4 ms·

Apparently, different people have different capabilities of imagination. Not strictly about this, but you might be interested in http://slatestarcodex.com/2017

Apparently, different people have different capabilities of imagination. Not strictly about this, but you might be interested in http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-can-be-impossible-to-notice/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/07/concept-shaped-holes-ca... which briefly mentions this specifically. Relevant quote: "In the first, Francis Galton discovered that some people didn’t have visual imagination. They couldn’t see anything in their “mind’s eye”, they couldn’t generate internal images. None of these people knew there was anything “wrong” with them. They just assumed that everyone who talked about having an imagination was being metaphorical, just using a really florid poetic way of describing that they remembered what something looked like."

bonoboTP 7y ago
I think this is very difficult to convey in words. Sometimes I think I have aphantasia because I definitely cannot "visualize" things in color "HD", anywhere nearly similar to the quality of actual vision. At least not when I'm awake. Rarely, I do have dreams (lucid or not) that have the exact same visual quality as usual awake vision. On the other hand, I also cannot empathize with the parent comment that is surprised about first-person memories. My memories are sort of first person and evoke a feeling of the spatial and semantic layout of the scene. Like I remember and can "feel" that Joe was sitting to the left of me, even if I don't see his face in high-definition or maybe cannot even remember if he had glasses on or what clothes he was wearing. Sure, I could also transform it and imagine the situation from a different vantage point (still not really a visual rendering), but by default I recall it from first-person view. I believe that people do metaphorically exaggerate the quality of their visual memories. I recall some experiments that reveal that when these people are poked about specific details of their visualizations they do realize that those parts just were "undefined" and were not actually seeing a "rendered image".
- pharke 7y ago
  That's interesting, my default view in memories is usually third person, often from above and to the side or some other perspective view. I have to concentrate on recalling detail in order to view my memories from a first person perspective. The third person recollection always seems to be more about the spatial relationships between people and things and is certainly not photographic, more like a conceptual understanding with images. Almost a diorama or a scene acted out on a stage. Weirdly this also shows up in my dreams although I do dream in the first person frequently.
- jgtrosh 7y ago
  Thanks, I've been interested in aphantasia because it kind of resonated with me while being clearly more extreme than my personal experience. What you describe sounds very much like what I feel and it's quite pleasant to read such a clear description of that in-between situation.
- feanaro 7y ago
  > I believe that people do metaphorically exaggerate the quality of their visual memories. I recall some experiments that reveal that when these people are poked about specific details of their visualizations they do realize that those parts just were "undefined" and were not actually seeing a "rendered image". Note that there are two components here that you may be talking about: 1) the visual definition or "vividness" 2) the factual accuracy of the content. I'd say it's likely you'd find counterexamples in either case, but if you're speaking of 1), it seems to me that I personally have a more vivid visual memory than you are describing. When I recollect a scene, I usually see the imagery in moderate detail, with believable colour and textures. These colours are probably not all (perhaps not even most) factually accurate, but I do see actual colours and shapes which are perhaps 3/5 (if you can quantify such a thing) of their visual intensity at the time I'd experienced them. For some particularly memorable events, I'd estimate it at even more. The intensity and detail also varies with my current surroundings and mental state. For instance, if I'm in a quiet, dark room or if I've just woken up, the visualizations are much stronger. Particularly after just waking up, it sometimes feels as if I'm experiencing it right now.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I believe that people do metaphorically exaggerate the quality of their visual memories. I recall some experiments that reveal that when these people are poked about specific details of their visualizations they do realize that those parts just were "undefined" and were not actually seeing a "rendered image". Of course it's not a rendered image (it can't have the same information content as a live image for obvious reasons), but it's an image nonetheless (just rougher than real and based on remembered input). In experiments when describing such details some people have the same brain activity as seeing the thing, whereas others with aphantasia don't.
TravelAndFood 7y ago
Is there any research into differences between people with a "mind's eye" and those without? (learned skills, chosen professions, natural aptitudes, whether it's genetic, etc) All along, I've assumed this "mind's eye" ability was integral to being a human being.
- atemerev 7y ago
  How it is integral? (I have aphantasia). I don’t see anything in my daily life that would require the capability of visually representing events of the past. I remember the facts and circumstances, and even some visual “contours” or traces, but it is a far cry from seeing a picture like I see the reality.
  - TravelAndFood 7y ago
    I assumed, past tense, that it was integral, and with this new information I realize it is not integral, and now I'm curious about it. (technically: I never heard anyone say they could not do this until now, but I have heard people say they CAN do this (including me). So as far as I knew all my N sample size of humans was positive for this, or at least not negative, previously indicating to me that the ability is "integral" to being human.)

bonoboTP 7y ago

I think this is very difficult to convey in words. Sometimes I think I have aphantasia because I definitely cannot "visualize" things in color "HD", anywhere nearly similar to the quality of actual vision. At least not when I'm awake. Rarely, I do have dreams (lucid or not) that have the exact same visual quality as usual awake vision. On the other hand, I also cannot empathize with the parent comment that is surprised about first-person memories. My memories are sort of first person and evoke a feeling of the spatial and semantic layout of the scene. Like I remember and can "feel" that Joe was sitting to the left of me, even if I don't see his face in high-definition or maybe cannot even remember if he had glasses on or what clothes he was wearing. Sure, I could also transform it and imagine the situation from a different vantage point (still not really a visual rendering), but by default I recall it from first-person view. I believe that people do metaphorically exaggerate the quality of their visual memories. I recall some experiments that reveal that when these people are poked about specific details of their visualizations they do realize that those parts just were "undefined" and were not actually seeing a "rendered image".

pharke 7y ago
That's interesting, my default view in memories is usually third person, often from above and to the side or some other perspective view. I have to concentrate on recalling detail in order to view my memories from a first person perspective. The third person recollection always seems to be more about the spatial relationships between people and things and is certainly not photographic, more like a conceptual understanding with images. Almost a diorama or a scene acted out on a stage. Weirdly this also shows up in my dreams although I do dream in the first person frequently.
jgtrosh 7y ago
Thanks, I've been interested in aphantasia because it kind of resonated with me while being clearly more extreme than my personal experience. What you describe sounds very much like what I feel and it's quite pleasant to read such a clear description of that in-between situation.
feanaro 7y ago
> I believe that people do metaphorically exaggerate the quality of their visual memories. I recall some experiments that reveal that when these people are poked about specific details of their visualizations they do realize that those parts just were "undefined" and were not actually seeing a "rendered image". Note that there are two components here that you may be talking about: 1) the visual definition or "vividness" 2) the factual accuracy of the content. I'd say it's likely you'd find counterexamples in either case, but if you're speaking of 1), it seems to me that I personally have a more vivid visual memory than you are describing. When I recollect a scene, I usually see the imagery in moderate detail, with believable colour and textures. These colours are probably not all (perhaps not even most) factually accurate, but I do see actual colours and shapes which are perhaps 3/5 (if you can quantify such a thing) of their visual intensity at the time I'd experienced them. For some particularly memorable events, I'd estimate it at even more. The intensity and detail also varies with my current surroundings and mental state. For instance, if I'm in a quiet, dark room or if I've just woken up, the visualizations are much stronger. Particularly after just waking up, it sometimes feels as if I'm experiencing it right now.
coldtea 7y ago
>I believe that people do metaphorically exaggerate the quality of their visual memories. I recall some experiments that reveal that when these people are poked about specific details of their visualizations they do realize that those parts just were "undefined" and were not actually seeing a "rendered image". Of course it's not a rendered image (it can't have the same information content as a live image for obvious reasons), but it's an image nonetheless (just rougher than real and based on remembered input). In experiments when describing such details some people have the same brain activity as seeing the thing, whereas others with aphantasia don't.

TravelAndFood 7y ago

Is there any research into differences between people with a "mind's eye" and those without? (learned skills, chosen professions, natural aptitudes, whether it's genetic, etc) All along, I've assumed this "mind's eye" ability was integral to being a human being.

atemerev 7y ago
How it is integral? (I have aphantasia). I don’t see anything in my daily life that would require the capability of visually representing events of the past. I remember the facts and circumstances, and even some visual “contours” or traces, but it is a far cry from seeing a picture like I see the reality.
- TravelAndFood 7y ago
  I assumed, past tense, that it was integral, and with this new information I realize it is not integral, and now I'm curious about it. (technically: I never heard anyone say they could not do this until now, but I have heard people say they CAN do this (including me). So as far as I knew all my N sample size of humans was positive for this, or at least not negative, previously indicating to me that the ability is "integral" to being human.)