Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

aphantasia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 477 posts

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#291

Post by estearum »

andrewla wrote: post #173
Rooster61 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To see something in your “mind’s eye” has nothing to do with physical vision, yet the afterimage works by exhausting some of the eye’s physical cones. It’s a confusing non sequitur and totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Which they go to the correct length to explain in the link associated with that demonstration. I found that exercise quite apt. They aren't saying "This is what non-aphants see" but rather "T…

Maybe you're right, but there are people on this thread claiming that they can actually see things in their field of vision, not "akin to seeing things" but see-see them. I can't do this and I don't think I have aphantasia; I am interested in people who say that they can do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49469365

Do the apple test (closed eye imagination and then pick the most-similar image on the scale). It's a validated test. And yes, apparently some people actually see an apple (not me, as a total aphantasic). Whether that means in their eyes or in their brain is pretty irrelevant. The people who claim to see an apple have physically observable differences in reactions to other mental imagery tests.

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#292

Post by techgnosis »

ToyKeeper wrote: post #273

I know someone with aphantasia. It's absolutely wild to me that he can't see things in his head. Totally alien from my perspective, since I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I see what's in my head so vividly that I often won't see things in real life which are right in front of me. But what's even more wild to me is the people leaving comments refusing to believe that different people are actually different. Re…

I'm one of the naysayers denying aphantasia in the comments.

Why would we default to believing people, though? I get your point. Believe people when they tell you their experience. Sure, that seems like a reasonable thing to do. But in this case, when there is zero evidence besides a self-reported experience, why do we default to believing that there are suddenly two types of people, instead of assuming that semantics has created this illusion?

You're defaulting to being nice, which is fine, but it doesn't make you any more right than me and my skepticism. We both have no idea what the truth is.

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#293

Post by estearum »

andrewla wrote: post #197
clort wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the poll itself is faulty. You appear to be suggesting that the two things - seeing an afterimage and being able to consciously superimpose an imagined image into your visual field are related. An afterimage is literally a physical phenomenon as I explained before, and it passes quickly. There is an explanation of this, in an article that somebody posted a link to the other day in the discussion about Olo. ht…

In my opinion, as someone who does *not* think that they have aphantasia, the two things are definitely not equivalent. I know what the afterimage is, I know what it is to visualize something, and they are completely different both qualitatively and intellectually. But as I keep saying, there are people on this thread that are saying they are literally equivalent. I don't know if I believe them, but that is what they…

People are saying they are phenomenologically equivalent (or close to), not that they're literally equivalent as in generated by the same mechanisms.

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#294

Post by anonybob »

rappatic wrote: post #125
andrewla wrote: post #120

It would take a lot to convince me that aphantasia or phantasia actually exist. Let's talk very specifically about the afterimage test here. Can anyone confirm that they have this ability, which specifically is to superimpose imagined objects inside your actual field of vision? If the answer to this is yes, then okay, I guess I have aphantasia. But none of the other criteria seems to apply. I can imagine a song, and…

I agree. The afterimage test was a major red flag for me. To see something in your “mind’s eye” has nothing to do with physical vision, yet the afterimage works by exhausting some of the eye’s physical cones. It’s a confusing non sequitur and totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I have always suspected that people with “aphantasia” simply misunderstand the idea of a “mind’s eye,” believing that others can someho…

Those people here (not you) telling all of us what is and what is not possible have their view based on how they see things. That's it. I hear they don't see things in mind, visually like a phone or a screen. Or do overlays. I remember finding out and being incredulous about whether others did something I don't.

My mother can take herself anywhere in the world she has been. However, she doesn't render people. This is full immersive. She said I disappear when she's doing it, if sitting there with her. This is simply daydreaming, a well explored topic.

All one has to do is read up on the idea. Anyone arguing against "seeing in mind" likely doesn't and will have some degree of difficulty understanding they are that way. I did. You may as well, or not.

In closing, what exactly is the Mind's Eye. History tells us a lot about what people describe it doing, when it works or is not blown out.

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#295

Post by anonybob »

Rooster61 wrote: post #140
rappatic wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The afterimage test was a major red flag for me. To see something in your “mind’s eye” has nothing to do with physical vision, yet the afterimage works by exhausting some of the eye’s physical cones. It’s a confusing non sequitur and totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I have always suspected that people with “aphantasia” simply misunderstand the idea of a “mind’s eye,” believing that others can someho…

> To see something in your “mind’s eye” has nothing to do with physical vision, yet the afterimage works by exhausting some of the eye’s physical cones. It’s a confusing non sequitur and totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Which they go to the correct length to explain in the link associated with that demonstration. I found that exercise quite apt. They aren't saying "This is what non-aphants see" but rather "T…

If you can merge them, that's the key to a few things.

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#296

Post by estearum »

jpfromlondon wrote: post #178
andrewla wrote: post #120

It would take a lot to convince me that aphantasia or phantasia actually exist. Let's talk very specifically about the afterimage test here. Can anyone confirm that they have this ability, which specifically is to superimpose imagined objects inside your actual field of vision? If the answer to this is yes, then okay, I guess I have aphantasia. But none of the other criteria seems to apply. I can imagine a song, and…

You're absolutely right. Nobody hallucinates or "sees" the object, it's like an object instantiation with default properties that you can name/describe, nothing more. If you quiz someone long enough you can get them to acknowledge they don't see anything "in their head" whatever that means. This nonsense makes me irrationally annoyed, I suspect because it's unfalsifiable attention seeking, some people I've met mentio…

Can you explain why people who report aphantasia don't show physical responses (like sweat or pupil dilation) in response to imagined visual stimulus (like being described a scary scene), while people who report mental imagery do show these physical responses to the same stimulus?

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#297

Post by Cider9986 »

newswangerd wrote: post #276

One thing I'd like to learn is how to effectively meditate as someone with aphantasia. I took a course in college and all of the exercises involved some variation of tuning out your internal monologue going to your happy place in your minds eye. I'd love to get the benefits of meditation, but I can't visualize anything so none of the meditation tools that are taught in these kinds of courses work for me at all.

There's plenty of meditations that don't need it. You don't need to tune out your internal monologue, it's generally more about awareness, so you can be using your internal monologue or just be aware of your thoughts. It's about noticing distraction, which means you are aware.

This book is a great, easy to read, science-based explainer.

https://annas-archive.gd/md5/0e405c329f33fcb63b4647e386f0ad7...

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#298

Post by throwawaythekey »

andrewla wrote: post #194
jpfromlondon wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right. Nobody hallucinates or "sees" the object, it's like an object instantiation with default properties that you can name/describe, nothing more. If you quiz someone long enough you can get them to acknowledge they don't see anything "in their head" whatever that means. This nonsense makes me irrationally annoyed, I suspect because it's unfalsifiable attention seeking, some people I've met mentio…

I agree, of course nobody can actually do this (barring mind-altering drugs or brain trauma, and even then, not voluntarily). But there are people on this thread an on the attached survey ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49469365 ) who say that they can. Maybe it turns out that I have aphantasia after all and this is just an ability that I'm missing. I am curious to see how many people say that they can do this…

If you accept that drugs/trauma can cause altered states then can't you also accept that some people have the altered state as their default?

Modern politeness encourages us to think of all humans as more or less the same, which I think causes a default minimization of difference mindset.

One thing that really blew my mind in my 20's was learning that asians have a different type of earwax -> usually white and dry instead of yellow and waxy. It really shocked me that I was never taught that in school, and if people are unaware of common physical differences I am sure we are largely unaware of common mental difference.

Re: Aphantasia Beginner's Guide

#299

Post by greazy »

selcuka wrote: post #272
greazy wrote: post #262

I want to know if aphantasia is associated with any other mental models. For example, driving, map reading, spatial awareness. I have a theory that Aphantasia is the symptom of something else, and this other thing relates to how the brain of such individuals stores information. I think it's stored in a more "compressed" state. As an example, I find myself remembering where info is and not what the info acrually was.…

> I want to know if aphantasia is associated with any other mental models. For example, driving, map reading, spatial awareness. Aphantasia is usually associated with spatial memory difficulties [1]. Anecdotal, but I am aphantasic (almost zero visualisation) and also have low spatial awareness (can't navigate without a map or GPS). I have no issues with driving or map reading, though. In contrast, someone I know can…

Thanks for answering my question! I also have mild aphantasia, I can navigate okay but not as well as my wife.

I also get lost or disoriented in big city centres but in a natural park or trek I'm totally fine.

Post reply on HN