6 ms·

>Interestingly, she is really good it visualizing 3D concepts in her mind, but not images. I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. How can you unders

>Interestingly, she is really good it visualizing 3D concepts in her mind, but not images. I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. How can you understand the blueprint of a building without seeing a representation of that building in your head?

cgio 2y ago
As per OP, you "visualise" concepts rather than images. A representation can be conceptual rather than visual. I don't know if I have the condition, but I can draw a shape without seeing that shape in my mind, I can see it when it's drawn though.
FeistySkink 2y ago
You can have a conceptual model of how things relate in space. Something like a class diagram or a DB schema. It doesn't need to be visual.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  This seems totally contradictory to me.
  - FeistySkink 2y ago
    How so? A DB schema is not visual: it's something that lives inside a DBMS. Boxes with arrows is a way to represent it. Text is another one.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      >A DB schema is not visual How is it not visual? >Boxes with arrows is a way to represent it. Text is another one. Boxes with arrows are clearly visual. The text, at least, for me just is a representation of those arrows and boxes.
      - shafyy 2y ago
        > How is it not visual? (not the person you're responding to) It's not an image. It's a concept. I don't know how to explain the difference because I also only know it from the explanations of my partner. For example, she says that if she imagines a house it looks like a schematic drawing of a house (almost like if a child would draw a house), not like a realistic photograph of a house.
        vonunov 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure everybody (for certain values of "everybody") visualizes things as schemata; being able to imagine only specific, known, real examples instead of representative composites is a feature of autism. But here it sounds more like you're talking about a highly symbolic/abstracted example of a house vs. a highly detailed/concrete example of a house (rather than the autistic "actual house I have actually seen before"). I don't see how any of these wouldn't still be considered visual mental imagery and I'm starting to think that the people saying there's a semantics issue here might have a point.
        adastra22 2y ago
        When I 'visualize' it's not an image at all. It's the concept of what the image would be showing, which the above posters have called a graph or schematic. But that's an analogy, and not to be taken too literally. I don't visualize a schematic. I instead feel the connections and relationships between concepts. It's entirely non-visual.
        vonunov 2y ago
        I see, it sounded like you were saying you were visualizing a schema[1] (not schematic) of a house but thought it didn't qualify as visualization for some reason. Does it feel like this is unsymbolized[2] or taking the form of a different mental imagery? (Mental "imagery" can be "visual imagery", or aural, tactile, kinesthetic...) (Second link is my own re-re-posted comments about the subjective experience of "unsymbolized thought" and doesn't reflect some newer understanding on my end about it -- chiefly, the understanding of unsymbolized thoughts as similar to the aborted motor commands seen in subvocalizing, for example, except aborted much earlier; this explains why it would be difficult to continue doing it if I don't keep it moving along, since each "unsymbolized thought", or thought-granule or what have you, is already the beginning of a process that necessarily leads to some form of mental imagery and corresponding aborted motor command) 1. https://nn.cs.utexas.edu/downloads/papers/miikkulainen.visual-schemas.pdf https://nn.cs.utexas.edu/downloads/papers/miikkulainen.visua... 2. https://www.pastery.net/vvapdr/ https://www.pastery.net/vvapdr/
  - Izkata 2y ago
    I think this is where I go by default, and I've described it before as a low-resolution wireframe. Only the particular part I'm paying attention to is there but I know what's around it and can shift focus as needed. Almost like rendering a 3D image, but stopping early. I can also go full color with effort but it's generally unnecessary.
  - fromMars 2y ago
    There is a lot of evidence that aphants score higher on spatial reasoning tests than those with vivid visual recall and are over represented in fields like math and science. These two skill sets appear to be divergent, i.e., people are either good at visualizing and recalling fine details or they are good at manipulating/reasoning about spatial objects. Personally, I have always excelled at the latter and have a strong sense of direction and have scored well on tests that require one to manipulate/rotate objects in my brain.
- dorena 2y ago
  this! I think it’s also the reason why I was good at maths, very used to conceptualize stuff
e38383 2y ago
I just „visualize“ a map or blueprint, not as an image, but as concept. Think of it as an image of text and lines.
- adastra22 2y ago
  You're still describing it as an image. I think it would be more accurate to say that you feel the connections between the represented concepts as might be illustrated on a blueprint. But it's a non-visual experience.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
This is spatial reasoning, no visualization required. I have always had exceptional spatial reasoning, and while I can visualize it quite well, it is entirely unnecessary for function. My brain contains a detailed model of the topology of space that is quite separate from what the space actually looks like and can reason about it intuitively without visualizing it. This makes things like navigation easy even in places I have never seen before and therefore can’t visualize — I don’t need to know where I am to not be lost.

cgio 2y ago

As per OP, you "visualise" concepts rather than images. A representation can be conceptual rather than visual. I don't know if I have the condition, but I can draw a shape without seeing that shape in my mind, I can see it when it's drawn though.

FeistySkink 2y ago

You can have a conceptual model of how things relate in space. Something like a class diagram or a DB schema. It doesn't need to be visual.

constantcrying 2y ago
This seems totally contradictory to me.
- FeistySkink 2y ago
  How so? A DB schema is not visual: it's something that lives inside a DBMS. Boxes with arrows is a way to represent it. Text is another one.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >A DB schema is not visual How is it not visual? >Boxes with arrows is a way to represent it. Text is another one. Boxes with arrows are clearly visual. The text, at least, for me just is a representation of those arrows and boxes.
    - shafyy 2y ago
      > How is it not visual? (not the person you're responding to) It's not an image. It's a concept. I don't know how to explain the difference because I also only know it from the explanations of my partner. For example, she says that if she imagines a house it looks like a schematic drawing of a house (almost like if a child would draw a house), not like a realistic photograph of a house.
      - vonunov 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure everybody (for certain values of "everybody") visualizes things as schemata; being able to imagine only specific, known, real examples instead of representative composites is a feature of autism. But here it sounds more like you're talking about a highly symbolic/abstracted example of a house vs. a highly detailed/concrete example of a house (rather than the autistic "actual house I have actually seen before"). I don't see how any of these wouldn't still be considered visual mental imagery and I'm starting to think that the people saying there's a semantics issue here might have a point.
        adastra22 2y ago
        When I 'visualize' it's not an image at all. It's the concept of what the image would be showing, which the above posters have called a graph or schematic. But that's an analogy, and not to be taken too literally. I don't visualize a schematic. I instead feel the connections and relationships between concepts. It's entirely non-visual.
        vonunov 2y ago
        I see, it sounded like you were saying you were visualizing a schema[1] (not schematic) of a house but thought it didn't qualify as visualization for some reason. Does it feel like this is unsymbolized[2] or taking the form of a different mental imagery? (Mental "imagery" can be "visual imagery", or aural, tactile, kinesthetic...) (Second link is my own re-re-posted comments about the subjective experience of "unsymbolized thought" and doesn't reflect some newer understanding on my end about it -- chiefly, the understanding of unsymbolized thoughts as similar to the aborted motor commands seen in subvocalizing, for example, except aborted much earlier; this explains why it would be difficult to continue doing it if I don't keep it moving along, since each "unsymbolized thought", or thought-granule or what have you, is already the beginning of a process that necessarily leads to some form of mental imagery and corresponding aborted motor command) 1. https://nn.cs.utexas.edu/downloads/papers/miikkulainen.visual-schemas.pdf https://nn.cs.utexas.edu/downloads/papers/miikkulainen.visua... 2. https://www.pastery.net/vvapdr/ https://www.pastery.net/vvapdr/
- Izkata 2y ago
  I think this is where I go by default, and I've described it before as a low-resolution wireframe. Only the particular part I'm paying attention to is there but I know what's around it and can shift focus as needed. Almost like rendering a 3D image, but stopping early. I can also go full color with effort but it's generally unnecessary.
- fromMars 2y ago
  There is a lot of evidence that aphants score higher on spatial reasoning tests than those with vivid visual recall and are over represented in fields like math and science. These two skill sets appear to be divergent, i.e., people are either good at visualizing and recalling fine details or they are good at manipulating/reasoning about spatial objects. Personally, I have always excelled at the latter and have a strong sense of direction and have scored well on tests that require one to manipulate/rotate objects in my brain.
dorena 2y ago
this! I think it’s also the reason why I was good at maths, very used to conceptualize stuff

e38383 2y ago

I just „visualize“ a map or blueprint, not as an image, but as concept. Think of it as an image of text and lines.

adastra22 2y ago
You're still describing it as an image. I think it would be more accurate to say that you feel the connections between the represented concepts as might be illustrated on a blueprint. But it's a non-visual experience.

jandrewrogers 2y ago

This is spatial reasoning, no visualization required. I have always had exceptional spatial reasoning, and while I can visualize it quite well, it is entirely unnecessary for function. My brain contains a detailed model of the topology of space that is quite separate from what the space actually looks like and can reason about it intuitively without visualizing it. This makes things like navigation easy even in places I have never seen before and therefore can’t visualize — I don’t need to know where I am to not be lost.