7 ms·

Can anyone here give a good description of what it's like not to have Aphantasia? I'm having a very hard time believing this condition isn't the norm. Edit. Fo

by hanoz 8y ago

Can anyone here give a good description of what it's like not to have Aphantasia? I'm having a very hard time believing this condition isn't the norm. Edit. For a condition which supposedly affects only a few percent, the reaction to this article here and on Twitter contains a suspiciously high rate of people being surprised to find out they've got this and shocked that everyone else hasn't. The more I read about this the more I feel that the variety in reported inner experience is more to do with the variety in reporting than of the experience itself. I find myself able to relate to descriptions from both sufferers and non sufferers alike, but then again could often take extracts from each and be hard pressed to say who was claiming to be which.

barrucadu 8y ago
I think crimsonalucard's description of what it's like to picture things with the mind's eye is spot on.
acjohnson55 8y ago
I don't have aphantasia. With concentration, I can essentially override what I'm actually seeing with other imagery. For the most part, it's dimmer, duller, and less "present" than actual sensory input. It's much easier to do if there isn't a lot of actual visual input, because it's dark or my eyes are closed. I think many people can do this with great ease. For me, it depends on how hard I try, my mood, and maybe other factors I can't identify. I can recall memories or visualize things that have never happened. I'm not sure if my recall is reproducing what I actual saw, or reimagining it from something more schematic. I suppose mostly the latter, maybe with a little of the former. I can do the same thing with imaginary sound, far more easily. I'm not sure if people with aphantasia have difficulty here, too. And with great difficulty the other senses. Fairly often, these sensory reconstructions happen involuntarily. Which is basically what "daydreaming" is to me.
- phito 8y ago
  Does it really come into your eyesight? For me, I can imagine things and "see" them, but they don't mix with the signal from my eyes. It's like a separate sense
  - andraaspar 8y ago
    It does not mix, and does not obstruct my eyesight. I can read while 'seeing' the events in the book. It does not pass through the eyes, and it is as detailed and sharp as my sense of reality - obviously. It just does not come through the same channel and that's easy to notice. As a side note, it can be really odd to read something like: 'She saw two doors in the room. She took the one on the left wall.' And my flow is broken and I have to stop and reimagine the room, because I saw the two doors on the wall ahead - what is the author going on about? Maybe they should not be so exact about a tiny detail.
  - empath75 8y ago
    This is how it works for everyone.
  - indigo945 8y ago
    At least I can completely override what I'm seeing in front of my eyes with my imagination, to the point where I take no notice of my surroundings anymore. It doesn't "mix", it just replaces.
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    No, it doesn't come into my eyesight. It's more like I have to disregard my eyesight to mentally visualize.
gfiorav 8y ago
I have trouble with the opposite. Can you not imagine something ahead of time? For example, can't you picture yourself on your commute home? Like if a camera was filming you going home today? How do you forsee things?
- k__ 8y ago
  You don't have to visualize something to "think" it. I can plan my whole day perfectly without getting one image in my mind. Thinking visually is simply too slow, so I only do it when I consciously try it.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Is this one of those things like how some people read by speaking to themselves in their head, but you can read without doing the speaking part. Some people create the imagery, others have a meta-view of the situation?
    - k__ 8y ago
      I think so, yes. But I wouldn't call it meta. I'm not smarter or have more overview than other people. It's more like a different datatype, one that can't be definied by my external senses. It feels like some amorph entity that just carries meaning.
  - gfiorav 8y ago
    I can see how thinking visually can be inefficient... I guess having this condition is a "gift" in cretain ways
- vidarh 8y ago
  Think about blind people. They can still know where things are, and project forward in time that if X, Y will likely happen. Neither spatial reasoning or causal reasoning are tied to visualisation. That's what it's like for me to think both about the past and the future. I can't even imagine why you'd need to visualise something to knowing where it is - it's such a total foreign idea to me.
k__ 8y ago
Well, not having it would allow you to think visually, I guess. I don't think visually most of the time, but I can picture things if I want to. I can even build whole "scenarios" in my mind and play them out, visually. It's a bit like lucid dreaming, I think.
JshWright 8y ago
I often feel this way (as someone who has aphantasia). I tend to believe that I'm just describing the same thing in a different way. Then I read a Reddit thread like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b8eojm/when_someone_tells_you_a_man_walks_into_a_bar/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b8eojm/when_some... It's totally foreign to me to think about "picturing" something in that detail. I can describe the physical attributes of an object if I think about it, and most of the time I just equate that to "visualizing" or "picturing" it. The thing that stands out to me in that Reddit thread (and other descriptions of how "normal" people visualize things) is that there is extra context. That's not something I understand at all, and so I'm convinced there is actually a fundamental difference.
- dougmwne 8y ago
  There is a fundamental difference. If I had a pair of VR goggles with me at all times that could play back short recordings of my life and if those VR goggles could also create helpful visuals that go along with my thoughts (sort of like a power point presentation with infographics and clipart), then it would be something like what I see when I "picture it". For a moment, I put on the "VR goggles" and the outside world is blocked out while I see an inner world. If I write fiction I start to create the scenes and people in my mind as if I'm staging a play or building a level in a 3d engine. The words I write down are then a description of what I'm seeing, as if I'm writing a review of the play I just staged. A further interesting line of thought: Can you re-hear sounds from memory? Can you re-feel touch? Re-smell? Re-taste? Can you re-experience emotions? With a bit of focus I can do all of those things, though it helps if the original memory is strong. My "inner ear" is especially strong, maybe even stronger than my "inner eye."
  - JshWright 8y ago
    Man... that sounds awesome... Your description is actually the first time I've been sad about what I'm missing. I definitely can't re-feel, re-smell, or re-taste. That's not the least bit ambiguous in my brain, I just have no idea what that even means. Re-hearing? I'm not sure... I can think "words", but there's nothing especially "audible" about it.
jdashg 8y ago
I can imagine a cube in my head and rotate it around and such. It's a sort of voluntary daydream. I'm not literally overriding vision, but rather I can hold a limited imaginary scene in my head.
yulaow 8y ago
I can override my eye sight in the right conditions (with various degree of how much I override it) with another whole world created by mind in front of me. Ofc is FAR far far easier when it's dark or I am alone or I am hearing music, but you get the point. For example when doing some shadowboxing I actually put fantasized people in front of myself which fight me and react to my moves, and I can see them as I see a real person until I remain focused. I often change also the location and the background to suite better my fantasy. It's like shutting partially your eye system and making your mind go in full control. edit: I said this to explain how much I can push it. But to make a simpler example, I _Very_ often fantasized at night, before bad and with eyes closed, of having an adventure in a post apocalyptic world and I can see everything in first person in my mind like I am really there and everything is real
- vcavallo 8y ago
  holy fucking shit seriously? this is so amazing and unfamiliar to me that i find it hard to believe you’re not lying. amazing
  - dougmwne 8y ago
    No lie. His description sounds like he's a better visualizer than I am, but not really different in kind, just intensity. I could probably do that if I practiced more often. When I was under 15 or so it was easier and closer to what he described. But still, if I'm reading the right book I essentially cannot see the page anymore because the visualization is so strong and intense that I'm in that other world, not in ours anymore. I recently read Clarke's The City and the Stars. His description of the city of Diaspar is so strong that I feel like I have literally been there in exactly the same way as I have been to Yellowstone. I know I can't get on a plane to go back there, but if I open the book again I will be there again. Another favorite book of mine is The Good Earth. I have experienced Wang Lung's life in almost the exact same way as Picard experienced another man's life in The Inner Light. I read that book in a single uninterrupted sitting because the experience of living someone else's life from beginning to end was so enthralling that I could not stop. If you want to know why Harry Potter fans are so obsessive, it's because the books are very easy to visualize. Millions of people have a "lived experience" of being Harry throughout 7 years of wizard school and that experience leaves a mark on you. When I saw the movies it was a bit odd because I'd already seen a different set of "movies" in my mind and they got some details wrong.
huffmsa 8y ago
I can "see" a playback of a drive to a certain location in my mind. Like a dashcam video. But I can also "move the camera" off the dash and to 3rd person over-the-shoulder like in a racing game, and continue the drive.
l_t 8y ago
> The more I read about this the more I feel that the variety in reported inner experience is more to do with the variety in reporting than of the experience itself. I think there is very strong truth to this. Words get in the way when trying to share internal experiences. Also, by reporting and discussing your experiences, you affect them. Memories of past experiences, and expectations for future experiences, are both affected. For that reason, and without having digested the scientific literature, I would recommend against labeling oneself as having (or not having) aphantasia. But then, I feel that way about pretty much all labels, especially ones related to cognition. They're fine for communication, but not for your internal perception of self.
thatoneuser 8y ago
OK I think by now we need to accept that everything in humans is a spectrum. I think most people don't have the level of internal visual detail that they can describe an artists rendering. Meanwhile very few have no detail. Plus it covers all senses. So for me as example: I listen to metal and while I don't have super high quality sound in my mind, I can for the most part play a whole song in my head even the very intricate solos. If I knew the instruments and could play that we'll I could play it off the track in my head. However I can't imagine anything visual at all. No simple geometric Shape, no colors, not even a dot on a white backdrop. I think most people are just shocked this is a thing and theyre too quick to say they have nothing when they probably have something. I'd give detailed tests like asking to imagine a tree and ask how many branches it has or what kind it is. Any rate in sure in a couple years well have some nice professional tests to take for a more precise understanding.
aristophenes 8y ago
This is a very objective thing, probably some can do it more or differently than others but I don't think we are just describing the same thing differently. For me, I can picture whatever you might think of, enough to be able to copy what I imagine on paper or sculpture. However, this does not overlay with what I am seeing with my eyes as other people have described happens to them. What I see with my eyes, and what I imagine in my mind are in two different places. When I dream it can be very very realistic, as high detail as real life, and I can think it is real life (if you cannot visualize in your mind, what are your dreams like?). But when I wake up and open my eyes, there is no longer confusion. This is real life. I also very very frequently can remember someone's face, how they act, what they do, and not remember their name. I can remember a whole conversation with them in video and not remember their name. But it feels like this type of visualization is different than picturing a sphere or some imaginary thing. It is a memory, a memory that I can manipulate, but based on reality. Something I have always wondered about others, when you speak, is it just your thoughts in your language that you voice? Like, is your thought in language? I must translate my thoughts into language, and it is sometimes very difficult even though I am good at expressing myself. I do not usually think in language, unless it is some basic thing I am repeating to myself. It feels like some other people actually think with words.
- chansiky 8y ago
  Oh man I'm the same way, If I have a minds eye, it's strong. I've also been terrible with language, like I have difficulty speaking in real-time. I'm much better now but I actually used to wonder how people can talk the way they do.
- tmerr 8y ago
  While I wouldn't say my thought is strictly verbal, I often form understanding by letting my verbal stream of consciousness ruminate. I starts off as a technical almost schizophrenic rambling. Over time, as my stream of consciousness passes over the same ideas, they become coarser grained and easier to express to other people. Unfortunately easier != easy since I still need to translate from my idiosyncratic vocabulary to normal human speak.
chansiky 8y ago
So just to be clear, I didn't know people were not like me, but writing this I realized it explains a lot. I rarely forget a face, and routinely remember random people on the subway. I don't say anything but I'm almost always the person who remembers the other person first, and it almost offends me that someone doesn't recognize/remember seeing me when I remember them. I can usually tell who people are based only on gait and body proportions. I recognized a girl once just from her hair color, and it wasn't something noticeable, just a very muted blonde almost brown/gray hair, but I only knew one person with her height and hair type. I have incredibly powerful imagery. I woke up once after realizing in my dream after breaking a window that the glass shattered with incredible physical accuracy, both material properties, and physics. It's in dreams that I notice certain things, like how did I know water/smoke/fire/cloth reacts like that? how did I know light bounces in that way? how did I know that subway tracks looked precisely like that? Like I never took the time to study any of it, but the real world accuracy and a high level of detail is there. I can visually take objects and rotate them in my head, I think someone mentioned this and I can confirm. And I always found it suspicious people couldn't rotate something they see in a 2D picture in their head (or at least they would say something that implies they have no idea what it looks like from another angle). Having said that, I think there are parts of my brain that is so stunted I sometimes wonder how the hell I got to where I am. I feel like I have several streams of information coming into my head, and I have to process them asynchronously. I zone out all the time because I'm having a "Doug" moment (if anyone remembers the cartoon), where I'm vividly daydreaming. The images are so strong, it seems to black out what I'm really seeing (but not really, its more like getting extreme tunnel vision and being hyper focused on your imagination). Traumatic memories are terrible. I see and pretty much re-live bad experiences over and over again. I can sit still, not move physically and play movies in my head for hours. To be fair though, I'm probably closer to the other extreme, and to me the benefits outweigh the cons.
jamesmiller5 8y ago
One of the students in my middle school put it into beautiful terms. One day, they say "You know, the TV in your forehead?" as they put 3/4 a square with their fingers onto their brow (like a "C" shape) I still get chills thinking of the phrase sometimes, it just was so understandable and approachable for us 6th graders. (Edit: word choice)
- kgwxd 8y ago
  Mine defaults to a TV in my forehead, but with a little nudge, I can move it out it into it's own 3D space that I can view from inside or out. The level of detail is still the same, weak in my case.
honzzz 8y ago
My experience is similar to what others have mentioned so I will just add a bit not mentioned yet - the imagery I fantasize is sometimes erotic in nature. For example when I see an attractive woman on a bus, I can visualize her naked, taking shower or whatever - you get the point.
scoutt 8y ago
I don't have Aphantasia but I think the concept is wrongly described as the possibility of overlaying imaginary images on top of what you are seeing. If that was the case, then I have Aphantasia too. In my case of not having Aphantasia is to be able to mentally reproduce an image with eyes open. If this image requires too much effort or has my interest for some reason, I still can see, but I am distracted by what I am visualizing at that moment. That distraction is like when playing a videogame or watching a movie: you never see (or remember) what is around the monitor or TV because you are focused in playing/watching.
mikedilger 8y ago
I too find myself skeptical of this condition. I think we probably aren't so different, we just have trouble describing our subjective experiences in an objective way. Imaging something is clearly not the same thing as actually seeing something. And yet I can imagine shape, 3D positioning, color, texture, movement, etc.. all the while NOT seeing it (and NOT hallucinating it). So do I have the condition or not?
- NateEag 8y ago
  I cannot do any of the things you just listed. You don't have it.
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
It's a spectrum. 5% of people have aphantasia, 10% of people have a very weak visual imagination, another 10% have a weak visual imagination, etc. That's what accounts for so many people wondering if they have aphantasia.
spatular 8y ago
For me imaginary input has less details and exists in a separate plane, and it never mixed up with real senses, in the sence that I always know which is which and to my knowledge I've never mixed them up when awake (only in sleep). Visualizations are "ghostly", have few details, like 0.1 - 10% of what I usually see. Detail level depends on amount of attention allocated to internal imagery. Picture is always moving, changing, in flow. It takes considerable effort to pin a scene and stabilize it though it increases resolution. I've asked around and some people report having sequence of static, very high-resolution, almost real life quality pictures, either from real experience or synthesized. And images flip, replacing one another. Other people say that they have very fast low-res flowing "movies" like me, often consisting of several independent streams in different "parts" of awareness, typically with only one if focus. It's not that imaginary stream is overlayed on real sensory stream, it's more like they are different kinds of perception, like seeing and hearing is, though visual imagery is closer to seeing because objects it deals with have similar perceptive qualities, like having spatial component and colors. In my case imagined sounds are more detailed. When I'm remembering or simulating a conversation, voices are rather close to that of real people. Music can be recalled quite well too, maybe up to 20% detail level of original. On several occasions a had some excerpts playing unvoluntary playing in my head with like 90% detail level of original. Quite often I got some music stuck in my head. When I'm underslept it's usually some bad quality pop music from 80s-90s that I haven't heard since my childhood. Tactile, smell and taste sensations can be and are emulated too. I wonder, do people with aphantasia have dreams? Dreams are fully emulated sensory input, though I feel like they come from a bit different place then imagined input does. Edit: actually mind's eye is not restricted with field of vision of real sight, it can encompass say 1km sphere around me with very very low level of detail. I think that kind of capacity is used automatically in daily life when you walk somewhere and you have automatically constructed knowledge of what's behind your back.
arandr0x 8y ago
I have very weak visualization but I have some (4-5) images I can render in my head (stills I've seen plus one from imagination), which I think aphantasics can't do, and if I'm reading specific descriptions and take enough time, I can call up a still or part of a still as well. (It's never several frames and it doesn't feel like seeing from the eyes, but I can do it.) My other senses are not as affected, I have perfect tactile recall, I can recall and imagine plenty of smells and tastes as well. I have elaborate tactile fantasies when I want to distract myself. No visuals. I don't think it's actually different from aphantasics but I've had vivid dream-visuals (including being able to literally read in a dream, seeing every character, hearing every word in the low subvocalized reading-voice, being caught up in the story) and visual hallucinations.
marsrover 8y ago
I do not have Aphantasia. The other day I was reading a problem book and after I would read the problem, I would look up (looking up makes it easier to think I guess?) and visualize the problem and work it while looking at it. You don’t have to close your eyes or anything, you can still see it fine. I guess it feels like being able to project holograms internally.
Taylor_OD 8y ago
I believe I've got the opposite of Aphantasia. I do a lot of improv comedy and I credit my success ar the form in large part because of my ability to believe that what we are creating in the moment is real. I can almost see it in the moment. Thinking back on specific scenes I don't see an empty stage with two+ people on it. I see some version of whatever we were supposedly doing in that scene. I've got an incredible sense of direction too and I tell people it's because I've got a little google maps in my head.

by hanoz 8y ago

barrucadu 8y ago

I think crimsonalucard's description of what it's like to picture things with the mind's eye is spot on.

acjohnson55 8y ago

I don't have aphantasia. With concentration, I can essentially override what I'm actually seeing with other imagery. For the most part, it's dimmer, duller, and less "present" than actual sensory input. It's much easier to do if there isn't a lot of actual visual input, because it's dark or my eyes are closed. I think many people can do this with great ease. For me, it depends on how hard I try, my mood, and maybe other factors I can't identify. I can recall memories or visualize things that have never happened. I'm not sure if my recall is reproducing what I actual saw, or reimagining it from something more schematic. I suppose mostly the latter, maybe with a little of the former. I can do the same thing with imaginary sound, far more easily. I'm not sure if people with aphantasia have difficulty here, too. And with great difficulty the other senses. Fairly often, these sensory reconstructions happen involuntarily. Which is basically what "daydreaming" is to me.

phito 8y ago
Does it really come into your eyesight? For me, I can imagine things and "see" them, but they don't mix with the signal from my eyes. It's like a separate sense
- andraaspar 8y ago
  It does not mix, and does not obstruct my eyesight. I can read while 'seeing' the events in the book. It does not pass through the eyes, and it is as detailed and sharp as my sense of reality - obviously. It just does not come through the same channel and that's easy to notice. As a side note, it can be really odd to read something like: 'She saw two doors in the room. She took the one on the left wall.' And my flow is broken and I have to stop and reimagine the room, because I saw the two doors on the wall ahead - what is the author going on about? Maybe they should not be so exact about a tiny detail.
- empath75 8y ago
  This is how it works for everyone.
- indigo945 8y ago
  At least I can completely override what I'm seeing in front of my eyes with my imagination, to the point where I take no notice of my surroundings anymore. It doesn't "mix", it just replaces.
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  No, it doesn't come into my eyesight. It's more like I have to disregard my eyesight to mentally visualize.

gfiorav 8y ago

I have trouble with the opposite. Can you not imagine something ahead of time? For example, can't you picture yourself on your commute home? Like if a camera was filming you going home today? How do you forsee things?

k__ 8y ago
You don't have to visualize something to "think" it. I can plan my whole day perfectly without getting one image in my mind. Thinking visually is simply too slow, so I only do it when I consciously try it.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Is this one of those things like how some people read by speaking to themselves in their head, but you can read without doing the speaking part. Some people create the imagery, others have a meta-view of the situation?
  - k__ 8y ago
    I think so, yes. But I wouldn't call it meta. I'm not smarter or have more overview than other people. It's more like a different datatype, one that can't be definied by my external senses. It feels like some amorph entity that just carries meaning.
- gfiorav 8y ago
  I can see how thinking visually can be inefficient... I guess having this condition is a "gift" in cretain ways
vidarh 8y ago
Think about blind people. They can still know where things are, and project forward in time that if X, Y will likely happen. Neither spatial reasoning or causal reasoning are tied to visualisation. That's what it's like for me to think both about the past and the future. I can't even imagine why you'd need to visualise something to knowing where it is - it's such a total foreign idea to me.

k__ 8y ago

Well, not having it would allow you to think visually, I guess. I don't think visually most of the time, but I can picture things if I want to. I can even build whole "scenarios" in my mind and play them out, visually. It's a bit like lucid dreaming, I think.

JshWright 8y ago

I often feel this way (as someone who has aphantasia). I tend to believe that I'm just describing the same thing in a different way. Then I read a Reddit thread like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b8eojm/when_someone_tells_you_a_man_walks_into_a_bar/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b8eojm/when_some... It's totally foreign to me to think about "picturing" something in that detail. I can describe the physical attributes of an object if I think about it, and most of the time I just equate that to "visualizing" or "picturing" it. The thing that stands out to me in that Reddit thread (and other descriptions of how "normal" people visualize things) is that there is extra context. That's not something I understand at all, and so I'm convinced there is actually a fundamental difference.

dougmwne 8y ago
There is a fundamental difference. If I had a pair of VR goggles with me at all times that could play back short recordings of my life and if those VR goggles could also create helpful visuals that go along with my thoughts (sort of like a power point presentation with infographics and clipart), then it would be something like what I see when I "picture it". For a moment, I put on the "VR goggles" and the outside world is blocked out while I see an inner world. If I write fiction I start to create the scenes and people in my mind as if I'm staging a play or building a level in a 3d engine. The words I write down are then a description of what I'm seeing, as if I'm writing a review of the play I just staged. A further interesting line of thought: Can you re-hear sounds from memory? Can you re-feel touch? Re-smell? Re-taste? Can you re-experience emotions? With a bit of focus I can do all of those things, though it helps if the original memory is strong. My "inner ear" is especially strong, maybe even stronger than my "inner eye."
- JshWright 8y ago
  Man... that sounds awesome... Your description is actually the first time I've been sad about what I'm missing. I definitely can't re-feel, re-smell, or re-taste. That's not the least bit ambiguous in my brain, I just have no idea what that even means. Re-hearing? I'm not sure... I can think "words", but there's nothing especially "audible" about it.

jdashg 8y ago

I can imagine a cube in my head and rotate it around and such. It's a sort of voluntary daydream. I'm not literally overriding vision, but rather I can hold a limited imaginary scene in my head.

yulaow 8y ago

I can override my eye sight in the right conditions (with various degree of how much I override it) with another whole world created by mind in front of me. Ofc is FAR far far easier when it's dark or I am alone or I am hearing music, but you get the point. For example when doing some shadowboxing I actually put fantasized people in front of myself which fight me and react to my moves, and I can see them as I see a real person until I remain focused. I often change also the location and the background to suite better my fantasy. It's like shutting partially your eye system and making your mind go in full control. edit: I said this to explain how much I can push it. But to make a simpler example, I _Very_ often fantasized at night, before bad and with eyes closed, of having an adventure in a post apocalyptic world and I can see everything in first person in my mind like I am really there and everything is real

vcavallo 8y ago
holy fucking shit seriously? this is so amazing and unfamiliar to me that i find it hard to believe you’re not lying. amazing
- dougmwne 8y ago
  No lie. His description sounds like he's a better visualizer than I am, but not really different in kind, just intensity. I could probably do that if I practiced more often. When I was under 15 or so it was easier and closer to what he described. But still, if I'm reading the right book I essentially cannot see the page anymore because the visualization is so strong and intense that I'm in that other world, not in ours anymore. I recently read Clarke's The City and the Stars. His description of the city of Diaspar is so strong that I feel like I have literally been there in exactly the same way as I have been to Yellowstone. I know I can't get on a plane to go back there, but if I open the book again I will be there again. Another favorite book of mine is The Good Earth. I have experienced Wang Lung's life in almost the exact same way as Picard experienced another man's life in The Inner Light. I read that book in a single uninterrupted sitting because the experience of living someone else's life from beginning to end was so enthralling that I could not stop. If you want to know why Harry Potter fans are so obsessive, it's because the books are very easy to visualize. Millions of people have a "lived experience" of being Harry throughout 7 years of wizard school and that experience leaves a mark on you. When I saw the movies it was a bit odd because I'd already seen a different set of "movies" in my mind and they got some details wrong.

huffmsa 8y ago

I can "see" a playback of a drive to a certain location in my mind. Like a dashcam video. But I can also "move the camera" off the dash and to 3rd person over-the-shoulder like in a racing game, and continue the drive.

l_t 8y ago

> The more I read about this the more I feel that the variety in reported inner experience is more to do with the variety in reporting than of the experience itself. I think there is very strong truth to this. Words get in the way when trying to share internal experiences. Also, by reporting and discussing your experiences, you affect them. Memories of past experiences, and expectations for future experiences, are both affected. For that reason, and without having digested the scientific literature, I would recommend against labeling oneself as having (or not having) aphantasia. But then, I feel that way about pretty much all labels, especially ones related to cognition. They're fine for communication, but not for your internal perception of self.

thatoneuser 8y ago

OK I think by now we need to accept that everything in humans is a spectrum. I think most people don't have the level of internal visual detail that they can describe an artists rendering. Meanwhile very few have no detail. Plus it covers all senses. So for me as example: I listen to metal and while I don't have super high quality sound in my mind, I can for the most part play a whole song in my head even the very intricate solos. If I knew the instruments and could play that we'll I could play it off the track in my head. However I can't imagine anything visual at all. No simple geometric Shape, no colors, not even a dot on a white backdrop. I think most people are just shocked this is a thing and theyre too quick to say they have nothing when they probably have something. I'd give detailed tests like asking to imagine a tree and ask how many branches it has or what kind it is. Any rate in sure in a couple years well have some nice professional tests to take for a more precise understanding.

aristophenes 8y ago

This is a very objective thing, probably some can do it more or differently than others but I don't think we are just describing the same thing differently. For me, I can picture whatever you might think of, enough to be able to copy what I imagine on paper or sculpture. However, this does not overlay with what I am seeing with my eyes as other people have described happens to them. What I see with my eyes, and what I imagine in my mind are in two different places. When I dream it can be very very realistic, as high detail as real life, and I can think it is real life (if you cannot visualize in your mind, what are your dreams like?). But when I wake up and open my eyes, there is no longer confusion. This is real life. I also very very frequently can remember someone's face, how they act, what they do, and not remember their name. I can remember a whole conversation with them in video and not remember their name. But it feels like this type of visualization is different than picturing a sphere or some imaginary thing. It is a memory, a memory that I can manipulate, but based on reality. Something I have always wondered about others, when you speak, is it just your thoughts in your language that you voice? Like, is your thought in language? I must translate my thoughts into language, and it is sometimes very difficult even though I am good at expressing myself. I do not usually think in language, unless it is some basic thing I am repeating to myself. It feels like some other people actually think with words.

chansiky 8y ago
Oh man I'm the same way, If I have a minds eye, it's strong. I've also been terrible with language, like I have difficulty speaking in real-time. I'm much better now but I actually used to wonder how people can talk the way they do.
tmerr 8y ago
While I wouldn't say my thought is strictly verbal, I often form understanding by letting my verbal stream of consciousness ruminate. I starts off as a technical almost schizophrenic rambling. Over time, as my stream of consciousness passes over the same ideas, they become coarser grained and easier to express to other people. Unfortunately easier != easy since I still need to translate from my idiosyncratic vocabulary to normal human speak.

chansiky 8y ago

So just to be clear, I didn't know people were not like me, but writing this I realized it explains a lot. I rarely forget a face, and routinely remember random people on the subway. I don't say anything but I'm almost always the person who remembers the other person first, and it almost offends me that someone doesn't recognize/remember seeing me when I remember them. I can usually tell who people are based only on gait and body proportions. I recognized a girl once just from her hair color, and it wasn't something noticeable, just a very muted blonde almost brown/gray hair, but I only knew one person with her height and hair type. I have incredibly powerful imagery. I woke up once after realizing in my dream after breaking a window that the glass shattered with incredible physical accuracy, both material properties, and physics. It's in dreams that I notice certain things, like how did I know water/smoke/fire/cloth reacts like that? how did I know light bounces in that way? how did I know that subway tracks looked precisely like that? Like I never took the time to study any of it, but the real world accuracy and a high level of detail is there. I can visually take objects and rotate them in my head, I think someone mentioned this and I can confirm. And I always found it suspicious people couldn't rotate something they see in a 2D picture in their head (or at least they would say something that implies they have no idea what it looks like from another angle). Having said that, I think there are parts of my brain that is so stunted I sometimes wonder how the hell I got to where I am. I feel like I have several streams of information coming into my head, and I have to process them asynchronously. I zone out all the time because I'm having a "Doug" moment (if anyone remembers the cartoon), where I'm vividly daydreaming. The images are so strong, it seems to black out what I'm really seeing (but not really, its more like getting extreme tunnel vision and being hyper focused on your imagination). Traumatic memories are terrible. I see and pretty much re-live bad experiences over and over again. I can sit still, not move physically and play movies in my head for hours. To be fair though, I'm probably closer to the other extreme, and to me the benefits outweigh the cons.

jamesmiller5 8y ago

One of the students in my middle school put it into beautiful terms. One day, they say "You know, the TV in your forehead?" as they put 3/4 a square with their fingers onto their brow (like a "C" shape) I still get chills thinking of the phrase sometimes, it just was so understandable and approachable for us 6th graders. (Edit: word choice)

kgwxd 8y ago
Mine defaults to a TV in my forehead, but with a little nudge, I can move it out it into it's own 3D space that I can view from inside or out. The level of detail is still the same, weak in my case.

honzzz 8y ago

My experience is similar to what others have mentioned so I will just add a bit not mentioned yet - the imagery I fantasize is sometimes erotic in nature. For example when I see an attractive woman on a bus, I can visualize her naked, taking shower or whatever - you get the point.

scoutt 8y ago

I don't have Aphantasia but I think the concept is wrongly described as the possibility of overlaying imaginary images on top of what you are seeing. If that was the case, then I have Aphantasia too. In my case of not having Aphantasia is to be able to mentally reproduce an image with eyes open. If this image requires too much effort or has my interest for some reason, I still can see, but I am distracted by what I am visualizing at that moment. That distraction is like when playing a videogame or watching a movie: you never see (or remember) what is around the monitor or TV because you are focused in playing/watching.

mikedilger 8y ago

I too find myself skeptical of this condition. I think we probably aren't so different, we just have trouble describing our subjective experiences in an objective way. Imaging something is clearly not the same thing as actually seeing something. And yet I can imagine shape, 3D positioning, color, texture, movement, etc.. all the while NOT seeing it (and NOT hallucinating it). So do I have the condition or not?

NateEag 8y ago
I cannot do any of the things you just listed. You don't have it.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

It's a spectrum. 5% of people have aphantasia, 10% of people have a very weak visual imagination, another 10% have a weak visual imagination, etc. That's what accounts for so many people wondering if they have aphantasia.

spatular 8y ago

For me imaginary input has less details and exists in a separate plane, and it never mixed up with real senses, in the sence that I always know which is which and to my knowledge I've never mixed them up when awake (only in sleep). Visualizations are "ghostly", have few details, like 0.1 - 10% of what I usually see. Detail level depends on amount of attention allocated to internal imagery. Picture is always moving, changing, in flow. It takes considerable effort to pin a scene and stabilize it though it increases resolution. I've asked around and some people report having sequence of static, very high-resolution, almost real life quality pictures, either from real experience or synthesized. And images flip, replacing one another. Other people say that they have very fast low-res flowing "movies" like me, often consisting of several independent streams in different "parts" of awareness, typically with only one if focus. It's not that imaginary stream is overlayed on real sensory stream, it's more like they are different kinds of perception, like seeing and hearing is, though visual imagery is closer to seeing because objects it deals with have similar perceptive qualities, like having spatial component and colors. In my case imagined sounds are more detailed. When I'm remembering or simulating a conversation, voices are rather close to that of real people. Music can be recalled quite well too, maybe up to 20% detail level of original. On several occasions a had some excerpts playing unvoluntary playing in my head with like 90% detail level of original. Quite often I got some music stuck in my head. When I'm underslept it's usually some bad quality pop music from 80s-90s that I haven't heard since my childhood. Tactile, smell and taste sensations can be and are emulated too. I wonder, do people with aphantasia have dreams? Dreams are fully emulated sensory input, though I feel like they come from a bit different place then imagined input does. Edit: actually mind's eye is not restricted with field of vision of real sight, it can encompass say 1km sphere around me with very very low level of detail. I think that kind of capacity is used automatically in daily life when you walk somewhere and you have automatically constructed knowledge of what's behind your back.

arandr0x 8y ago

I have very weak visualization but I have some (4-5) images I can render in my head (stills I've seen plus one from imagination), which I think aphantasics can't do, and if I'm reading specific descriptions and take enough time, I can call up a still or part of a still as well. (It's never several frames and it doesn't feel like seeing from the eyes, but I can do it.) My other senses are not as affected, I have perfect tactile recall, I can recall and imagine plenty of smells and tastes as well. I have elaborate tactile fantasies when I want to distract myself. No visuals. I don't think it's actually different from aphantasics but I've had vivid dream-visuals (including being able to literally read in a dream, seeing every character, hearing every word in the low subvocalized reading-voice, being caught up in the story) and visual hallucinations.

marsrover 8y ago

I do not have Aphantasia. The other day I was reading a problem book and after I would read the problem, I would look up (looking up makes it easier to think I guess?) and visualize the problem and work it while looking at it. You don’t have to close your eyes or anything, you can still see it fine. I guess it feels like being able to project holograms internally.

Taylor_OD 8y ago

I believe I've got the opposite of Aphantasia. I do a lot of improv comedy and I credit my success ar the form in large part because of my ability to believe that what we are creating in the moment is real. I can almost see it in the moment. Thinking back on specific scenes I don't see an empty stage with two+ people on it. I see some version of whatever we were supposedly doing in that scene. I've got an incredible sense of direction too and I tell people it's because I've got a little google maps in my head.