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

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#81

Post by cnity »

vidarh wrote: post #77
suddenlybananas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah essentially, or alternatively neither group has visual imagery. I think it fundamentally comes down to phenomenology being very hard to express in language.

I have aphantasia, but I have had one experience of seeing clear imagery while awake (and it was not on drugs) They are not remotely similar .

Honestly, your meditation experience sounds more like an altered state induced by the meditation, rather than confirmation of what non-aphantasiacs experience on a daily basis. And I'm jealous you had that experience.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#82

Post by vidarh »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #39
card_zero wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect you, fellowniusmonk, but all we ever get about aphantasia is self-report, anecdote, self-assessment questionnaire, subjective impression. People want me to be nice about this and acknowledge that the thing exists because they all say it does. The best I can offer is acknowledgement that you all say it does. On the other hand, you have a special claim to plausibility because of the surgery. Oh wait cardiovas…

If your core issue is with trying to quantify and observe others Qualia I think you're going to have a hard time. I still have people tell me I must be faking my colorblindness, or just treat me like I'm blind. Normally teenagers, theory of mind is tough at that age. I'm not sure nice or just a smidge of humility/uncertainty in expressing doubt. Propagation of information pre-internet was so low people just couldn't…

Ed Catmull surveyed people at Pixar, and there wasn't a particularly strong correlation in their staff between ability to draw and aphantasia or not - they had artists with aphantasia such as Glen Keane, who created Ariel[1]

For my part, while I'm not a great artist by any means, there was absolutely a time where I was well above average at drawing, despite aphantasia.

People struggle to draw things that are right in front of them - being able to see what you draw is not inherently a huge asset.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47830256

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#83

Post by tekla »

cnity wrote: post #78
vidarh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have aphantasia. I do not normally see things in my inner eye at all, but I still "imagine" things. I can draw things I imagine, even though I can't see them. But I do see images while dreaming. It's very distinct from imagining things while awake and unable to see them. And I have had one waking experience where I saw images as clearly as if I was looking at a photograph while awake, in a dark room, with my eyes c…

> 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?

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#84

Post by vidarh »

card_zero wrote: post #80
haswell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to imply with the “hmm”? I personally found out about my aphantasia when reading an article in Scientific American titled “When the Mind’s Eye is Blind”. A whole lifetime of experiences clicked into place. So it’s not surprising that there would be an outpouring of new discoveries after more people learn of the concept. Learning about aphantasia is how I learned people experience anything other th…

Good question, I couldn't quite put it in words, but it's the popularity that bothers me. It could be popular because everybody's having great insights, but it could also be popular because everybody's greatly persuaded by a fashionable media buzz. On the internet, discussions like this always turn into a love-in where everyone reports anecdotal experiences and gets treated with esteem for being part of the community…

It's popular because most of us had never heard about it until a few years ago, and for a lot of us a whole lifetime of experiences suddenly made sense.

I always wondered why people would talk metaphorically (because I assumed they must do, because clearly you don't see things that aren't there other than while dreaming... or so I thought) about images of people they knew fading, or forgetting what they looked like.

And then suddenly I was told it wasn't metaphorical.

And then a few years later I had my one experience of seeing vivid imagery outside of a dream.

It also keeps coming up because people get all weirded out at the thought that this is a thing, and start insisting the distinction isn't real.

But having experienced both: Imagining things without visuals and with is nothing alike.

And I knew that before the experience I mentioned too, because images while dreaming is also wildly different from how I imagine things while awake.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#85

Post by vidarh »

cnity wrote: post #81
vidarh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have aphantasia, but I have had one experience of seeing clear imagery while awake (and it was not on drugs) They are not remotely similar .

Honestly, your meditation experience sounds more like an altered state induced by the meditation, rather than confirmation of what non-aphantasiacs experience on a daily basis. And I'm jealous you had that experience.

Whether it was an altered state or not, it showed me the ability to see vivid imagery. And the experience isn't even on the high end of reported abilities to visualise.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#86

Post by e-khadem »

bonoboTP wrote: post #66
e-khadem wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a simple (unofficial?) test for aphantasia, and I have tried it on many of my peers, it seems to be accurate. _Close your eyes and ask someone else to read the instructions for you. If you really want to take it stop reading here._ . . . Imagine a room with a table in it. Someone comes in, puts a ball on the table and the ball falls down from the table. - What age was the person that came in? - What hairstyl…

> Most other people would say, for example, there was a big brown table with metallic legs in the middle of the room, and the person that came in had a blue T-shirt. I would only take that seriously from thoughful, detail-oriented, intelligent people who have demonstrated critical introspection abilities before. Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc. People often swear up and down in witness testimonies…

> Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc.

You are right, in that this test might not live up to the highest of standards. But then there are variations in the details. For example one of my friends who happened to be a soccer player said more details about the ball. Other people described familiar objects such as their own kitchen table. You can also tell if someone is starting to think about the answers vs. when they are recalling from memory.

Overall, this method is often (IMO) a better indicator than the typical "apple test" as the context is more natural. Anecdotally the difference between the aphantasia group (incl. those who didn't know this condition existed) and the average response is just too large to ignore.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#87

Post by drcongo »

kakokiyrvoooo wrote: post #63
bethekidyouwant wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can also only experience true visualizations when falling asleep or dreaming. I concluded that being awake (correctly?) suppresses vivid visuals and some people when awake simply do not have this (mal?)adaptation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia

I think you're probably right, though sometimes when this happens I feel very awake indeed.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#88

Post by vidarh »

cnity wrote: post #78
vidarh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have aphantasia. I do not normally see things in my inner eye at all, but I still "imagine" things. I can draw things I imagine, even though I can't see them. But I do see images while dreaming. It's very distinct from imagining things while awake and unable to see them. And I have had one waking experience where I saw images as clearly as if I was looking at a photograph while awake, in a dark room, with my eyes c…

> 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…

This is hard to talk about because all of our terms for it involve assumptions of seeing.

But when I "imagine" something, there is unambiguously no visual whatsoever. I can't see lines, colors, points. Nothing, any more than if there was a wall between me and an object I have never seen.

But that doesn't mean I don't have knowledge of it.

> 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.

Then how would you describe imagining things? Because if you don't see something when imagining it while awake, then that sounds like aphantasia.

> If anything this is more mind's eye clarity than I have ever experienced. My mind's eye is nothing like looking at an actual photograph.

And yet what I experienced isn't even near the high end of reported experiences of people.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#89

Post by vidarh »

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?

Some people do report seeing things as clear as if photos are hitting their eyes. Most people report more diffuse views.

I see nothing, but I have seen once, and when I did, I did "literally" see an object as clear as if I was looking straight at it, or to be more precisely a I saw a whole scene.

Re: Aphantasia and Psychedelics

#90

Post by bonoboTP »

e-khadem wrote: post #86
bonoboTP wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most other people would say, for example, there was a big brown table with metallic legs in the middle of the room, and the person that came in had a blue T-shirt. I would only take that seriously from thoughful, detail-oriented, intelligent people who have demonstrated critical introspection abilities before. Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc. People often swear up and down in witness testimonies…

> Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc. You are right, in that this test might not live up to the highest of standards. But then there are variations in the details. For example one of my friends who happened to be a soccer player said more details about the ball. Other people described familiar objects such as their own kitchen table. You can also tell if someone is starting to think about the answers…

I'm not so sure. People also describe their visual experience such as if it was camera-like. A rectangle window out of their ead with colors, like a photo/painting.

Perception and experience are very hard to describe. We constantly automatically fill in things that weren't observed or explicitly imagined. It requires conscious effort to notice how foveation and saccades work, the blind spot, the less vivid color perception the further we are from the center etc.

Post reply on HN