Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drawing? doing math around how many edges are common between the two? I turn it and count, but I could also do it other ways, including exploding it into flat shapes or conceptually understanding the nodes and vertices of the graph, or counting the edges and dividing by two since there are 6 total faces.
I am far along the aphantasia line and have spatial thoughts. They lack visual qualia. I can't directly imagine visual features like color or brightness. It's more like being aware of the spatial positions and structures. Often, but not always, in a volumetric stage reachable by my hands. I too can think of the cube as folded parts, i.e. one forming the top+front+bottom which the problem states are red, and one formi…
People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
301–310 of 315 posts
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#302I'm aphantasic. I dream normally, seeing all sorts of imagery. I have accidentally had a couple lucid dreams in my lifetime, which got me interested in the methods to trigger them intentionally, all of which have failed. The Wake Back to Bed (WBTB) method has been especially frustrating, because I'll see my usual nothing when my eyes are closed, but then for the very briefest instant I see a dream image that immediat…
shikantaza (zen meditation, basically) has significantly improved my ability to visualize.
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can personally watch a movie in my head, eyes open and I’m super not artistic but very engineer oriented. To the point that I realized I should be dropping software for mech eng
I'm the same. As a student, I could vividly picture the page of the book containing the details of whatever problem I was working on. I have close to zero artistic and design ability, but am very strong in engineering and spatial reasoning.
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
shikantaza (zen meditation, basically) has significantly improved my ability to visualize.
In what way has it helped? Is the settling of the mind in open-awareness reducing competition and distraction, or are you doing something more akin to absorption / cultivation practices?
do you practice?
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#305I'm aphantasic. I dream normally, seeing all sorts of imagery. I have accidentally had a couple lucid dreams in my lifetime, which got me interested in the methods to trigger them intentionally, all of which have failed. The Wake Back to Bed (WBTB) method has been especially frustrating, because I'll see my usual nothing when my eyes are closed, but then for the very briefest instant I see a dream image that immediat…
I'm also aphantasic and dream normally, and I once got really into lucid dreaming for a ~semester in college. My best successes would occur after drinking a cup of coffee and immediately taking a nap before a study session. It was great, I "learned how to fly" and could "morph" my dream into whichever direction I wanted. One thing stuck out though: whenever I would try and focus on something, I would see a black dot…
One of the most horrifying recurring dreams when young was "geometric nightmares". This black circle would expand in size while a deafening silence grows. The volume is a void, and it's deafening.
An impending sense of doom as the expanding black void circle approaches. There's a real fear of oblivion, of ceasing to exist. Then you wake up.
Anyone else had similar dreams?
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes experience dreams when I go back to sleep repeatedly, but in all normal circumstances it is nothing
Are you sure you're simply forgetting your dreams and you assume you don't dream?
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to know especially what is the perceived difference between normal imagination and hallucination. The way people with mental visualization explain it it sounds basically exactly what I always imagined hallucinations to be like. And e.g. closed-eye visuals on psychedelics. Why is it so special to have closed-eye visuals when most people have closed-eye visuals anyway?
The difference is when you imagine things normally you are aware that you are imagining them and you have full control over them. I can picture an elephant in the room with me, I can change its size or color, I can give it a top hat, and critically I can make it go away at will. If you're hallucinating, it's just there, however it happens to be, and while you might be able to reason that it's more likely a hallucinat…
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the same. As a student, I could vividly picture the page of the book containing the details of whatever problem I was working on. I have close to zero artistic and design ability, but am very strong in engineering and spatial reasoning.
I've wondered about this: if you can hold an image clearly in your mind - e.g. the Eifel tower - wouldn't you be able to reproduce it well on paper? I know that's not artistic ability in the creative sense, but still..
Conversely, I have aphantasia but can draw reasonably well from memory (at one point well above average, but I'm about 30 years out of practice).
There are people who can "trace" what they imagine, but it doesn't appear that being skilled at drawing is that closely linked to ability to visualise.
An interesting thing, though, is that if I draw from memory my lines are more precise, while if I draw from something I can see, I will sketch out and refine. I think the two are quite different skill sets - drawing what you see often requires paying attention to spatial relationships and transferring those to the drawing to get proportions right etc.
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
80% is still pretty high! Does 80% mean "tastes like a dull chocolate bar, but still basically a chocolate bar", or more like "like a nice chocolate bar but somehow 20% less enjoyable in some looser way"? Perhaps this is why I can't identify the beat in the music.
Like a nice chocolate bar, but echoed - so I can remember what it tastes like enough to want one, but not satisfy the urge to actually have one. Ephemeral, rather than satisfying.
More seriously, that's fascinating. I don't think I experience this?
Re: People who can't picture anything are rewriting the science of imagination
#310A test was recently mentioned to me, regarding aphantasia vs visual thinkers. Imagine a cube that has a red top and bottom and front face, and all other faces are blue. How many edges are red on one side and blue on the other? Now, in solving that, if you are a visual thinker, you may have actually mentally "turned" the cube to "look" at the other side. I can exactly pinpoint doing that in my mind, to count the edges…
And how would non visual thinkers solve that?