both sounds and smells with astounding detail. I can replay well-known songs in my head as if I were actually listening to them, and I can smell a vast variety of smells in my head as if they were *right in front of my nose*.

FWIW I have an extensive musical background from a young age, have developed solid relative pitch, and frequently compose music in my head for fun, but my nose hasn't seen any formal training.
Do any of you aphantasia anons also have really good mind's visualization of other senses?

[Anonymous No.16096158]

I have a degree of aphantasia, possibly as bad as "4" in OP's image. However, I can recall both sounds and smells with astounding detail. I can replay well-known songs in my head as if I were actually listening to them, and I can smell a vast variety of smells in my head as if they were *right in front of my nose*.

FWIW I have an extensive musical background from a young age, have developed solid relative pitch, and frequently compose music in my head for fun. I can even make my mind's voice "speak" in other peoples' voices. But my nose hasn't seen any formal training.

Do any of you aphantasia anons also have really good mind's visualization of other senses?

[Anonymous No.16096164]

>>16096046
You conflate visualisation with perfect recall. If you show me an apple for just one second, then tell me to close my eyes and visualise the apple, I'm going to see a detailed, defined, and colourful apple with a stem and even blemishes if I want. But I can't compare it to the actual apple to know if any of the details are correct. It's not photographic memory. It's the ability to create a picture in your mind, however inaccurate to reality it may actually be. Memory is in fact notoriously flawed and people tend to fill in the blanks where they do not accurately recall.

[Anonymous No.16096168]

Autist here. I have a degree of aphantasia, possibly as bad as "4" in OP's image. However, I can recall both sounds and smells with astounding detail. I can replay well-known songs in my head as if I were actually listening to them, and I can smell a vast variety of smells in my head as if they were *right in front of my nose*.

FWIW I have an extensive musical background from a young age, have developed solid relative pitch, and frequently compose music in my head for fun. I can even choose to hear my inner dialogue "spoken" in someone else's voice & dialect if I've been exposed to a lot of their actual voice (this will annoyingly happen spontaneously with TV characters' voices if I watch a shitload of a particular show). But my nose hasn't seen any formal training. Do any of you aphantasia anons also have really good mind's visualization of other senses?

[Anonymous No.16096188]

>>16095242
Anon you might be superhuman

[Anonymous No.16096201]

>>16096168

>>16096110 here

Well, you probably wanna read, or watch, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. It's interesting when it comes to smell.
I actually can compose nice shit on the fly in my dreams. Which is kind of a shady area anyways because of ventures into lucid dreaming. Also, remembering is hard.
Well, composing is also one of my hobbies, it really doesn't work quite that well when fully awake, but I can build basic beats, leads and so on in my head.
Better than nothing I guess.

[Anonymous No.16096204]

>>16096164
Don't you see how what you're saying is contradictory? How can a perfect image not contain perfect info?

[Anonymous No.16096250]

>>16096164
Sure, but that's my whole point. My disagreement is when people claim that they are seeing images in their mind just as if they were looking at them with their eyes. Since when using your eyes to view an apple, the information is constantly being sent through your optic nerves freeing you from the burden of having to keep apple.png in your working memory, but that only makes the gap between vision and visualization more obvious. Would you agree that given working memory constraints, visualizations must necessarily be information poor (at least consciously)?

[Anonymous No.16096267]

>>16096204
Because I don't have perfect info.
An artist is going to paint a different, less accurate picture if you ask him to do it off the top of his head. But it'll still be a better picture than a quadruple amputee who can't hold a brush.

[Anonymous No.16096291]

>>16096250
>Would you agree that given working memory constraints, visualizations must necessarily be information poor (at least consciously)?
Not the OP but what's the point? The information your optic nerves provide go through a shitton of processing to create the image you actually see, you can say a sensory image will have a more static dependable quality to it, but your mind inevitably constructs a lot of information in a reference context, whether this happens with information from the outside or the inside doesn't matter. I if I imagine a 4 black triangels they'll have the same information density as 4 black triangels I see on a piece of paper. If you're arguing "resolution" and quantity of information, then it's really just a matter of ability

[Anonymous No.16096300]

is the brain processing (aware of) all info in visual field? or only on what you focus on? does it discard the rest or does it "know"/learn shit that's on the corner written on some store window without you being aware of it?

[Anonymous No.16096312]

>>16096300
It is aware of most.
But then, it mostly just makes up shit, see blind spot and most outside of the fovea not even able to detect color.
The shit you actually end up with is mainly what the brain thinks is correct.

[Anonymous No.16096314]

>>16096300
The cone density of your fovea centralis is more than ten times denser than in the rest of your peripheral retina so while peripheral information gets processed, there's a lot less of it. If you never focused your eyes on the shit written in the corner all your visual cortex gets is a blurry general shape

[Anonymous No.16096331]

>>16096312
>>16096314
yeah but it still processes it right? including storing it? or making adjustments based on the information available in that area?
am curious if it fully discards it if nothing of interest is there or it always churns at everything and that has other effects based on results of processing it.

[Anonymous No.16096339]

>>16096331
>am curious if it fully discards it if nothing of interest is there or it always churns at everything and that has other effects based on results of processing it.
Evolution wise, a lot of info can safely be discarded as long there was no movement happening, which movement would have indicated worthy prey.

[Anonymous No.16096358]

>>16096291
>I if I imagine a 4 black triangels they'll have the same information density as 4 black triangels I see on a piece of paper
4 black triangles you imagine can have any combination of side lengths and orientations while 4 black triangles on paper have definite side lengths and orientations.

[Anonymous No.16096366]

>>16096358
And that changes their information density how?

[Anonymous No.16096401]

Still....there are people who don't automatically build 3D models of stuff described? Or look at a model and just turn it in their head?
Do you have an inner monologue?
Pic not related...I believe

[Anonymous No.16096417]

>>16096401
>>16096201
Still, as said, it's in the mind, memory. That stuff is not sharp nor exact.

[Anonymous No.16096556]

>>16096401
>>16096417
...and there are actually people who can't imagine even simple objects in their head?
Weirder more, that's probably the majority of people?

[Anonymous No.16096568]

>>16096556
Oh, next you guys tell me you don't have an inner monologue either.
What the flying fuck is that even?

[Anonymous No.16096597]

>>16096568
An inner monologue is really dumb actually. I used to not do that as a kid, but one day I thought I'll start, just to get more practice with language. It's a bunch of wasted brain power otherwise. And it makes you slow and dumb. Possibly even more brainwashed if you believe in that theory about language that the plot off Arrival had in it.

[Anonymous No.16096620]

>>16096597
Yeah, now you just act on instinct?

[Anonymous No.16096819]

I still don't quite understand.
There are people who can not easily build 3D models in their head. They can't even imagine a simple object?

[Anonymous No.16096826]

>>16094173
Are you one of those retards who claims to be able to "hallucinate at will", "hack the mental matrix", or "lucid dream"? It's all the same woo, you can't see without external stimuli.

[Anonymous No.16096841]

>>16096819
They can, those idiots just can't understand the difference between "visualizing" and "seeing", they think some people can close their eyes and see stuff like inside vr goggles

[Anonymous No.16096994]

>>16096841
>they think some people can close their eyes and see stuff like inside vr goggles
I wish I had this power bros, but im a hard 5 =/

[Anonymous No.16097003]

>>16096841
I sincerely doubt that, actually. I've said it before, the metaphor is so obvious that you have to be absolutely incapable of abstract thought to not understand it, which indicates some sort of imaginative impairment at least.

[Anonymous No.16097134]

>>16096826
>lucid dream
...but that's a real thing. Not believing in lucid dreaming is like not believing in hypnosis.

[Anonymous No.16097163]

>>16097003
Most can probably understand the metaphor, just not with those words, just look at OPs image, man's getting caught in the "eyes" and "seeing", but if you'd ask him to imagine a green apple with a worm inside, he most likely could.
The fact is, for most humans the closest contact they'll have with abstract thinking is during school, and they will get stuck even on simple metaphors because of one word or another.
Of course, there's always the trolls who will easily understand it, but will pretend to be stupid for fun, like >>16096994

[Anonymous No.16097237]

>>16093655
It's called "being a woman". Not much difference.

[Anonymous No.16097238]

>>16093055
My cousin is a senior aerospace engineer with like 12 circuit design patents to his name. He swears he has aphantasia. How does he design complex circuits then? He has no explanation.

[Anonymous No.16097268]

>>16097238

I wonder if he can look at circuits and essentially interpret as a mathematical matrix. At least that's what I did when I had the class.

>>16096134

Interesting. If I forgot my earbuds, I can usually recall music I listened to before with no issue and have it playing in my head at will.

[Anonymous No.16097298]

>>16090902
this

>>16090113 is an extremely common explanation that I see put forth by intelligent people, but its clear that theyre also aphantasic to a degree
for instance there is a type of thinking that I find myself using with mathematical intuitions of higher dimensions where I cant literally visualise them, but I can intuit some vague "form" which I can manipulate with other forms
metaphysical thinking also usually falls into this form-thinking category
but for anything in euclidean space or real world objects? I have a full hd image in my mind, the same as the images I recall from memories or dreams (aphantasics obviously wont know what Im talking about because they dont even recall memories/dreams as images)

but like you said, if youve been able to visualise and shape rotate from the time you were a small child, what people mean by "visualise" is so obvious to anyone that can do it, that if its not immediately obvious to someone it means theyre aphantasic

aside: there are broadly three categories of explicit thinking: verbalisation, visualisation, and "form-thinking" ("explicit" as a opposed to "implicit thinking" which is not thinking per se, but the unconscious intuitions which develop into thought)
verbalisation is the farthest from pure intuition, visualisation is closer, and "form-thinking" is closest to intuition
some people are able to think via all three, some lack one or more of these types of thinking, and retarded people dont think at all

[Anonymous No.16097315]

>>16096597
*Your* inner monologue is dumb. Like all cognitive functions, it sharpens with practice, and scales with genetic factors; and a badass inner monologue hardens you against bullshit.

It starts to become a monstrous superpower after multiple years of candidly arguing with yourself. You gain a humility of, and also a rock solid confidence in your conscience. You become hard to fool in any way that matters, slippery, and accurate. You may begin to form a private, inner symbolic language that is not entirely made of words, which allows you to describe reality in ways that the common wisdoms simply cannot, due to symbolic inefficiency, AND it makes you a killer in arguments.

A highly developed inner monologue is one of the core features which makes a man into a scientist, alongside a vivid intuition. Nothing can replace it.

[Anonymous No.16097399]

I am so fucking tired of stupid people

[Anonymous No.16097406]

>>16096046
>when people hear the tracing example they seem to have many excuses
99% of people can't accurately draw a thing they're literally looking at on the table in front of them, why would you expect mental visualisation to make it easier?

[Anonymous No.16097425]

>>16090081
pritty shur its type of bairn dammij + maldevvelluppmint so thayy nevur lernt teh vizewelize r simyulate senserry imput in they're hed D: D: D:

sad!!!! >:^|

[Anonymous No.16097441]

>>16097163
>just look at OPs image, man's getting caught in the "eyes" and "seeing", but if you'd ask him to imagine a green apple with a worm inside, he most likely could.
What are you basing that on besides your refusal to consider the possibility that he can't?

[Anonymous No.16097453]

>>16097399

[Anonymous No.16097750]

>>16097315
Okay, Goku. Somehow you failed to see that's basically what I said. Maybe it's your inner monologue that's too loud.

Use it for practice, not for performance.

[Anonymous No.16098079]

Fucking apples man

[Anonymous No.16098123]

>>16097406
People who "can't draw" have always baffled me. I get that there's a disconnect between visualizing something in your mind and physically drafting an image, so stuff like poor scale and perspective sort of makes sense. But when the subject is in front of them and they aren't even close to accurately representing what they are drawing it makes me question wtf is going on in their brains. Almost like it's a perceptual issue in the first place, like they actually see and interpret things differently, as if they aren't aware of spatial relationships or something.

[Anonymous No.16098184]

I really think some humans just aren’t conscious entities, they just run like a fleshy program. Is consciousness even required for intelligence?

[Anonymous No.16098188]

>>16090081
Everyone is fucking 5, I hate this retarded meme

[Anonymous No.16098231]

>>16098123
Our brains are actually pretty poor at telling us what we're seeing because we're processing and categorising the inputs we get. There's a reason drawing is a learnt skill. If you ask someone to draw a face, even if it's right in front of them, they'll often get the proportions wrong unless they've been trained to really look at it - because we're looking at it as a face and not as raw visual input.

[Anonymous No.16098244]

Apparently there are people who have a hard time to imagine simple 3D structures.

[Anonymous No.16098255]

>>16098231
>Our brains are actually pretty poor at telling us what we're seeing because we're processing and categorising the inputs we get
Just because you're retarded doesn't mean everyone else is

[Anonymous No.16098261]

>>16098255
Everyone else is, though. This has come up in every drawing class I've been in. It's the main thing drawing instructors teach you. Draw what you actually see, and not what you think you see.

[Anonymous No.16098273]

>>16098255
Post your art.

[Anonymous No.16098285]

Just thought of a scenario.
I can think of the baseball field and rotate the entire thing
I can taste and feel the gum in my mouth. I can feel the grit of the dirt under my cleats. I can smell the petrichor from a fresh rain in the air. I can hear people chatting and whistling.
but
in reality im sitting in the silence of a public bathroom, the faint odor of pee and the taste of my own saliva comes back to me. my ass hurts from the uncomfortable seat ever so slightly.
as a lot of the people in this thread put it, imagining things is not like hallucinating.

Imagining is like the metaphor of DJing a muffled song from another room playing off a speaker I put there.
It's like im hearing the song and I can make out the words and beats, but I'm not physically in the room listening and pushing the buttons on the speaker.
I'm just selecting the notes and lyrics and aspects consciously somehow and experiencing it secondhand.
I can visualize my friends head turning into a watermelon and him dancing around on a table, but just looking at him at the same time doesn't change what I'm physically seeing.

[Anonymous No.16098298]

>>16098261
>Everyone else is, though. This has come up in every drawing class I've been in. It's the main thing drawing instructors teach you.
Selection bias, obviously the retards who can't draw are the ones taking art classes. This is like saying nobody knows how to tread water in your swimming class...
> Draw what you actually see, and not what you think you see.
Intelligent people know this intuitively.

[Anonymous No.16098307]

>>16097134
>believing in pseudoscientific woo
Get thee gone.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.16098319]

>>16098298
You're suggesting people instinctively know how to swim then, or at least the intelligent ones?
I'm with >>16098273, let's see your skill. Are you even an artist? I'd like to see some of your earlier work if possible. If you're not an artist, well, draw us up something now. Should be easy for an intelligent person.

[Anonymous No.16098508]

>>16098319
>You're suggesting people instinctively know how to swim then
yes. if you put an infant in the water it will doggy paddle

[Anonymous No.16098530]

>>16098508
Then how does anyone drown? Duh, if you're smart, can't you just figure out how to move your arms and legs? Why do swimming lessons exist?

[Anonymous No.16098552]

>>16098285
>as a lot of the people in this thread put it, imagining things is not like hallucinating.

Idk if you've ever done psychedelics but what you described is basically what drug induced hallucinations are, the only difference is that you have much less control over what you are visualizing. You don't choose what you visualize so much as it's forced upon you, sort of like a dream.

When people say they ate acid and they saw their friend turn into a dog they don't mean that's literally what they saw, hallucinations don't feel real like reality it's just that people lack the language to properly communicate the experience.

[Anonymous No.16099228]

>>16098184
I sometimes wonder the same thing.

[Anonymous No.16099380]

>>16090131
You have no imagination

[Anonymous No.16099395]

>>16097163
And right after that the gay author says "I always thought "visualize" meant thinking of words/ideas/feelings associatd with a thing, not actual visuals" directly contradicting your retarded point

[Anonymous No.16099407]

>>16090081
As I tell /a/ sometimes, if you're not capable of sitting in your recliner and lewd shipping 2d girls without computer aid until you're leaking, you have a porn problem.

[Anonymous No.16099604]

>>16098184
Where do you think the npc meme comes from?

[Anonymous No.16099610]

>>16098552
>When people say they ate acid and they saw their friend turn into a dog they don't mean that's literally what they saw
Lol you havent had a proper trip

[Anonymous No.16100570]

>>16099610
I've done plenty of hero doses, never once have I not been conscious that what I was experiencing was a hallucination. If you're the kind of person who loses track of reality under the influence you probably shouldn't be doing psychedelics tbqh, those tend to be the people who 'don't come back'.

[Anonymous No.16100690]

>>16100570
can confirm, people seeing shit while high are weird

[Anonymous No.16101642]

>>16096826
When you read these words, do you hear them inside your head? Despite your ears receiving no external stimuli?

[Anonymous No.16101658]

>>16101642
>do you hear them inside your head?
You need to be more specific with what you say. Are you talking about hearing voices like one with schizophrenia because that's what the closest to what you wrote.

[Anonymous No.16101668]

>>16097134
What do you mean it's like not believing in hypnosis. Lucid dreaming is real. It's simply knowing you're dreaming while you're dreaming.

We should have a separate thread for hypnosis though. I think there may be a lot to learn about humans from it.

[Anonymous No.16101672]

>>16098552
Yeah the amount of bullshit I've heard from people who never even took psychedelics is ridiculous.

Half of this is inertia from the United States drug panic and half of it is people flat-out lying in order to appear psychospiritually knowledgeable or interesting.

[Anonymous No.16102020]

>>16096826
nice robot larp

[Anonymous No.16102048]

>>16090081
for me it varies, but also never can I intentionally conjure anything at the level of 1, but I have experienced it unintentionally, not even sleeping.

[Anonymous No.16102087]

>>16101642
>When you read these words, do you hear them inside your head?
Why should anyone "hear" without external stimuli? Are you a schizo, or just pretending to be one?

[Anonymous No.16102156]

Let me try. Say normal sight works like this:
>a) light bounces off an object and hits the retina
>b) nerve signals travel to the visual cortex
>c) low level abstractions of the nerve signals are generated (eg light/dark, movement, edges)
>d) high level abstractions are generated (eg object recognition, scene parsing)
>e) the abstractions are moved into working memory
>d) the working memory is linked into longer term memory
"Visualisation" and the "mind's eye" involve consciously activating c) and d). You don't experience the immediate sensation of sight, but you experience the subsequent cascade of interpretation and memory in the same way as if you'd been flashed an actual image or something.

[Anonymous No.16103607]

I don't agree that it's "not real". But I have seen that there are a lot of people out there that somehow got the idea that it's "normal" to be able to fully see imagined objects, just like they're real, and anything else is "aphantasia". It's really, truly not.

[Anonymous No.16104159]

bump

[Anonymous No.16104300]

>>16101668
>What do you mean it's like not believing in hypnosis. Lucid dreaming is real.
So is hypnosis?

I am equating not believing in one real thing with not believing in the other real thing.

>>16098307
>pseudoscientific
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/27/8/4083/3056452?searchresult=1&login=false

Next you'll tell me the placebo effect isn't real. This is /sci/, flat earther tier dipshits such as yourself belong on /b/.

[Anonymous No.16104414]

>>16090214
They write things down in their diary so they don't have to remember.

[Anonymous No.16104418]

>>16090216
>Are you going to tell me getting a song stuck in your head isn't real next?
This is just a figure of speech, no one actually hears sounds in their head

[Anonymous No.16104445]

>>16104418
A figure of speech...for what?

[Cult of Passion No.16104448]

>>16090081
>Is aphantasia real, or is it merely a symptom of being mentally retarded?
Its Cognition and closely related to my research.

Ask.

[Cult of Passion No.16104449]

>>16104418
>This is just a figure of speech, no one actually hears sounds in their head
Ive listened to the same song for so long that when its not playing I dont notice it because its still playing in my head.

Internally ingesting its patterns, reprojecting them into Geometry, Dynamic or otherwise.

[Cult of Passion No.16104451]

>>16104418
Meaning not just my "Ears/parts of the brain" are being used while listening or "remembering" music.

Body contains memories too, I can always listen to music during normal times.

https://youtu.be/J1RSPy9MdBc

[Cult of Passion No.16104453]

>>16104451
That is why Physical Fitness can be so theraputic for men.

A whole aspect of who and what they are, Batman or whoever.

[Cult of Passion No.16104455]

>>16104449
>no music
I got the sheet music, we're good.

"Oops, all best parts, seemlessly mixed."

[Cult of Passion No.16104457]

>>16104455
>What is your purpose?
To shitpost.

And know stuff.

[Anonymous No.16104561]

>>16090138
Your experience of reality is a controlled hallucination within your mind that is projected outwards. You don't directly experience reality through your senses, your mind has to process that information and encode into a simplication it can use for manipulation.

Don't call other people dumb when you are dumb yourself.

[Anonymous No.16104564]

>>16090131
So all the people designing anything new are psychotic, interesting take.

[Anonymous No.16104799]

>>16104561
Our senses have the ability to convert real-world external information into electrical information that can be processed by the brain. The way we interpret this information-- our perceptions-- is what leads to our experiences of the world.

Light is external. Stay dumb.

[Anonymous No.16104835]

>>16102156
You're not a visualiser, are you

[Anonymous No.16104838]

>>16103607
It really truly is tho

[Anonymous No.16104879]

>>16104835
It's a perfectly cromulent explanation.

[Anonymous No.16104885]

>>16096112
anyone knows this?

[Anonymous No.16105073]

>>16104879
Perhaps to someone trying to make sense of a second-hand explanation of the phenomenon. The "immediate sensation of sight" IS c); it occurs in the brain. There is no sensation without interpretation. Visualisation does not involve the same nerve signals as eyesight, or it would be indistinguishable from eyesight.

[Anonymous No.16105197]

>>16105073
Yeah, that's why I said visualisation doesn't involve the nerve signals chief.

[Anonymous No.16105269]

Blindfold someone. Tell them to "imagine" a straight line on the ground, then walk along it. They will not be able to do this.

Tell someone who claims to "see" objects in their mind to see the objects with eyes open so that they can conceal objects in the world from themselves. They will not be able to do this.

[Anonymous No.16105295]

>>16104418
I've had both happen. Normally I can imagine music but this is not hearing the music as though it were real. It's like I can hear it as an experience of the music but I am not hearing the actual sound of the music. During psychotic states I have had flashes where music imagined in my head really has sounded as though it were in the world as an auditory hallucination which completely freaked me out. I have also had states where I have seen things on fire, I once saw my bag with smoke bellowing out of it, which was not there. I could now imagine a bag in my room on fire in my head but it's not the same experience as an actual hallucination.

That this is pathological should put to bed the aphantasia memes. I.e. sub-vocalisation is not the same as "hearing voices". Seeing an apple in your mind is not the same as hallucinating an apple.

[Anonymous No.16105300]

>>16105295
Would an aphantasia person be able to hallucinate things? If they don't visualize in their mind?

[Anonymous No.16105658]

>>16105197
Where does this "abstraction" occur in your model? What you consciously see with your eyes is already a processed image.
>>16105269
Yes, I think we've established that visualisation is not eyesight

[Anonymous No.16105731]

Retards actually think hallucinating is normal KEK

[Anonymous No.16105809]

>>16105300
I've had visual hallucinations before (drug side effect, dealt with em for a long time before switching meds, it's not as bad as you think after the first time as long as you keep in mind shit isn't real). I wouldn't really find it comparable to visualizing things. Visualization is like switching to a different channel in your head. Hallucinations tend to happen on the same channel as vision.

Admittedly there are different kinds of and degrees of hallucination (eg exploding head syndrome which I've also had a couple times before), so they might be unable to have certain kinds of hallucinations.

[Anonymous No.16105857]

>>16105269
Ruled lines on paper are a thing for a reason. Humans not being able to go straight without assistance has literally fuck all to do with whether or not visualization approximates vision.

[Anonymous No.16105903]

>>16090081
It's a different plane. It's not like you're seeing things right in front of you, that's schizophrenia. It's called imagination for a reason, it's happening in your internal world, it's not like you're actually "seeing" it, you're conceptualizing/visualizing it.

[Anonymous No.16105911]

>>16090081
I used to be a 2 but after doing a lot of drugs I'm more like 4 now

[Anonymous No.16105960]

>>16104300
Sorry, but the placebo effect doesn't do what you think it does, you sub-100 IQ pseud. Psychic phenomena does not exist, you cannot magically cure yourself with positive thoughts, and no quantum mechanics does not explain magic.

We've had this debate before. You lost last time, and you'll lose again. Save yourself the trouble, and go back to /x/.

[Anonymous No.16105991]

>>16105960
>but the placebo effect doesn't do what you think it does
I didn't say what I think it does though?

>you cannot magically cure yourself with positive thoughts
You can alleviate symptoms and speed up recovery. The placebo effect isn't going to make a tumor go away, but it can cure a headache.

>and no quantum mechanics does not explain magic.
I think you're hearing voices between this and your crack about me not knowing what the placebo effect is.

[Anonymous No.16105993]

>>16090113
5 detected. 4 tops.
Its actually easier to visualize with your eyes open. Nothirdeyes will never realize this because its almost always depicted in media with closed eyes.

[Anonymous No.16106009]

>>16096094
Magnus looks at the board state and has an instantaneous "instinct" as he puts it to what the correct move is.
He then goes on to visualize all reasonable moves given his remaining time preference and almost always comes to the conclusion that his subconscious is correct.
I believe people with aphantasia never get to the second step, and purely listen to their instinct.

[Anonymous No.16106021]

>>16105991
>You can alleviate symptoms and speed up recovery. The placebo effect isn't going to make a tumor go away, but it can cure a headache.
No it can't. The headache went away on its own and positive thinking is conflating correlation with caustation. There is no 'Placebo effect', it has been thoroughly debunked - and no your favorite woo peddling book 'What the Bleep Do We Know' is not a valid source.

Go back to /x/.

[Anonymous No.16106047]

>>16105658
In the brain. You're going to have to find someone else to get mad at on the internet.

[Anonymous No.16106139]

>>16106047
>In the brain.
At what part in the process, genius?
Oh, I get it, it's pointless to ask this of someone with no imagination.

[Anonymous No.16106143]

>>16106139
I made the generous assumption you weren't asking that given I'd literally listed the parts of the process.

[Anonymous No.16106154]

>>16106143
How are you not getting that I am disputing your list in the first place? You define the "sensation of sight" as light hitting the retina and signals travelling down the optical nerve, but no, the SENSATION is the brain's interpretation of these signals. When you then characterise visualisation as that exact thing simply without the visual stimulus to prompt it, it becomes clear that you have no idea how visualisation is experientially distinct from vision.

[Anonymous No.16106161]

Maybe you should visualise someone who cares about your opinion.

[Anonymous No.16106171]

>Hey, here's my half-baked hypothesis of how this process works, what do you think?
>I see some serious flaws with it
>WELL FUCK YOU I DIDN'T CARE ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION
stay mad kiddo

[Anonymous No.16106269]

>>16105269
because the straight line follows their eyes instead of staying still on the ground

[Anonymous No.16106430]

>>16102156
Nope, I don't think that's it. You are proposing a vertical model. But I think it's more of a horizontal model. Sight generates two slices of at least two mind-slices related to visual perception. Visualization meanwhile only generates one of these two slices. Sight combines these and creates a vivid picture; visualization, because it's only one of these parallel slices, creates an accordingly weaker and qualitatively sightly different picture,

[Anonymous No.16106442]

Total NPC death

[Anonymous No.16106445]

>>16106009
Focused thinking/learning (Actively visualing moves) does not use your subconscious, diffused thinking does, I think that’s why he walks away from the board all together sometimes and why some theories in science (gravity) came to mind when they weren’t actively working on the problem

[Anonymous No.16106451]

>>16103607
You can easily test it as well, i.e. the claim people can actually imagine things into the environment that overlays their regular vision.
Just tell them "imagine some elephant in front of you really hard. Got it? Okay, don't let it go."
Then hold a placard with "nigger" written on it in front of them.
Now, why nigger you may ask? I originally meant to scare the test subject with a spider. But actually, such physical scares might trigger some basal lizard brain response. We need something that needs to be perceived in your higher neocortex facilities to judge whether their sight is currently actually obscured or not.

[Anonymous No.16106456]

>>16106451
Keyword: overlay
Having it actually override regular vision is really really hard to do, so for most people it's just transparent or at least inconsistently opaque

[Anonymous No.16106465]

>>16090081
Why do people always ask "do you dream?" if someone has aphantasia? Now I'm getting caught in the miscommunication loop, because there is no way, unless you dreams are extremely poor quality, that imagination is anywhere near as strong as dreaming. Dreaming is literally seeing. Imagination is not literally seeing. If anyone was imagining to the extent that I could dream then they would not be able to drive without dying, or do much of anything at all.

[Anonymous No.16106487]

>>16106465
>Dreaming is literally seeing.
Some people either don't remember their dreams at all, or they misremember them in quite a strange way: the misremembering is such that they perceive the dreams through a hazy filter. Is is really hard to explain.
Until I had several lucid dreams, I was not convinced that dreaming is actually literally precisely like seeing. I needed to be fully aware during one or two to them to behold this fact.
Most people don't have lucid dreams often enough that they can leave an impression. They probably don't even remember the last time they had one.

[Anonymous No.16106510]

>>16106430
I like that description, it's definitely more overlapping and layered than a simple flow.

[Anonymous No.16106950]

>>16106442
This
(Although retards make interesting art)

[Anonymous No.16106953]

>>16106510
>>16106950
>brain no show pretty pictures?
>t. picrel

[Anonymous No.16106956]

I repeat: Total NPC Death
I suggest that you all kill yourselves
How DARE you try to attack the core qualities of human experience you materialistic nihilistic /sci/faggot midwits

[Anonymous No.16106966]

>>16106956
>How DARE you try to attack the core qualities of human experience
is a "handicap" attacking your core qualities anon? do you feel attacked when a cripple rolls by you on the sidewalk?

[Anonymous No.16106972]

>>16106966
No, but I do get triggered if that cripple is pretentious and incessant about being normal
This whole thing is meaningless by itself, but it's the line of thinking that is very corrupting in every domain and so I feel the need to advocate against it

[Anonymous No.16106979]

>>16090100
based and true so many delusional retards ITT

[Anonymous No.16106983]

>>16106979
Is this how you cope with being incapable of something as normal as breathing?
Talking to you is like trying to explain colors to someone who was born blind

[Anonymous No.16107070]

>>16095750
>"Uh, you can't visualize images because of this dumb argument I made, checkmate retard"
Sad to hear you've got aphantasia, maybe you'll be able to visualize in the next life anon.

[Anonymous No.16107076]

>>16106972
what a demented piece of shit you are anon

[Anonymous No.16107079]

>>16106983
>as normal as
for caveman who needs pictures of it lmao

[Anonymous No.16107090]

we need eugenics

[Anonymous No.16107093]

>>16106956
You call them NPCs but what if they actually aren't conscious? That's how they dare.

Have you guys thought about this? Have you thought about what difference being conscious actually makes? One thing that it does is that we are talking about being conscious. That's one real world change it brings. I've had long talks with certain people. And they are unable to get what you're talking about when you're talking about consciousness and related stuff no matter how long you spend and how you put it. They are otherwise intelligent so that's not the problem.

[Anonymous No.16107096]

>>16107093
anon you are so fucking special for being a normie
>I've had long talks with certain people
that clearly legitimizes you dehumanizing anyone who's the slightest bit different from you, you primitive fuck. or anyone who even disagrees with you, fuck it. use that NPC on anything. somebody looked at you the wrong way? hah, clearly a NPC in need of eugenics protocol.

[Anonymous No.16107116]

>>16107096
It's not about dehumanizing. Don't get offended like an emotional sjw. This is a science board, and it's a genuine observation that I'm taking seriously as possible explanation.

[Anonymous No.16107120]

>>16107116
>they are different, we must fear them
picrel is your bedroom

[Anonymous No.16107129]

>>16107120
What are you babbling about my dear? Are you projecting? I quite like different people.

[Anonymous No.16107154]

>>16106021
>There is no 'Placebo effect'
Unfortunate for you since they definitely don't make any meds that will help you.

[Anonymous No.16107253]

>>16107154
You're the one parroting 'What the Bleep Do We Know' quantum woo.

[Anonymous No.16107645]

>>16107093
>I've had long talks with certain people. And they are unable to get what you're talking about when you're talking about consciousness and related stuff no matter how long you spend and how you put it.
Maybe they're hylic. Maybe they're just not getting it. Or maybe they're bored to fuck and disinterested in the topic so much that they just don't give you a proper answer.

[Anonymous No.16107838]

>>16090081
There exiats a spectrum of aphantasia to hyperphantasia

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

>>16094188
>What happens if there is a concept that literally has no name? Can you just not think about it?

As someone who is aphantasic and has no inner monologue I pose this same question to those of you who can visualize, how do you hold worldess and formless hyper abstract concepts in your head and explore and combine them and such?

For example when thinking about certain patterns of behavior you notice in society, or the idea of people perceiving fiction differently, things you can't really put an image or word to until you think about the concept and then make up a symbol for it, the latter would be "imaginative resistance' an observation someone had about society and a pattern of thought/behavior they observed that had no word or symbol to describe it till they gave it one, and when you later want to think about imaginative resistance and its subtle impacts on society and media how do you do so? Do you ascribe an image to it or what, actually this goes for inner monologue thinkers as well

This is why I believe people are thinking unsymbolized more often than they realize (another concept that existed before it was given a name/symbol) and some of us are just able to think exclusively unsymbolized and I think there's certain advantages to that especially for abstract and highly conceptual thought

All my introspection and meta-congition about unsymbolized thinking happens in unsymbolized form, feels very meta lol, no other way to describe it apart from just "feeling" thoughts, and a deep intuition that thoughts come before language

[Anonymous No.16107844]

>>16107076
I'm going to subjugate you. You have no idea to what extent I'm willing to dedicate my life to achieve that goal; subjugating you
You are evil. You sort's the reason the world's where it's at now. You deserve to be wiped out.

[Anonymous No.16107852]

>>16107838
Everyone who has inner monologue can use abstract wordless thought where it's more useful. Same for everyone who has a minds-eye.
You are right that they do it more often than they realize.

[Anonymous No.16107864]

>>16090081
Imagine being so dumb you out yourself as an NPC without even realizing it.

[Anonymous No.16107878]

>>16107852
Yeah and I wish people understood this nuance, its the conclusion I came to myself when I first learned about visualization and latter inner monologue thinking and that people actually thought in that way and it wasn't just something for viewer/reader convenience in books and shows.

I can recall daydreams I have where I do actually use verbal inner dialogue but its to an imagined third party, likewise my dreams have imagery, sometimes vivid, especially lucid dreams. So it figures that people who primarily think visually or with inner monologue also have moments of unsymbolized thought that they are either unaware of or are rapidly converted to symbols before they realize it, this is where deep introspection, meditation, etc can help them realize that in moments of self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.16107882]

>>16107878
I appreciate you anon

[Anonymous No.16107887]

Here's a simple way to disprove this absolute Reddit-tier 70IQ quackery.

If you claim to be below 5, then maintain a mental blackboard and solve a relatively complex equation on it. See how well that works.

[Anonymous No.16107888]

>>16107882
Thanks, likewise

[Anonymous No.16107894]

>>16095750
I can visualize *a* chessboard, but because my memory is not perfect it likely does not correspond to the one in front of my closed eyes

[Anonymous No.16107901]

>>16107894
You can improve at it
Keep practicing!
:D

[Anonymous No.16107907]

>>16107901
no I hate chess

[Anonymous No.16107908]

>>16095750
There was a show where they had people who said they could visualize a bike try and draw it from their visualization/memory and compare to actual pictures of bikes and you could see just how flawed their drawings were

So visualization vividness =/= visualization accuracy, I think its extremely rare, maybe only hyperphantasics can do what you describe, and have that level of accuracy and stability

[Anonymous No.16107914]

>>16107907
No I mean practicing visualizing random stuff

[Anonymous No.16108487]

>>16103607
By this do you simply mean 1 on the scale, or "see" as if with the eyes? 1 is normal, visualisation overriding vision sounds like a problem.

[Anonymous No.16108489]

>>16106465
Remember, when you dream, you have no conscious external input

[Anonymous No.16108493]

>>16107844
Go tell it at the RNC

[Anonymous No.16108496]

>>16107887
It works as well as solving the complex equation in my head without visualising it. Because, of course, how would I visualise without that? You realise it happens inside the brain, right? I'm not creating an external image for me to reference, no, I'm creating a visual representation of a thought in my head.
I can, however, easily visualise a giant blackboard full of meaningless gibberish resembling mathematical equations.

[Anonymous No.16109076]

>>16107887
>>16108496
Actually I tried this out as I was trying to sleep last night and turns out imagining something being written on a blackboard does help a little bit with keeping track of things because I get to go "what was in the left-hand corner again?"

[Anonymous No.16109255]

fags