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

Aphantasia and Psychedelics

psychedelirium.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#111

Post by khazhoux »

card_zero wrote: post #67
eitland wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Or maybe rather understand. For me it was a lightbulb moment just like my realisation of exactly how bad my colourblindness was: what is next to impossible for me to see (red drawings on woods in maps) was chosen by someone who thought it stood out. I'm at least pointing out that I now know personally that there are multiple levels of visualisation, from me just "feeling" what it would mean to rotate a 3d object…

Being able to draw better than people who can "visualize" better throws doubt on what type of thing "visualizing" really is.

I can draw better than most people, but have nearly zero internal visualization. I learned to draw by direct observation, committing the patterns to memory, and repetition.

As a result, I have excellent (if I do say so myself) drawings from life, some shockingly good portraits in oil, and also I can reproduce a few cartoon characters (which I’ve practiced extensively) almost perfectly. BUT, ask me to draw my mom from memory, and I can’t do it, like at all. I have, really, no idea what my own mom looks like.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#112

Post by khazhoux »

tekla wrote: post #83
cnity wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can draw things I imagine, even though I can't see them. This is what I mean though. What do you mean by "see" exactly, if not imagine? You can imagine something so clearly that you are able to replicate it on paper, yet that is not the minds eye? I also see while dreaming, in a way that is more like my day to day experience, and not at all how I would describe imagining things. > I saw images as clearly as if I…

It's super interesting to read these accounts. I have my doubts that Aphatasia is real for 99% of people who claim to have it and its a language issue. What is imagination if not seeing the thing in your head. Do people think others LITERALLY see an object like photons are hitting their neurons directly?

I don’t think anyone thinks it should be like photons. I think we all understand that internal visualization is something different.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#113

Post by khazhoux »

card_zero wrote: post #20
mdswanson wrote: post #10

An aphantasia "beginner's guide" for those who aren't familiar or just want to learn more: https://aphantasia.com/guide/

I feel in my gut that this is fad-driven internet bullshit, and I would like to learn less, if it were possible. > Dr. Adam Zeman, a neurologist from Exeter, receives a patient who can no longer imagine — known as patient MX. MX goes blind in his mind’s eye after undergoing surgery. > Media outlets like the New York Times report the findings. This leads to an outpouring of new discoverers. Hmm

Are you saying you think everyone can see basically the same amount of imagery?

I’m quite convinced it’s a real distinction. I have nearly zero visualization. The main thing for me is that I may get a fleeting glimpse of part of an image if I focus, but it evaporates instantly. I can’t hold it for any amount of time whatsoever.

On the other hand, I have very strong internal audio. I can play back music I haven’t heard for years or even decades. I hear the different instruments come in, the timbres, etc. It’s obviously not the same as music hitting my eardrums, but it is full, detailed audio which I can pause at will, rewind and pick apart. I’m told there are people that can’t hear any sound in their heads at all...

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#114

Post by cassianoleal »

asdff wrote: post #103
cassianoleal wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read much of that guide. I was initially led to believe that I have aphantasia. I certainly don't see things that don't exist - that would be an hallucination. I can imagine and describe it in vivid detail if I want, but it's not there - I don't see it in the same way I see the physical reflection of light on surfaces. Similarly I don't hear sounds that are not produced by difference in air pressure hitting my ear…

Can you sit back and picture something at all? Like if I said "imagine the exterior of your house" would you actually imagine that or would you just be unable to do that at all?

I can imagine it, yes. But there's no images. Not in practice, at least. I don't see the shapes and colours, but I know how they are. It's more abstract thought than image per se. It's not words either, so it's very hard to describe.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#115

Post by cassianoleal »

red369 wrote: post #107
asdff wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you sit back and picture something at all? Like if I said "imagine the exterior of your house" would you actually imagine that or would you just be unable to do that at all?

I've been trying to work out for a while how much aphantasia I have, and I think it might help to give more detail to your instruction, and then your follow-up question. If you said that to me, I would imagine the exterior of my house. But one of the things I am trying to work out is whether my definition of "imagine" is different. I would think of, and sort of see different details of the house at different times. S…

> But one of the things I am trying to work out is whether my definition of "imagine" is different.

Yeah that's where I'm at as well. I can answer yes to that question but I'm not sure my answer means what GP might interpret from it.

> Sort of like picturing one part at a time, but perhaps more like remembering than picturing. I know the overall layout, but I don't know if I literally "see" it.

Similar here, though in my case I wouldn't necessarily call it "remembering". I can "picture" a completely made up house and it will "appear" similarly in my mind.

> there have been moments, usually when I'm close to falling asleep, where I have actually seen something vividly

Same, or during actual dreams.

> I remember thinking the illustration on the Wikipedia page might be a good way to think of it.

If you mean the one with the apple inside the heads, it doesn't help me at all. I can't relate to any of the pictures in it. :D

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#116

Post by cassianoleal »

amenhotep wrote: post #96
cassianoleal wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read much of that guide. I was initially led to believe that I have aphantasia. I certainly don't see things that don't exist - that would be an hallucination. I can imagine and describe it in vivid detail if I want, but it's not there - I don't see it in the same way I see the physical reflection of light on surfaces. Similarly I don't hear sounds that are not produced by difference in air pressure hitting my ear…

It leaves you with not having aphantasia! I rather suspect quite a lot of people who believe they have it simply differ on the level of literalism they're willing to use to describe their imagination than those who've led them to believe they have it.

> It leaves you with not having aphantasia!

That's what I always assumed from reading about it in the past, where it was mostly "I can't imagine things in my mind". Well, I can certainly imagine things.

Now, the guide in the top comment talks about actually seeing things. I don't. As in, really not at all, for any interpretation of "seeing" I can think of.

I wouldn't even describe it as fuzzy - it's just not an image at all, it's more abstract thought and abstract perception.

Hence my confusion.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#117

Post by Llamamoe »

WrongOnInternet wrote: post #98

Apparently it is possible, at least for some people, to "cure" aphantasia with a training technique is called "image streaming." I'm on the aphantasia side of the spectrum, and it has certainly help me see more vidid images in my mind's eye. Here is a link to the article where I learned about it, which also includes a video explaining the technique. https://photographyinsider.info/image-streaming-for-photogra...

Rubbing your eyes thins their keratocyte layer and is a risk factor for eye deformation and damage: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6848869/

I have no idea if the technique you linked works, but anyone stumbling across this should be aware that it has very real and potentially serious risks - if rubbing them at all increases your odds of keratoconus, just think what 10min/day for months will do.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#118

Post by HK-NC »

cnity wrote: post #24
card_zero wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel in my gut that this is fad-driven internet bullshit, and I would like to learn less, if it were possible. > Dr. Adam Zeman, a neurologist from Exeter, receives a patient who can no longer imagine — known as patient MX. MX goes blind in his mind’s eye after undergoing surgery. > Media outlets like the New York Times report the findings. This leads to an outpouring of new discoverers. Hmm

My gut feel has always been that it is just a language thing where some people think that when others imagine things that they literally see it right in front of them _the same way_ they see real things. Like, when I imagine a scene or object in my head, I am not literally seeing it. It's like some vague in-between thing. And that people who claim to have aphantasia just have a higher bar for what it means to "see" s…

Personally I can imagine something with such detail and depth that my eyes are effectively blacked out despite being open. I can also imagine a grayscale 2D apple fine too, so Im not completely fucked if I have an abstract thought driving a car.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#119

Post by jpfromlondon »

card_zero wrote: post #20
mdswanson wrote: post #10

An aphantasia "beginner's guide" for those who aren't familiar or just want to learn more: https://aphantasia.com/guide/

I feel in my gut that this is fad-driven internet bullshit, and I would like to learn less, if it were possible. > Dr. Adam Zeman, a neurologist from Exeter, receives a patient who can no longer imagine — known as patient MX. MX goes blind in his mind’s eye after undergoing surgery. > Media outlets like the New York Times report the findings. This leads to an outpouring of new discoverers. Hmm

it is, it's unfalsifiable nonsense because nobody actually "sees" things in their "minds eye", when someone imagines something it's just a generic default instantiation of whatever, the properties might list "red" and "cube" but the individual doesn't "see" the red cube.

It's just another way for attention seekers to feel special.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#120

Post by red369 »

cassianoleal wrote: post #115
red369 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to work out for a while how much aphantasia I have, and I think it might help to give more detail to your instruction, and then your follow-up question. If you said that to me, I would imagine the exterior of my house. But one of the things I am trying to work out is whether my definition of "imagine" is different. I would think of, and sort of see different details of the house at different times. S…

> But one of the things I am trying to work out is whether my definition of "imagine" is different. Yeah that's where I'm at as well. I can answer yes to that question but I'm not sure my answer means what GP might interpret from it. > Sort of like picturing one part at a time, but perhaps more like remembering than picturing. I know the overall layout, but I don't know if I literally "see" it. Similar here, though i…

Your comments, and your other reply to the parent post I was replying to, really resonated with me.

I think by default I imagine things the same way as you - not images, not words, but just knowing how something is. I think perhaps that is similar to what I called remembering. When I think of something that way, I can think of, for example, a whole house. But I don't see anything.

But, if I try to picture something instead, as an actual image, I can actually picture smaller specifics parts of something. I think when I do that I am actually doing what people are talking about when they say they are picturing something, or seeing something in their mind's eye. All I get then is like an outline, or faded details, and I can only do small details at a time. Between a 3 and 4 in the Wikipedia representation of aphantasia. It sounds to me like you aren't able to switch to seeing something at all.

A while ago, after reading about someone curing their aphantasia, I thought about this a lot, and I think at the time I suddenly remembered something that made me think I could picture things clearly when I was a child. I also know that I see things when I dream, so I decided I should be able to get the ability back.

I used to try quite often to picture things in my mind, and would do some of the tricks like having eyes open a crack, and just waiting to recognise things in the patterns on my eyelids, etc. Occasionally I would suddenly see something as if it were really there. Like a 2 on the scale. The one thing I remember now is that I saw an entire chair, well enough that I could have sketched it. Have you tried often, or I guess practiced?

Edit: I tried some of the things this person described. They took a Better Living Through Chemistry approach that I didn't want to try though, so I skipped all drugs/chemicals/teas:

https://old.reddit.com/r/CureAphantasia/comments/vrih14/how_...

Post reply on HN