why would there need to be?
just as schizophrenia is the mind thinking something inside it is outside it, your whole imagination is actually just your senses, which are your bridges to reality, going off on their own, and you controlling it to some degree. You shouldn't have an imagination. I'm not even joking they just decided that being crazy was what made us smart.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2499487-evolution-of-intelligence-in-our-ancestors-may-have-come-at-a-cost/

People with aphantasia don't get mental illness bc they have zero mentality. I've met just one person dumb enough to admit she had no imagination and yeah she was fucking dumb. A particular kind of dumb.

>>16824613
Yes
I’ll prove it like how people think ldl doesn’t cause CVD in hyperlipidemia ppl


If you drag your Iq low enough the spatial solving ability goes down which represents how well you’d do on the icar60 (no cheating ofc) how you fold cubes in your head and come with a solution

>>16824613
How can there be? It's a affectation of the consciousness. There isn't even scientific proof that consciousness exists except for the individual wondering about it.

>>16824613
Yes, me. I was like a -2 hyperphantasia before I OD'd, and now I'm a five. I've seen both sides

>>16824733
What goes on in there instead of visualisation? I know Ryan Szimanski (he runs the Battleship New Jersey museum and a great youtube channel about it) has aphantasia, and he seems quite functional so whatever mental thing happens instead, must work.
Maybe it's the same thing, except done subconsciously? A different part of the mind still works visually, it just doesn't show the visuals consciously?

File: 4strokesengine-3326115361.gif (149 KB, 1238x526)

149 KB GIF

>>16824736
I typed a long thought out response and 4chan ate it.

Basically the long story short is I see "nothing" now. Functionally its only really limiting in creative outlets (which does include learning). Previously I could, as an example, visualize a complete four stroke engine. I could see every piece of machinery, and run through each stage of the engine, break it apart, play it back, etcetc, all in my mind. Now I can describe the process intellectually, and externally I doubt anyone could tell I'm producing it in more of a rote fashion then a visual processing one. I think that's how people with aphantasia learn - rote imprinting.

I do have a sort of "vibe" or "perminition" of what something is, but I'm pretty sure I'm "seeing" some old memories, and not actually visualizing anything. I'm not "seeing" anything with this to be clear, but I'm sort of "feeling" it. I don't really know how to describe it, but it might be what the 4 is supposed to represent?

Something interesting is that my ability to visualize during lucid dreaming is completely intact still. I can completely visualize anything I want when I dream, as before. Helps keep me sane desu

>>16824746
that sucks, have you tried playing tetris? I can see "inside" a computer program or computer or a car engine. But I know there is a tie to dreaming because the more I focus on anything the more I imagine it as I'm drifting off to sleep. I hate when I think about skateboarding because I fall out of my bed. But maybe if you play a shitton of tetris that will give you tetrisbrain but maybe also exercise that part of your brain in general idk

>>16824746
The idea of meaning attached to a low-grade mental image?
I'm usually a fairly consistent 3-4 on OP's scale when reading novels, can go up to 1 if the author described something in detail.
If I picture "a room with a table on the left", it's either some random room in a bunch of detail I made up, or a 4-level outline of a room-shaped void and an outline of a table. The outline still has meaning, there's the meaning of a table there, but not the visualisation of a table, if that makes sense.

Same as this?
>and not actually visualizing anything. I'm not "seeing" anything with this to be clear, but I'm sort of "feeling" it. I don't really know how to describe it, but it might be what the 4 is supposed to represent?

It can be mixed in for me, with 3/4 level blank representations and also 1/2 level objects, in the same mental picture.

>>16824754
I think what you're describing is closer to normal visualization honestly. When visualizing a scene you don't give everything perfect detail, and most parts only exist as vague forms until you decide it necessary to give it more. I think this is the same way normal vision works. Where the thing you're /not/ focusing on is still there (of course), but only as much as is necessary. Like for example the infamous "count how many times the ball is passed" study where nobody notices the man in the gorilla suit. The gorilla being the table you didn't give detail, in your room. Unless you mean you can't force a table into focus, then I guess so it's similar? But it's hard to say with mixed "seeing". There's no minds eye.

If what you're describing is akin to (in real life) looking at a table, and turning around and just "feeling" (via vibes, not physically) a table is behind you, then I think we're experiencing something similar. Its not dissimilar to the "feeling" you're being watched. Just a premonition of form/concept, but no visuals of it

>>16824749
Yeh it's a bummer. Every night my version of counting sheep is basically to concentrate on trying to visualize things as much as possible. Not really much progress so far, but I keep trying. Not sure why Tetris would help, but I like Tetris so sure why not I'll give it a shot lol. If Tetrisbrain is basically just burning the game onto your eyelids, though, I still get that with Factorio and belt networks just fine

File: living-room-view-interior(...).jpg (118 KB, 1300x962)

118 KB JPG

>>16824754
>>16824760
No, actually reading what you said again I feel like what you're describing is like visualizing a blueprint/sketch of a room? Something like pic related? When I refenced 4 I interpreted it more as maybe meaning what "conceptualization" would indicate -- not a literal outlined visualization

>>16824613
You could contrive a test where people look at increasingly complex images shown on a screen for a short duration, say 10 seconds:

Triangle
Square
Star of _avid
etc

They then wait for another duration where the screen is blank, long enough to erase a literal afterimage from their retina.

Then they have to draw the image by hand.

You would do this with a variety of people, artists non artists, supposed aphantasics and phantasics, etc.

Controlled test in a cubicle setup.

Look at the data. That's the best you can do empirically.

Maybe in the future with nanomachines you could investigate the flow of information through the brain and identify the 'mental screen' area.

Apparently Covid causes it so it must be real.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pnp.714

>>16824613
>Is there scientific proof that aphantasia exists?
No. It's literally "I have that so please trust my subjective feelings that say so"
If people could see something with their "minds eye" then artists would not need to be looking at a subject to paint a portrait.
Retards think people claiming they see the crisp high fidelity image "1" of the apple in OP pic means they have a projector shining an image to the back of their eyelids and since nobody actually has that these retards assume they're abnormal.

That's where the correlation comes from that falsely "proves" aphantasia exists.

It doesn't. Dumb people are simply more likely to not realize nobody has a projector in the back of their eyelids when they mentally conjure something with their "mind's eye" and these same dumb people will say they're a blank space "5".... thus we get a correlation. Also attention-seeking faggots want to be special and say they're different than most people so they force themselves to think they have "aphantasia"

>>16824613
No. Aphantasia is a meme used by retards to larp about being superior (one way or another), and by some mentally ill people to explain their problems.

>>16824613
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I4KxfXrCPw

>>16824613
>Is there scientific proof that aphantasia exists?
Yeah, it's called an IQ test.

>>16824613
This is the scariest picture I've seen in years lol.

>>16825770
You’re the stupidest faggot I’ve seen in years.

>>16825794
5 detected.
Lol.

>>16825797
Lol
>5s

File: 1761289555367726.jpg (29 KB, 567x437)

29 KB JPG

>>16825797
If you can't visually imagine things in space around you and see it momentarily you're retarded and I feel sorry for your brain.

File: bikes_drawn_from_memory.png (707 KB, 1280x1051)

707 KB PNG

There is literally nothing wrong with not seeing anything in your minds eye. The whole reason it took so long for the general population to realize and it suddenly became a meme 5 years ago is because people without a mind's eye function just fine. Some people whine about not being able to draw but guess what, 99% of people can't draw for shit, even those who claim to see shit in their minds evidently can't transpose that to paper so what's the use?

>>16824746
>Something interesting is that my ability to visualize during lucid dreaming is completely intact still. I can completely visualize anything I want when I dream, as before.
It's like this for everyone, everyone sees things in their dreams even people with low visual imagination. It's always the hallucinators who come up with "hurr durr how can you dream then".

I have seen that there are a lot of people out there that somehow got the idea that it's "normal" to be able to fully see imagined objects, just like they're real, and anything else is "aphantasia". It's really, truly not.

>>16825121
This wouldn't work at all, because the assumption that visualization is necessary for drawing something from memory is baked in a priori, and that assumption is wrong.
>>16825506
>If people could see something with their "minds eye" then artists would not need to be looking at a subject to paint a portrait.
Agree. I think when you recognize an object that's actually in front of you, it causes a symbolic representation in your mind, and when people claim to see something in their mind, they're really just seeing this symbolic representation without anything underlying it (or only something very lo-fi). But most people can't accept their mind works like this.

>>16825806
>the assumption that visualization is necessary for drawing something from memory is baked in a priori, and that assumption is wrong.
I don't think it is wrong. An aphantasic artist could train to draw by tracing outlines, but if an object is novel then that wouldn't work. (After the geometric examples they would be show more complicated scenes).The only thing an aphantasic could do is very quickly convert the image to the required sequence of motor commands, hold those commands in kinaesthenic memory, then execute them like a program. That seems rather far fetched.

>>16824613
Yes, and it's easy to prove. Imagine a six-sided die with 6 pointing up and 3 pointing forwards. You roll it, say, two times forward, three times right, and three times forward again. What side of the die is up? People who can fully visualize the die can easily and almost immediately answer correctly, but many people actually answer incorrectly, proving that they suffer from a degree of aphantasia.

>mind's eye denial
That's a new level of lunacy that only this shithole can conjure up. Impressive.

>>16825803
Yeah, it makes sense. Even blinded people can dream. It was something that was very refreshing (read: sanity saving) that I still have something akin to abstract virtualization, tho. It's not just dreaming, but that sort of twilight between aka lucid dreaming where I can still shape what is "seen" in a way that's kinda similar to the normal mind's eye. Its just nice

>>16825984
That’s retarded. You’re retarded.

>>16825984
Even someone with aphantasia could answer that correctly just knowing the sides of the dice…

>>16825984
Not the best example. It requires knowledge of a dice, in this case that 4 is opposite 3.

File: outrun-the-thunder-by-joh(...).jpg (129 KB, 1485x641)

129 KB JPG

>>16825806
>I think when you recognize an object that's actually in front of you, it causes a symbolic representation in your mind, and when people claim to see something in their mind, they're really just seeing this symbolic representation without anything underlying it (or only something very lo-fi). But most people can't accept their mind works like this.
yeah that's pretty much exactly how I describe it too.
I've made pic related before as a visual to help describe it. The left is the representation of what is happening in the minds eye, the right is an actual image of course.
The minds eye creates mental points in 3d space and each has a "feeling" associated with it that conjures up similar brain activity to what we'd actually see with our eyes if we looked at a real object in front of us. This way we can in fact rotate an object in our minds eye and properly assess new orientations as if we were looking at a real object in space with our eyes, but it isn't actually seeing of course.

Certainly some people are better at that than others: it's just a type of brain activity and not everyone is equal in that regard.

>>16826050
But people without aphantasia can do it nearly instantly, since they essentially just look at the die. Those with aphantasia would have to calculate or somehow otherwise find the solution.

File: 1685650642779870.jpg (100 KB, 720x899)

100 KB JPG

>>16824613
>he can't imagine aphantasia
anon, i...

>>16826251
>But people without aphantasia can do it nearly instantly, since they essentially just look at the die
No they’re just quick thinkers. Some people are overly compartmented and trip over themselves when they do an abstract anything.

Are you upset that you couldn’t visualize the dice fast enough or something?

>>16826251
Nah my brain is autistic and I hyper focus on one side/thing at all times because I’m an autistic person who obsessively thinks about the smallest things. I can picture an apple with holes in it perfectly fine.

File: IMG_6388.jpg (113 KB, 583x675)

113 KB JPG

If you dream you don’t have aphantasia.

>>16825974
Nope, you only think drawing works like that for everyone because it subjectively feels like it works like that for you. Obviously I, a non-visualizer, can draw a star of david or any symbol from shirt-term memory and it has nothing to do with remembering motor commands.

>>16826254
meta-aphantasia
how do we cure it?

How do people with aphantasia masturbate without visual material ?

File: bike.png (11 KB, 610x397)

11 KB PNG

>>16825802
Is this image supposed to be satire? How can someone get individual details like the teeth of the gears or the valve stems on the tires correct and not realize the frame is just two triangles?

The harder they focus the more they can only recall individual details and not the complete image?

>>16825802
Aphantasia is a knock on from the NPC meme which is an ancient understanding.

>>16824613
No, low iq niggers just don't understand the formulation of the question. If you have dreams during your sleep you can imagine any shit

File: OIP-2157289911.jpg (83 KB, 474x266)

83 KB JPG

>>16826315

https://discord.gg/WVSrCXUF

>>16826570
Are you saying for people who visualize, their waking imagination is very similar to dreams?

>>16826585
You have to do a specific movement with your eyes and imagine on the side of the eye to actually momentarily see an image.

>>16825984
Terrible test. Firstly it should be a teapot not a die since you're supposedly testing if people visualize things instead of having people memorize which side of a die has dimples because nobody cares to know that.
Secondly, even a blind person could instantly identify the new orientation of a teapot that went through those rotations so the test proves nothing since people who can't visualize at all can answer just as fast as people allegedly visualizing in their mind.
Aphantasia is not a real thing and, inb4 cope, I can easily identify the new orientation of a teapot that underwent those rotations.

>>16824613
uh unless you want to insert woo about the mind, i don't see why it is hard to imagine a brain that can't access the network that imagines things

Ironically, the one thing people with vivid imaginations can't imagine is how one can be without it.

>>16825506
The "mind's eye" is such an obvious metaphor that someone who doesn't get it is certainly lacking in imagination in at least some way.

>>16826608
There is a duplicity here, in the sense that visualization is a different facet then the mind's eye proper. The analogy is indifferent from any other senses of a passive and active participant. People can maybe hear specific songs without the song playing if they choose to. They will most certainly hear it if the notes are playing through some speaker.
All of this to say, that mind's eye covers visualization and more. In the way that a dream is not just a sequence of images. And the duplicity can be considered as some active or passive participation of imagination (period, in total) and the mind's eye can subjugate you.

Inventors like Browning and Tesla used it. Edison has a famous method for inducing a hypnotic state to play with it. There are a number of "rituals" available to bend the lines through drugs, hypnosis, will, etc.

File: ouch.png (31 KB, 1851x1070)

31 KB PNG

>>16824613
>Is there scientific proof that aphantasia exists?
Only to the degree that you consider neurology a science. If you don't accept subjective reports as evidence, no one can prove anything to you about the functions of the mind. If you do, the "proof" is trivial in that some people find mental imagery comparable to literal vision while others, going purely by their own experience, can't fathom such a comparison.

>>16825506
>If people could see something with their "minds eye" then artists would not need to be looking at a subject to paint a portrait.
Completely nonsensical point from an obvious aphantasia sufferer. Vivid mental imagery doesn't imply photographic memory. If the painter neglects using a real reference, what's to stop his imagination from filling in false details?

>>16825802
>even those who claim to see shit in their minds evidently can't transpose that to paper so what's the use?
They can, if they actually learn how to draw. Otherwise they're no more able to draw from imagination than you are able to draw from vision. And if they learn how to break things down visually, they may even be able to remember the actual structure of a bike. :^)

>>16826608
People without a mind's eye also get that it's a metaphor, they just think it's a metaphor for a different thing.
>>16826686
>They can, if they actually learn how to draw.
..and so do people without visualization.
>Otherwise they're no more able to draw from imagination than you are able to draw from vision.
Yes, but I think here the claims of visualizers break down. Commonly it is claimed that people with a mind's eye can draw from their mind's eye in a similar way that anyone can draw from life, or from a reference picture. But most people regardless of visualization ability can draw a structurally correct bike from life much easier than most drawing-naive visualizers can draw a bike from imagination. So there must be something quite lacking about the visualization that makes it significantly less like an actual picture or scene before you. At the same time there must be something about the subjective experience that makes people claim it *is* a lot like seeing a picture or a scene before you. The "you're just seeing a lo-fi symbolic stand-in for an object-recognition-event" theory accounts for both of these.

>>16826703
>..and so do people without visualization.
You seem to be struggling with basic reading comprehension, not just visualization.

>people regardless of visualization ability can draw a structurally correct bike from life much easier than most drawing-naive visualizers can draw a bike from imagination.
Naturally. One person is trying to draw an actual bike while the other is trying to draw a reconstruction from memory. You would expect this divergence, regardless of visualization clarity, unless the subject has properly memorized what goes where on a bike.

>there must be something about the subjective experience that makes people claim it *is* a lot like seeing a picture or a scene before you
That something is literally that it is a lot like that when you have a vivid imagination. Any other explanation is cope from aphantasics with a raging inferiority complex.

>>16826712
>That something is literally that it is a lot like that when you have a vivid imagination.
You cannot both make this claim and admit that drawing a bike is more difficult for people with vivid imagination than for people looking at an actual bike. If someone is all like "yeah bro I'm seeing it in my mind with complete clarity" and then when you ask them to copy what they see to a drawing they say "ah yeah actually I haven't properly memorized what goes where on the bike lmao" then there is a contradiction. It shows that "vivid visualization" is actually just "imprecise memory with a subjective experience of vivid visualization".

>>16826729
Drawing an imaginary bike is easier when you have an imagination. Drawing a real bike is easier when you're looking at a real bike. How do you keep getting filtered by this? I'm starting to get a strong impression that mental deficiencies always bring friends.

>>16826733
>Drawing a real bike is easier when you're looking at a real bike.
Yet you claim having vivid imagination is a lot like seeing a real thing or picture before you. If the two are actually so similar it should be about equally easy to make a drawing based on either.
Anyway you already changed your tune from "first you have to learn how to draw" to "first you have to remember it really well" so I'm going to consider you a trollm unless you demonstrate some more coherence

>>16826745
>Yet you claim having vivid imagination is a lot like seeing a real thing or picture before you
Yes, retard. The problem here is that you're a mentally deficient word "thinker" so you're getting confused by different usages of the word 'real'.

>you already changed your tune
No, I haven't. You 100% have some kind of mental retardation. This is the second time I'm noting your lack of basic reading comprehension. Thanks for demonstrating the necessity of state-enforced eugenics.

>>16826570
>If you have dreams during your sleep you can imagine any shit
I have dreams but I can't imagine being so retarded as to make this nonsensical point unironically, therefore you are wrong.

>>16824613
yeah it was proven in 1880

https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Galton/imagery.htm

VIVIDNESS OF MENTAL IMAGERY.

(From returns furnished by 100 men, at least half of whom are distinguished in science or in other fields of intellectual work.)

>Cases where the faculty is very high.

1. Brilliant, distinct, never blotchy.

2. Quite comparable to the real object. I feel as though I was dazzled, e.g., when recalling the sun to my mental vision.

3. In some instances quite as bright as an actual scene.

4. Brightness as in the actual scene.

5. Thinking of the breakfast table this morning, all the objects in my mental picture are as bright as the actual scene. [p. 305]

6. The image once seen is perfectly clear and bright.

7. Brightness at first quite comparable to actual scene.

8. The mental image appears to correspond in all respects with reality. I think it is as clear as the actual scene.

9. The brightness is perfectly comparable to that of the real scene.

10. I think the illumination of the imaginary image is nearly equal to that of the real one.

11. All clear and bright; all the objects seem to me well defined at the same time.

12. I can see my breakfast table or any equally familiar thing with my mind's eye, quite as well in all particulars as I can do if the reality is before me.

>>16826931
>Cases where the faculty is at the lowest.

89. Dim and indistinct, yet I can give an account of this morning's breakfast table; -- split herrings, broiled chickens, bacon, rolls, rather light coloured marmalade, faint green plates with stiff pink flowers, the girls' dresses, &c., &c. I can also tell where all the dishes were, and where the people sat (I was on a visit). But my imagination is seldom pictorial except between sleeping and waking, when I sometimes see rather vivid forms.

90. Dim and not comparable in brightness to the real scene. Badly defined with blotches of light; very incomplete.

91. Dim, poor definition; could not sketch from it. I have a difficulty in seeing two images together.

92. Usually very dim. I cannot speak of its brightness, but only of its faintness. Not well defined and very incomplete. [p. 306]

93. Dim, imperfect.

94. I am very rarely able to recall any object whatever with any sort of distinctness. Very occasionally an object or image will recall itself, but even then it is more like a generalised image than an individual image. I seem to be almost destitute of visualising power, as under control.

95. No power of visualising. Between sleeping and waking, in illness and in health, with eyes closed, some remarkable scenes have occasionally presented themselves, but I cannot recall them when awake with eyes open, and by daylight, or under any circumstances whatever when a copy could be made of them on paper. I have drawn both men and places many days or weeks after seeing them, but it was by an effort of memory acting on study at the time, and assisted by trial and error on the paper or canvas, whether in black, yellow or colour, afterwards.

96. It is only as a figure of speech that I can describe my recollection of a scene as a 'mental image' which I can 'see' with my 'mind's eye.'.. The memory possesses it, and the mind can at will roam over the whole, or study minutely any part.

>>16826935
97. No individual objects, only a general idea of a very uncertain kind.

98. No. My memory is not of the nature of a spontaneous vision, though I remember well where a word occurs in a page, how furniture looks in a room, &c. The ideas are not felt to be mental pictures, but rather the symbols of facts.

99. Extremely dim. The impressions are in all respects so dim, vague and transient, that I doubt whether they can reasonably be called images. They are incomparably less than those of dreams.

100. My powers are zero. To my consciousness there is almost no association of memory with objective visual impressions. I recollect the breakfast table, but do not see it.

>>16826931
>mental imagery was unknown to them, and they looked on me as fanciful and fantastic in supposing that the words 'mental imagery' really expressed what I believed everybody supposed them to mean. They had no more notion of its true nature than a colour-blind man who has not discerned his defect has of the nature of colour. They had a mental deficiency of which they were unaware, and naturally enough supposed that those who were normally endowed, were romancing.
Pretty funny how this pattern still plays out, without fail, in every one of these threads.

>>16826953
Seriously lol, in everywhere where there is aphantasia discourse really

I've been lucky enough to experience both extremes so its very amusing to see one deny the other and vice versa lol, proves we can only know what we experience I think

>>16826682
>Vivid mental imagery doesn't imply photographic memory
It literally does
>If the painter neglects using a real reference, what's to stop his imagination from filling in false details?
That is 100% the point. He must use a reference because the mind's eye cannot actually see what it is trying to visualize. It's a myth.
If his "minds eye" fills in false details then he isn't actually seeing what he's trying to visualize even though it feels like he is vividly seeing it. The "vivid mental image" would be a hodgepodge of objectively false nonsense that feels subjectively true. Thus there is no fidelity and selecting a "1" in OP's image is proven to be an invalid choice.
Thanks for proving me right.

>from an obvious aphantasia sufferer
Like I said earlier:
>Aphantasia is not a real thing and, inb4 cope, I can easily identify the new orientation of a teapot that underwent those rotations.
People with low IQ and no life accomplishments need to invent reasons to feel superior to others. One such exampling is clinging to the idea others have "aphantasia" (like you did) when it doesn't even exist.
It's pathetic, really .

>>16826608
Yeah, that's basically another way of describing the correlation I mentioned. I've literally noticed some people in these discussions admit they did think the "mind's eye" was like a projector on the back of one's eyelids.

>>16827073
How does anyone draw anything at all if they aren't looking at it?

>>16827073
>It literally does
Good thing you go out of your way to make explicit your error. Now no one can say I was strawmanning you and there's no need to read your retarded shit any further.

>>16827372
>How does anyone draw anything at all if they aren't looking at it?
Even if you're borderline-aphantasic (like the 80 IQ brown mongrel you replied to), you can still orient yourself visually based on what's already on the paper.

>>16827073
> I've literally noticed some people in these discussions admit they did think the "mind's eye" was like a projector on the back of one's eyelids.
That's literally how some people experience it. I agree with you in the painter example but you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here by insisting there are no subjective differences in how people experience visual imagination. There are numerous discussions online where the differences are eked out, just some examples
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19618927
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizing-from-one-example
the galton survey
some blogpost from a google employee that I can't find currently

A very similar discourse exists around whether people actually hear their internal monologue as a voice btw.

I also found an interesting and relevant paper called "Non-commitment in mental imagery"
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027723001324
And its pop-sci writeup called "Images in the Mind’s Eye Are Quick Sketches That Lack Simple, Real-World Details"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/images-in-the-minds-eye-are-quick-sketches-that-lack-simple-real-world-details1/

>>16827441
>I agree with you in the painter example but you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater
Centrists being literally incoherent as always.

>>16827442
Professor (((Tomer Ullman))) is apparently oblivious to the concept of visual attention.

Aphantasia will always be hilarious to me for its ability to start retarded threads like this kek

>>16827489
Mentally disabled midwits can't process the idea that they're mentally disabled.

>>16826284
/thread

File: smart_brainlet.jpg (30 KB, 700x567)

30 KB JPG

>>16826284
>If you dream you don’t have aphantasia.
>>16827498
>/thread

File: 1761047247528204.jpg (8 KB, 250x249)

8 KB JPG

I'm a 2. My imagination has a codic essence.

>>16827501
You don’t need to be a genius to figure out that people who dream don’t have aphantasia.

>>16827510
You need to be literally retarded to think there is any actual, logical connection there.

>>16827512
I see you’re panicking now. Sometimes something isn’t hard to get, it’s easy to miss. You will experience this throughout your life. Humans love to overcomplicate everything.

>>16827513
Notice how you're forced to keep shitting out replies to save face, but none of them will elaborate on any direct connection between being dreaming and being able to conjure up images at will while your brain is in a completely different state.

>>16827515
No one literally sees images in their head you know.

> I have seen that there are a lot of people out there that somehow got the idea that it's "normal" to be able to fully see imagined objects, just like they're real, and anything else is "aphantasia". It's really, truly not.
/thread

>>16827528
>>16827529
>it's another episode of aphantasia sufferers not understanding mental imagery

You guys just jelly you can't see momentary flashes of imagery in your head or a code net

>>16827531
>projecting

>>16827538
>t. mentally deficient and seething
If you don't experience vivid imagery with qualities comparable to vision, you have some degree of aphantasia. It really is that simple. Anything else is cope from the mental deficients.

File: IMG_6390.jpg (53 KB, 640x480)

53 KB JPG

>>16827541
That’s not how light works.

>>16827548
>aphantasic golem inevitably reveals that it has no qualia and thinks physical stimuli are equal to perceptions

>>16827541
>If you don't experience vivid imagery with qualities comparable to vision
That you actually think this is normal is insane

>>16827566
I don't know or care what's "normal" in the human cattle concentration camp you come from. Being barely sentient is apparently normal in the entire angloosphere, for example.

We can measure the response of the rods and cones in your eye to spectral frequencies (but not usually while they’re still attached to your head!). So from a low level technical standpoint we have a fairly good idea of how different people see, and within reason can say they respond to red and blue in similar ways. There are even color blind tests you can take to prove your retina is working similar to someone else’s.

However at the higher level, knowing that your brain is fully processing the inputs in the same way is not quite as clear. Still typically it is not going to deviate too far.

This is really no different than audio, we can play a pure tone in your ear and say “can you hear this” to work out if your hearing response is typical. Along the same lines we can feed your eyes a known color and ask similar questions.

To be clear, “red” is a very particular frequency of vibration. It is not an abstract construct. We can know through measurement what color something is to a high degree of accuracy. Knowing exactly how someone perceived that color is another story. But you don’t see the vibration red as blue at least not on a mechanical level.

File: pixel-npc2.png (10 KB, 1200x1200)

10 KB PNG

>>16827571
>“red” is a very particular frequency of vibration.
See? If you probe these golems enough, it always eventually comes to this.

Picturing things in your head =|= Literally seeing things in your head

If you can actually see things in your head you’d have a hard time navigating the world. You’d be schizophrenic. You’d be blinded by the imagination. Thankfully light is external to your brain.

>>16827579
>Picturing things in your head =|= Literally seeing things in your head
This statement simply has no relation to reality. It's an expression of the aphantasic's deep confusion about mental imagery.

> I had a friend who was an avid maladaptive daydreamer, and man was I bummed when I realized my brain couldn’t zone out and start playing out a scene I could actually see.

> I think I still don’t fully understand how that works, if anyone who can actually visualize things confirm if you think of something you can see it clearly in your mind, like if you closed your eyes and thought of an apple, you’d see one??? I close my eyes and see pitch black no matter how hard I try.

These people are retarded.

>>16827581
Even someone who doesn’t have aphantasia will still see black when they close their eyes and imagine an apple.

Mental vividness is not the same as light.

>>16827586
Again, you're just arguing against some incoherent strawman in your head because you literally cannot fathom what mental imagery is. Your statements have no relation to the subject except insofar as they demonstrate the limitations of aphantasia sufferers and the general problem of trying to abstractly model qualia.

>>16827592
Everyone sees black when they close their eyes. I don’t care how good or bad you are at using your mind’s eye.

>>16827593
>Everyone sees black when they close their eyes.
That's trivially false but would be irrelevant even if it were true. See >>16827592

>>16827595
Nope. Not false. There’s no (barely any) light hitting your eyes when you close your eyelids. The dark is the absence of light. There’s no light in front of your eyes.

You still haven’t figured out that the mind’s eye isn’t literally an eye.

>>16827595
Do you think normal people have a power to visualize light and colors in an absolute darkness?

>>16827596
>There’s no (barely any) light hitting your eyes when you close your eyelids. The dark is the absence of light. There’s no light in front of your eyes
At this point you're just demonstrating that you're nosnentient and can't comprehend qualia. This new confusion of yours doesn't even directly concern the subject of this thread. Many aphantasia sufferers (who aren't full-blown meatbots) could contradict you on your nonsensical head canon.

>>16827598
You appear to be deranged. You don’t know how light works and you probably got fucked by some retard telling you that you have aphantasia (because they also don’t know how light works).

>>16827597
Again, I don't know what's normal for your subhuman subrace, but most of the people I've known had no trouble visualizing light and color.

>>16827601
>nonsentient meatbot repeatedly confuses physical stimuli for qualia
This is basically the end of your preprogrammed dialogue tree. You'll loop on this forever. kek

Can you guys please rate-limit your LLM bots? This is getting out of hand.

>>16827602
>>16827604
I accept your (blind) concession.

File: very-high-res-pixelated-npc.png (2 KB, 1184x1184)

2 KB PNG

>i accept my lack of qualia

>>16827610
You have to off put your eyes and then swing your minds eye into nearby space and draw down an image, such as a ray of light. Try it now before you continue saying you can't see visualised stuff.

>>16827592
>Your statements have no relation to the subject except insofar as they demonstrate the ... general problem of trying to abstractly model qualia.
pretty much. if you've never had an experience, you can't understand how it compares to another experience. tards get caught up on "literally seeing" because they only comprehend one half of the comparison. their only notion of perceiving things that aren't real is hallucination

>>16827612
Why are you addressing me with this? I'm not the aphantasic meat bot. Also tracing imaginary lines isn't the same as vividly imagining something. I'm pretty sure even 4s can do that.

OP fag

>>16827619
There's more to It than tracing lines, you can encircle yourself in a scene or view your imaginary body (center oriented), with floating imaginary camera from any angle. And imagine text above your head.

It's a 2 thing.

>>16827626
>a 2 thing
Sorry. Can't relate to mental deficients.

>>16827619
You’ve been projecting. You’re obviously the “aphantasic meat bot”.

>>16827630
>t. can't comprehend mental imagery

>>16827629
Sure there's a downside to being a 2, but 1s throughout 5s have equal advantages and disadvantages, though not the same.

>>16827633
5s probably have better audio control.

>>16827632
I can close my eyes and visualize a red apple rotating. I can throw on additional aspects like being a rotten worm ridden apple, too. Whenever I take mushrooms I see/“see” the wildest shit when I close my eyes, but that’s not the same as literally seeing something.

>>16827638
You are a 1 so imagination is a thing to you.

I'm a 2, so imagination is a technology to me.

>>16827638
Vivid mental imagery has qualities similar to vision. If this statement seems somehow "wrong" to you, you have aphantasia. There's really no way around this.

>>16827641
No. I am not literally seeing an apple. I refuse to fall for this bullshit. I can visualize it perfectly though. That’s not the same as seeing.

>>16827646
You're a 4 then

>>16827645
So it’s normal to be schizophrenic. Got it.

One of my favorite things to do when I’m tired is to closing my eyes and visualizing changing faces.

>>16827649
………….

>>16827650
I enjoy momentary clips of dancing and making artistic scenes.

>>16827650
>So it’s normal to be schizophrenic
This poster really nailed your behavioral pattern: >>16827615

>>16827653
Okay. Your blue is my red. Let’s just leave it at that.

>>16827654
See >>16827645
>Vivid mental imagery has qualities similar to vision. If this statement seems somehow "wrong" to you, you have aphantasia. There's really no way around this.

OPs picture is not accurate. 3s don't literally see a sepia apple. There's a whole other information missing from the diagram. 5s have immense audio control, probably more stable and less messy actors physically as well. 1s have terribly messy physical acts but have chaotic imagination. 2s are relatively unstable actors too but have fun imagination(not as fun as 1s). It's basically a scale of more audio or more visual.

>>16827657
(You know when you notice that someone seems more balanced when they act or that it comes naturally to them a perfect act, where as you seem more light headed and messy when you act)

>>16827635
Don't think so, I'd rather think people who think abstractly about visuals would do the same for audio. At least that's how it is for me, a non-visualizer and non-internal-voice-hearer.
At the end of the day I don't think it matters as much as those couple' anons getting their panties in a twist seem to think. Even when I'm not seeing anything literally I can sense a 2.5D spatial representation lying just below the surface, and same for language. Whether you consciously see/hear it in your mind is not as important as how the internal representation gets used in your thinking process, which latter I'd conjecture can be more similar across the range.

File: pixel-npc.png (676 B, 336x336)

676 B PNG

>Whether you consciously see/hear it in your mind is not as important as how the internal representation gets used in your thinking process, which latter I'd conjecture can be more similar across the range.
A quick glance at this thread reveals that aphantasics typically also suffer from other forms of mental deficiency, especially when it comes to logic, self-reflection and modeling the mind.

>>16827663
>I can literally sense a 2.5D...

Isn't this just a sonic sense?(Sound).

>>16824613
This is the most Tumblr "disability" ever.

>>16827664
Do you consider yourself aphantasic

>>16827656
>similar to vision
Similar.

>>16827681
I accept your concession that mental imagery is like seeing. People who get assblasted by this are aphantasics. Simple as.

I can perfectly accept someone not having a mind's eye, but how the fuck are there "in-betweeners"? Literally how can you not just add detail to an imaginary object if you have a functioning mind's eye?

>>16827692
You’re retarded.
>>16827699
They’re retarded.

>>16827703
You're aphantasic and seething. You literally can't name any relevant way in which vivid imagination is unlike seeing. When you try, your mind immediately breaks and you start babbling something about hallucinations because that's the only way aphantasics can comprehend imagination.

>>16827705
Your assumption is that hallucinating is a normal thing in life. It’s not.

>>16827705
>can't name any relevant way in which vivid imagination is unlike seeing
The feedback doesn't come from my eyeballs. I'm looking at the monitor right now and feeling that the input goes through my eyes. I'm also imagining a tree and it doesn't feel like I'm looking at it with my eyeballs. That's cause the signal comes from the hippocampus rather than the retina.

>>16827713
Notice how the biobot can be prompted to spout the broken "hallucinations" response over and over just by asking it to list relevant differences between vivid imagination and vision.

>>16827717
>The feedback doesn't come from my eyeballs
Ok, so you're not just aphantasic but also lack qualia. Literally nonsentient.

> the signal comes from the hippocampus rather than the retina.
In addition to being nonsentient you're also scientifically illiterate, so actually inferior to a digital chatbot.

>>16827719
Not him but it was already established that a relevant difference is that accurate drawings can be made from one and not the other.

>>16827723
>so you're not just aphantasic but also lack qualia
Nope, I can simply imagine things in my mind's eye and look at things separately with no overlap at the same time.
>you're also scientifically illiterate
Nope, what I posted is actually perfectly in line with neuroscience, glad we cleared that up. Have a nice day, lady.

>>16827731
>a relevant difference is that accurate drawings can be made from one and not the other.
No such difference has been demonstrated anywhere ITT. Try again.

>>16827733
>I can simply imagine things in my mind's eye
This is confabulation. Almost every post of yours demonstrates that you lack qualia altogether.

>what I posted is actually perfectly in line with neuroscience,
No, it isn't. You're scientifically illiterate biobot whose statistical model of how to string together words produces statements to the effect that retinas beam images into the mind.

>>16827738
Yes it has. Most people who claim to see a bike clearly in their minds cannot prove it. See >>16825802 and https://www.gianlucagimini.it/portfolio-item/velocipedia/ for more information. This makes a model like >>16827442 much more likely.

>>16827754
>Most people who claim to see a bike clearly in their minds cannot prove it.
Why did you change your tune? I accept your concession that your previous statement is just your delusional head canon.

>>16827754
Also lol
>Nearly 90% of drawings in which the chain is attached to the front wheel (or both to the front and the rear) were made by females.

>>16827754
>This makes a model like >>16827442 much more likely.
That article doesn't present any evidence of imagination being unlike vision. If anything, it demonstrates a similarity.

>>16827442
>give subject X minutes to look at a detailed picture
>remove picture
>ask subject if he noticed random details in the picture
>subject says 'no' for many details
>ask subject to recall a specific detail
>subject confabulates
>ask subject to describe the picture
>the report is "non-committal" on many details
>"Images in the Actual Eye Are Quick Sketches That Lack Simple, Real-World Details"

>>16827766
>>ask subject to recall a specific detail
>>subject confabulates
The analogy breaks down here because it's meaningless to claim the "original" mental image lacked the details which the imagination conjures up on the fly when probed. It's more comparable to the way many details of what's right in front of your eyes are unresolved until visual attention is drawn to them.

>>16824613
Close your eyes, imagine a circle moving from left to right. Track the circle with your eyes.
If your eyes move smoothly (not twitchy movements like when reading) with the movement of the imagined circle, you don't have aphantasia, if they don't, you do have it.

Feel free to use this in your paper

>>16827823
That’s retarded anon

>>16827948
bitch

>>16827788
>it's meaningless to claim the "original" mental image lacked the details which the imagination conjures up on the fly when probed. It's more comparable to the way many details of what's right in front of your eyes are unresolved until visual attention is drawn to them.
This is true but the thing that filters so many retards (including the academics behind that "non-commitment" study) is the failure to decouple the visual stimulus from the visual perception in their cognitive model. If the subject uses his actual eyes to look at a static scene, he can consult this objective reference over and over to take in details he wasn't paying attention to the moment before, never realizing they were previously vague and unresolved.

The naive interpretation of a subject's report about what he sees will have you believe there's a singular and stable perception, directly tied to light hitting the retina, all the details figured in. When most of the same visual mechanisms, probably the same fucking neural pathways, are triggered by imagination, researchers interpret the same limitations as an absence of this magical, fully-resolved, infinite-fidelity image they incorrectly inferred in the first case, then claim the subject is confabulating. Most people will never grow out of Naive Realism.