>>16848424
>Hi, OP here
>I'm so special and intelligent because I have, uhm...
>thoughts and fantasy n shieet
>I-I'm actually better than all of you!
>What? It's retarded to consider a meme pic proof of anything??!
>Nuh-uh, you just can't visualize it like I can. Maybe you tried hallucinating it instead?
>Take a look at all those similar but unequal concepts I can say (without explaining)
>Oooh look at me, I'm the visualiser

>>16848442
>seething retard can't into basic reading comprehension

>>16848444
>a-and I also can understand words! Would you look at that?
>I mean, understanding words is a special skill, right?
>It means I can visualize concepts, actions and objects
>woah

>>16848442
seething #5 detected

>>16848447
>Oooh, I'm such a perfect human because I can, uhm...
>think of a 2d stationary apple in my mind where as yours is just black!
>aha-ha-ha

Mentally ill retards know who they are and will seethe incoherently at the sight of the OP.

>>16848452
Get your free will back into the other thread, chud
We're not done

>>16848488
>mentally ill retard purposely goes out of his way to say something unhinged and nonsensical

>>16848489
>has free will
>chooses to do the thing dependent on an event that has happened mere seconds ago
>still believes his will is free

>>16848424
Literally everyone is a 1. There's no way you can't remember or visualize things, it simply doesn't make sense. Visualization should be simpler than an inner monologue because we've evolved with sight and spatial reasoning for far longer than language.

>>16848498
Nice bait. Sad to see you've only incorporated a few of the bizarre mistakes I referenced and didn't write a few more paragraphs committing them all.

>>16848500
>I'm sooooooo smart!
>Because I identify with the HD apple in my meme picture

>>16848424
>It blew my mind but most people don't understand the differences, similarities and relationships between the following:
>I've seen dozens of aphantasia threads and almost every "argument" is some crippled confusing one of those things for the other or misunderstanding how they are related.
Explain it then nigga. If you've got theory of mind, self-reflection and capacity to understand and model your own experience, it should be possible for you to explain mental visualization to someone that doesn't have it. Asking unironically since I can't visualize (nor do I necessarily desire to) but am interested in the whole conundrum.

>>16848424
>appletasia.png
kek
The choice of examples (red apples) is unironically very interesting though. In consciousness/qualia literature the go-to example is almost always "redness of red" too, never any other colour and even more rarely any other sensory attribute than colour. I think it must mean something though I'm not sure what.

>>16848535
>it should be possible for you to explain mental visualization to someone that doesn't have it.
I would describe it like having a extra visual plane that you can shift your attention to, resulting in a visual experience of varying degrees of similarity to normal vision, depending on how vivid and persistent the imagery is. If your eyes are closed while you're imagining vividly, you may be vaguely aware of the darkness coming from your normal vision, but it's more of an abstract awareness, because your visual faculty is mostly dealing with the mental image. But visual attention can also be divided between the two, so that the mental imagery feels like a ghostly overlay on top of the darkness.

Either way, you're aware of the difference between the two visual planes and which one your attention is on at a given moment. They don't so much interfere with each other as they compete for your attention, similarly to the way a sensory stimulus can become indistinct background noise when you're not paying any attention to it.

Speaking of which, just as you don't necessarily take in every detail of what you're seeing with your eyes all at once, and your visual attention cycles between different elements or aspects of the image (which leaves you only vaguely aware of the rest), the same thing goes for mental imagery. The major difference is that the aspects you're not paying attention to are much more fluid, so the image isn't necessarily stable. If you focus your mind's eye on something, it becomes resolved, meanwhile something else starts to drift. The exception to this is if you've memorized a scene really well, or if you have practiced visualizing a specific image for a while, at which point it feels very similar to seeing it, with no major inconsistencies. The "mind's eye" metaphor is a perfectly adequate way to describe this.

>>16848536
Red is a vivid and intense perception. An apple is a very familiar object with a simple and memorable shape. A red apple is iconic, so it makes for a good test case, unlike "visualize a bicycle" or something. As far as consciousness/qualia literature goes, I think it goes back to the same thing: the text is hoping to evoke the sensation it's giving as an example in the reader to make it more palpable how strange it is to have it. That's much easier to do with something like redness.

>>16848424
You are correct that there is something seriously wrong here. If you've ever seen a vivid dream where you can see in full color and clarity, visualization must a psychological problem. It's absurd to think otherwise. Does it really make sense the brain has this RTX9001 capability but can only use it while sleeping? Why?

I've been practicing my visualization and lucid dreaming abilities and I have had a couple of lucid dreams where I seamlessly transitioned from dream to reality. I didn't even open my eyes, they were already open. I was fully awake and aware watching my dream morph into my room, both having the same clarity. The hardware capability is there, I don't see why it can't be utilized.

>>16848577
Just imagine you have a girlfriend who loves you, anon. Just imagine you have sex every day. The fact that (hypothetically) having a girlfriend can induce brain states where you experience being loved and desirable proves that your RTX9001 giga-brain is capable of generating an entire harem. But I guess you just have a psychological problem. You don't want to be a Chad. You don't want to be loved. :^)

>>16848577
>Does it really make sense the brain has this RTX9001 capability but can only use it while sleeping? Why?
It does make sense though, when you're not sleeping there is actual shit in front of your eyes that you can look at.

>>16848489
Aphantasia threads are the worst thing on 4chan

I still don't understand what aphantasia is supposed to be.

Initially I saw it described as being able to imagine the apple in your head (hence the diagram), then I have since seen it redefined as being able to literally see an apple while your eyes are closed on the inside of your eyelids. I've also seen others contend that it's the ability to visualize the apple while your eyes are open.

What the hell is it supposed to be?

>>16848584
Yes, you would be correct, if I were this person you are imagining.
>>16848590
>It does make sense though, when you're not sleeping there is actual shit in front of your eyes that you can look at.
It doesn't though. It's an additional capability. It would be incredibly useful having native augmented reality vision.

>>16848601
>you would be correct
At least you're consistent. Thanks for demonstrating my point that most "people" are mental cripples oblivious the the most basic things about the mind.

>>16848601
>It doesn't though. It's an additional capability. It would be incredibly useful having native augmented reality vision.
It doesn't matter much if the same capabilities can be had from abstract thinking or even just visual thinking on an unconscious level.

File: 936275343.png (293 KB, 1206x760)

293 KB PNG

>>16848626
That's beside my argument. It is also cope. This is from Tesla's biography. We should be encouraging and training visualization.

>>16848666
>That's beside my argument.
Your argument as far as I understand it is that visualization would be useful, which is less true if the things it would be useful for are already provided for in other ways.
>Tesla
Tesla was just very good at what he did, it's not unthinkable IMO that were he incapable of conscious visualization he would have been able to think through mechanisms and experiments in his mind through other means. This is just extending the "I use visualization for skill X therefore anyone who does skill X must do it through visualization" line of thinking to other people.

>thread devolves into a clownish parody of aphantasic cope

>>16848424
>This pic alone proves
Peak mental retardation. Not reading anything else from you

>>16848686
>aphantasic immediately loses it with rage
lel

I'm 5th on the graph when it comes to apples, yet when I think of OP, I have vivid imagery of a pale, hunchback manlet who loves deepthroating BBC, making this post with bloodshot eyes, full of rage, how can this be explained?

>>16848449
this retarded nigger just owned himself

>>16848424
This explain many things

You triggered all the brainlets OP...
The simple fact most people don't write anything or analyze themselves is all I need to know. A cluster of unconnected thoughts and facts.

>>16848424
>I've seen dozens of aphantasia threads and almost every "argument" is some crippled confusing one of those things for the other or misunderstanding how they are related.
Seems like the common factor is you not understanding huh?
Do you also blame textbooks when you're too dumb to understand them?

I'm thinking the answer is yes, which is why coping regards will have to screech I have this make believe idea of "aphantasia" as a coping mechanism for being life failures and low IQ. Watch..