Live data from Hacker News

Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

scientificamerican.com

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of those videos where a comic book artist draws a character in 1 minute, 10 minutes, and 100 minutes (sped up of course). Cool stuff but also hilarious at the 1 min sketches.

> Reminds me of those videos where a comic book artist draws a character in 1 minute, 10 minutes, and 100 minutes (sped up of course). Cool stuff but also hilarious at the 1 min sketches. I'd love to see one of those. Google is returning useless results for a video search on "video of sketches done by an artist with different time constraints."

Here’s an example from YT: https://youtu.be/dvpEuEkj4ZM

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#82
post #28

Research and discussion of mental imagery has always confused me. It seems like there is a perennial surprise at conditions like aphantasia, or of discoveries that some people have high fidelity mental imagery while others have low fidelity mental imagery. But one of the very first major published papers on mental imagery, arguably the paper that opened this topic up to scientific inquiry, was a statistical study of…

I'd like to know what is complementary to high fidelity visualization, e.g. do people with aphantasia have a more developed internal monologue? Personally I can visualize images in high fidelity but I don't really have a monologue, so I wonder if the opposite is true as well.

As a dataset of one, I can tell you that I am aphantasic and have a lot of internal monologue from multiple voices (No I'm not schizophrenic). I also have very strong auditory memory and can, as other have said, "play songs in my head." Though translating those imagined songs to the real world is less then steller in my case. I can also fairly acutely imagine a touch/feeling.

Just for a little insight into my internal thoughts, most of my thought processes are highly object oriented. Conjuring up a picture of a chair isn't really neccessary when you have an understanding of the chair object and its properties. I understand how it would work with an image of a chair, and it does seem like it might have some advantages at times, but I don't think it is necessary for me to "see" the chair to know how it functions and its basic spacial properties. Nor do I think that it's neccessary someone with a very vivid pictorial imagination.

What I do have a hard time understanding is that people can conjure up smells and taste in their imagination. I do neither of those, but it sounds really quite intriguing to me. I've often wondered what it would be like to try to imagine a new recipe and get an imaginary sampling before the attempt.

To circle back to your original question, I don't think the absence of one of the modes of imagination necessarily enhances another. I don't even think there are complimentary modes of imagination as you put it. Nor do I think the fidelity of those modes are indicators of intelligence, ability, or personality. I also don't think they are indicative of actualizing particular thoughts into the real world, or is really a measure of anything other than the somewhat uniqueness of the individual human experience.

Lastly I don't think this short list if 5 senses begins to describe how humans actually think. Consider that there's probably more hidden subprocess that our brain is doing for thought then using these particular 5 sense modes of imagination. We obviously are not as aware of them because they don't have a real world translation in most cases. For instance, the way people memorize stuff isn't exactly a relational database, but it's kind of close. What exactly is that process called and why don't assign that a value on the imagination scale. As another example, large tree structure can somewhat represent, "a good sense of direction" but again we don't assign that an imagination scale either. Limiting the reaearch to the 5 senses is great for understanding how those processes work, but it is only a tiny baby step to further understanding how human thought works on the whole.

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#83
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It may well be that some people actually have some form of aphantasia, but all the self reporting of amazing visual powers or the lack thereof seems more indicative of peoples' egos than the actual differences in what they are capable of. I have it, and I struggle to understand your skepticism. What’s the ego here? I’m proud of not being able to do something? My assumption is that the visual processing layer is sti…

Thank you for your response, it is nice to hear from someone who considers themselves to have aphantasia. With "ego" I meant to refer to people boasting about their abilities to visualize everything to the greatest amount of detail in their heads, which to me seems likely untrue except for very rare cases. I think reported phantasia (as opposed to aphantasia, and if there is such a word) is in a way similar to clairv…

I don’t think many programmers have this issue, I haven’t met another in real life. I certainly don’t think it’s an advantage for software development in general, many of the best developers I’ve worked with over the years have been extremely visual in their thinking (one guy would close his eyes whenever you were describing how something should work so that he could translate to visual, another would only describe things with whiteboard marker in hand, drawing pictures as he went). In fact, I’m very grateful for having been taught by them to design visually early on in my career. I’m mid 40s, and a core part of the value I deliver in my current role is drawing pictures.

I realised my brain worked differently when I was about 21 and went to see a psychologist. He asked me to close my eyes and picture my mothers face. I couldn’t do it, and he then asked me to picture some other things and I couldn’t do any of it. There was no name for this condition back then, and both he and I were surprised. I was surprised he was asking me to do things that were obviously impossible, and he was surprised I couldn’t do something that everyone can obviously do. Since then I’ve talked to many people about the “minds eye” and how they perceive things. I’ve never met another like me, but there seems to be a large degree of variance in how detailed or vivid this mental imagery is for individuals.

I married very young (25), and my wife is the other extreme. It turned out that she has ASD, and thinks mostly in pictures. She always had auditory processing delay, and part of the reason for that is that words all create images in her head. The delay is partly because there is an automatic translation between words to images going on. She can see images in her head with incredible vividness and detail, and can dial up the detail as needed. She also can’t do algebra to save her life; if she can’t picture it she can’t think about it. We watched a talk from Temple Grandin a few years ago (an autistic PHD), and she described a very similar experience. I really do think there is wide variance in how brains work.

The lack of auto-biographical memory is something that seems to be commonly associated with my condition, and this part is clearly mostly downside. I still have semantic memory, so I can remember all the facts about things that have happened. They just don’t have visual or emotional content. But semantic memory needs to be consciously created, by which I mean that I have to be trying to remember as I go if anything is to be committed to long term memory. So most of what has happened in my life is irretrievably lost to me. I’m fortunate that I married young, because my wife remembers everything in vivid detail, and I love to hear the stories about things we’ve done together. Answering some of your questions:

> Does it mean that a person is unable, even with a lot of training, to form any visual images in their heads?

I have tried the training designed to help with forming mental imagery. This involves doing things like looking at something bright and then closing your eyes so that you have the “after image” and then trying to keep it around. So far I haven’t had any luck, but I do hope that I might still have success one day. I’ve read of other people with my condition being able to learn mental imagery this way, so it must work for some people at least.

> This would seem either unlikely, or related to memory problems, such as you describe.

I’m not sure why you think this is unlikely, to me this is obviously as normal as can be. As I said before, there is a clear association with the lack of auto-biographical memory based on what I read online. It could be some form of brain-damage I experience, but I don’t think this is the case. I think there is just a huge amount of variation in how peoples minds work!

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#84
post #40

This brings to mind the whole Aphantasia¹ concept (briefly mentioned in TFA), where some people don't see images in their mind. It always amazes me how people's minds can be so fundamentally different. Sometimes I try to imagine what it would be like to be born blind, but being sighted and still not being able to create mental imagery seems almost stranger. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

I am very skeptical about the concept of aphantasia. For one, I think that visual phantasy can be trained, or at least developed. Also, it is near impossible to report objectively about your inner processes in a useful way. As an example, many people believed for some time that dreams were in black and white, which is obviously not true for everyone. However, this does not imply that dreams are in color. It seems mor…

> Also, it is near impossible to report objectively about your inner processes in a useful way.

There are some objective ways to measure visual imagination, for example binocular rivalry, skin conductance response (influence of imagery on emotions) and pupil responses during visualisation. Differences can be seen in fMRI. Also, the VVIQ (Vividness Of Visual Imagery Questionnaire) is considered statistically reliable.

> It may well be that some people actually have some form of aphantasia, but all the self reporting of amazing visual powers or the lack thereof seems more indicative of peoples' egos than the actual differences in what they are capable of.

Over 10% of people are hyperphantasic (“Phantasia – The psychological significance of lifelong visual imagery vividness extremes”), and the average visual vividness is quite high.

I guess especially in the Internet you find more people from the extreme ranges of the spectrum who search actively about the topic. But whether someone rates himself with 4 or 5 (simplified) does not have much significance individually anyway.

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#85
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It may well be that some people actually have some form of aphantasia, but all the self reporting of amazing visual powers or the lack thereof seems more indicative of peoples' egos than the actual differences in what they are capable of. I have it, and I struggle to understand your skepticism. What’s the ego here? I’m proud of not being able to do something? My assumption is that the visual processing layer is sti…

Thank you for your response, it is nice to hear from someone who considers themselves to have aphantasia. With "ego" I meant to refer to people boasting about their abilities to visualize everything to the greatest amount of detail in their heads, which to me seems likely untrue except for very rare cases. I think reported phantasia (as opposed to aphantasia, and if there is such a word) is in a way similar to clairv…

> Does it mean that a person is unable, even with a lot of training, to form any visual images in their heads?

Joel Pearson, one of the top researches, speculates it could be possible to “start” the visualisation by training and electrical impulses. Electric impulses on the prefrontal cortex and visual cortex are known to make visual imagination less or more vivid. But how well and whether this works at all, is unknown.

Maybe it only works with acquired aphantasia, only for people with weak aphantasia or for people whose aphantasia has a specific cause. (These are my thoughts on this, not Joel Pearson’s).

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#86

I struggle to imagine a fixed image or object on demand, but when falling asleep or in certain situations its like something gets unplugged and then everything becomes way more vivid and detailed to the point of becoming a flood. I've often wondered if artists can naturally get into that state much more easily.

I'm the opposite, in my mind it's almost like a CAD program mixed with Photoshop and I have complete control over building and visualizing anything. I can imagine building a lego set piece by piece and how each component looks, feels, slots together with others, etc. I can rotate it all around and imagine sides that aren't visible. I can change the colors and the textures and imagine any kind of lighting. As a kid I…

In that case you should be able to imagine a 5x5 grid with letters and then clearly see the words along the diagonals?

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#87

I struggle to imagine a fixed image or object on demand, but when falling asleep or in certain situations its like something gets unplugged and then everything becomes way more vivid and detailed to the point of becoming a flood. I've often wondered if artists can naturally get into that state much more easily.

Amateur artist here. I rely on imagining images with lots of detail. Then drawing/painting it out is almost a matter of tracing the mental projection onto the canvas. Often the image in my mind is more clear to me than whatever is physically in front of me. It is a lot like intentional dreaming.

In such cases it's useful to occasionally direct all your imagination to the highest ideal known to you, better if it's abstract. This can be compared with trying to hear the finest sound in your surroundings, and making it crystal clear to you.

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#88
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your response, it is nice to hear from someone who considers themselves to have aphantasia. With "ego" I meant to refer to people boasting about their abilities to visualize everything to the greatest amount of detail in their heads, which to me seems likely untrue except for very rare cases. I think reported phantasia (as opposed to aphantasia, and if there is such a word) is in a way similar to clairv…

I don’t think many programmers have this issue, I haven’t met another in real life. I certainly don’t think it’s an advantage for software development in general, many of the best developers I’ve worked with over the years have been extremely visual in their thinking (one guy would close his eyes whenever you were describing how something should work so that he could translate to visual, another would only describe t…

Thanks again for taking the time to elaborate. I would not have assumed that being able to see an "after image" was related to this -- I had always assumed that that phenomenon was due to sensory overload. There is still a lot to learn :)

I read that most people with aphantasia do have visual dreams [1], which I found interesting.

In some period of my life I used to have nightmares about my grandmother (who had died many years before), and I remember seeing here face very vividly, as if the entire dream was real. Based on those experiences, I tried to draw her portrait, but try as I might, I failed miserably. I could just not access that imagery while awake.

> I’m not sure why you think this is unlikely

Now you got me doubting that as well :)

I think that most of the misunderstanding stems from an unclear definition of what "forming visual images in ones head" means. I guess it means different things to different persons. For me, as referred to in the dream example, I cannot keep a sharp visual image in my head at will. But there is some vague access to certain visual memories and visual planning, so I would not call my self aphantasic.

I agree that there is a great variation in how peoples minds work, that's what makes life so very interesting!

[1] https://aphantasia.com/discussion/do-you-dream/

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#89
post #28

Research and discussion of mental imagery has always confused me. It seems like there is a perennial surprise at conditions like aphantasia, or of discoveries that some people have high fidelity mental imagery while others have low fidelity mental imagery. But one of the very first major published papers on mental imagery, arguably the paper that opened this topic up to scientific inquiry, was a statistical study of…

I'd like to know what is complementary to high fidelity visualization, e.g. do people with aphantasia have a more developed internal monologue? Personally I can visualize images in high fidelity but I don't really have a monologue, so I wonder if the opposite is true as well.

How do you define an inner monologue? Thinking in sentences? An inner voice in your mind’s ear? A narrator that comments on actions?

On average, aphantasics report a reduced imagery in all other sensory modalities [1]. About 26 % report a complete lack of multi-sensory imagery (total aphantasia).

I have total aphantasia, but my inner experience is worded thinking [2], which Hurlburt defines as follows: “Worded thinking is the experience of thinking in particular distinct words, but those words are not being (innerly or externally) spoken, heard, seen, or voiced in any other way.” [2]

For me, this is an inner monologue, but it’s just silent.

[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-cognitive-profile-of... [2] https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html#target4

Re: Images in the mind’s eye are quick sketches that lack simple, real-world details

#90
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the moment I try and focus it disappears in a snap I can conjure up images in my mind, but they’re usually not vivid and can be quite fragile. I’m not sure how normal this is.

Tangetially associatied: what happens when you 'think' about something? I don't mean consciously deciding to imagine something. I mean something like (perhaps) thinking about an algorithm for a computing problem, or considering how a car engine works. For me, reality utterly disappears. I have a clear image of whatever it is that blots out what is coming through my eyes. the image doesn't have photographic detail, bu…

I see images, but quite abstract and vague. I was probably better at this when I was younger.
Post reply on HN