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

Some people can't see mental images

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 388 posts

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#321

Post by agentcoops »

woopwoop wrote: post #262
agentcoops wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is really a fundamental difference as many studies now have shown---and I can attest from personal experience. Honestly, if you have to ask the question there's a pretty high chance you are: everyone at some level believes that their own inner experience generalizes to the rest of humanity, but it's those with aphantasia who thereby believe that everyone else's description is just a manner of speaking ("they, l…

Are you saying that a non-aphantasic person can recall the eye color of everyone in their office?

No, certainly not. I was trying to pose a thought experiment that draws one's attention to the how of their thinking more than "think of an apple." Even if you can't figure out the person's eye color, did you bring to mind a blurred workplace image that just didn't have enough detail in the right place? For an aphantasic, especially if you don't even know this person's name, it's really a sort of experience of an empty thought in the way that thinking about an apple isn't.

It's hard to write about these things...

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#322

Post by aytigra »

lordnacho wrote: post #275
comprev wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can _remember_ the properties of an apple - approximate size, weight (my hand does not instantly drop to the floor due to its weight), etc. I can't _imagine_ an apple in my hand if you defined the colour, size or weight (for example, purple, 50cm diameter and 100Kg). In my mind I am recalling a _memory_ of holding an apple in my hand - not imagining the one according to your specifications. One example I can give i…

Can I ask you a personal question? How do you imagine sex? I thought that everyone kinda thought about themselves doing it with someone else, a bit like a porn movie that you make in your own mind. I can't imagine it being at all interesting to just think about it the way you are talking about it, like it would just be a sort of description of what the other person looks like, without the multifaceted sensations. Tou…

For me visualization by itself is mostly useless, it is more of a concept of something arousing happening and vague visual flashes of something similar I have seen. It somewhat works, but nowhere near as effective as real pictures.

What works for me - is imagining sensations, they could enhance both real and vague pictures, and I feel them directly in the body which makes them very effective.

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#323

Post by aytigra »

the_af wrote: post #316
lordnacho wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask you a personal question? How do you imagine sex? I thought that everyone kinda thought about themselves doing it with someone else, a bit like a porn movie that you make in your own mind. I can't imagine it being at all interesting to just think about it the way you are talking about it, like it would just be a sort of description of what the other person looks like, without the multifaceted sensations. Tou…

I have so many questions to ask people with aphantasia related to sex, but it would get uncomfortably personal, so maybe best not to. The best I can do: do people with aphantasia only get aroused if the stimulus is present? Can't they not get horny just imagining things, like I imagine most people can? Does steamy literature do anything for them? I imagine it doesn't, since if you cannot imagine things then words on…

Good erotic literature does not only describe images, but also desires, emotions and sensations, all of which I think have different channels of imagination/recall.

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#324

Post by aytigra »

andy99 wrote: post #7

I’ve read tons of these and still have no idea if I have aphantasia or not. I can’t understand whether people just have different ways of describing what’s in their minds eye or if there’s really a fundamental difference.

For me, even if I drop into "mental space" completely and stop seeing(or being aware of) real world while thinking about something I saw/did recently, vividness of this mental image will depend on how close I am to dream state, but even so I think I can never see this image with a lot of details, I think even in my dreams I never see very detailed image.

It is like seeing with peripheral vision, I know that is there and sometimes see it with quick glances, but details only appear if I focus on some part of it and disappear quickly when focus shifts.

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#325

Post by scuff3d »

godshatter wrote: post #50
happytoexplain wrote: post #36

I have no real basis for this, but I always suspected that the majority of differences in ability to picture things is actually just a difference in semantics about terms like "visualizing", "picturing", etc. I don't think anybody is "literally" envisioning things, as in hallucination. On the other end, I don't think anybody is actually unable to "think of" what a thing looks like. But it's really difficult to object…

As a person with aphantasia, I can see actual images when I'm on the edge of sleep, and I can see actual images when I'm dreaming, but I can't get anything like that to show up when I try to "picture" something. Just black with static. It is difficult to describe, but so many people talk about it as if they are seeing something and I never have - I've always assumed it was a figure of speech of some kind to visualize…

For me it's like I'm seeing a wire frame through mist. I get vague impressions of what the thing looks like, but can't "see" the thing.

My wife swears she might as well have a movie playing in her head. And was totally befuddled when I explained what I "see".

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#326

Post by sandspar »

jason_pomerleau wrote: post #279
Matterless wrote: post #266

I don't know why I'm surprised every time to see so many people astounded in the comments every time another of these articles come out. I guess I thought by now this phenomenon would be more common knowledge... I'm a non-seer and a non-self speaker. That is, I do not have any clear monologue whatsoever, nor can I visualize anything at all. However, I have a pretty great memory, just not for the experience of things,…

What is it like to read fiction? Tolkien’s writing comes to mind as a good example: many passages of Lord of the Rings are detailed descriptions of the surrounding landscape. Are these types of works just not enjoyable?

Many people with aphantasia skip descriptive passages when reading books.

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#327

Post by [deleted] »

jibbit wrote: post #268

If you could see a photographic-quality image in your mind, you could answer questions about it the way you’d answer questions about a photograph in front of you. 'what’s written on the sign?' 'how many windows?' That's photographic memory. Since that’s not real, the 'normal visualization' everyone's comparing themselves to doesn’t exist either. Yet we keep treating as credible people who assert what others experienc…

[deleted]

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#328

Post by sandspar »

tsoukase wrote: post #296

I am sure any statement "Some people can't X", for X a mental trait, capacity, capability or measure is valid. The thing is how often such happens and how the spectrum severity distributes between normal and total absence. Exactly the same holds for "Some people can X more than average"

The article suggests that 2-3% of people have aphantasia.

Re: Some people can't see mental images

#330

Post by vanviegen »

vanadium1st wrote: post #312
dekhn wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people who can look at something and then draw it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wiltshire Do they have to recall specific areas, or do they perceive the entire thing as a fully instantiated mental image.

Glad that you used this exact example! This guy doesn’t have a photorealistic memory. At least it’s far from as good as it’s claimed to be. He’s an artist proficient in a particular style - better than most, but not superhuman. When he’s not drawing from a direct reference, he’s simply making up details based on assumptions, not on photorealistic memory. Here’s a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyPqQIHk…

Yeah, it resembles what you'd get when using gpt 4o for image editing. Of the parts that should have been unaltered, the broad lines are correct, but the exact details are made up. A modern white chair is replaced by some other white chair. A book is replaced by some other book. Etc, etc.

Both brains and gpt appear to be doing lossy compression based on preexisting world knowledge.

Post reply on HN