6 ms·

I have aphantasia, and so does my brother. Neither of our parents do. Both of us are really good at three dimensional thinking, but have no “visual” aspect to

I have aphantasia, and so does my brother. Neither of our parents do. Both of us are really good at three dimensional thinking, but have no “visual” aspect to said thoughts. The best way for me to describe it, is that, when imagining an object (apple, barn, etc.) my mind thinks about the physical structure of the object. I can’t “rotate” it because there’s nothing to “rotate” however I can describe it in 3D space using my hands. Again, there’s nothing “visual” about the way this works. My mind just prefers spatial thinking over visual thinking.

UncleOxidant 2y ago
> Again, there’s nothing “visual” about the way this works. My mind just prefers spatial thinking over visual thinking. It's hard to imagine (for us visual thinkers) how one could think spacially without also visualizing.
- givinguflac 2y ago
  The best description I’ve come across (as someone with aphantasia myself, which I discovered after reading this article yesterday) is that it’s like describing the metadata and emotional sensations associated with an image in my mind. I really thought people talked about “seeing with the minds eye” as a metaphor, until yesterday.
- taberiand 2y ago
  I suppose it's all fundamentally just electrical and chemical impulses - presumably for most people those pulses pass through the visualisation part of the brain, and for others it takes another path - yet the end result of the processing is more or less the same, just mapped onto maybe smells or feelings or something instead of images
- jumploops 2y ago
  Yes, it’s hard to describe with words. The spatial thinking is relational in concept, such that I can think about distances and angles in relationship to one another. I can describe (and build), with my hands, but I can’t “see” the object from a certain angle. It’s as if there’s a bunch of points in virtual space, again not visualized, but accessible to my thinking process. I can imagine how they relate, and how they can fit together, without actually seeing it rendered. Not sure if that makes sense or I’m just muddying the waters. Another example would be Legos, which I played with a ton as a kid. I can think about the exact piece I need, and think about the larger thing I’m building as a composite of said pieces. I keep mentioning my hands, because the way it’s expressed in my mind is more of a “feeling” than anything visual. Another way to think about it would be like a 3d model of the world, where I can think about my route/position/etc. through it, without having any concrete view. It’s like a 3d file without the 2d renderer.
  - SeriousM 2y ago
    The article made me thinking if my way of "visualizing" things is limited. My kids do have a vivid imagination for visual things out of nowhere, I on the other hand need a spark or idea to get the flow going. > Another way to think about it would be like a 3d model of the world, where I can think about my route/position/etc. through it, without having any concrete view. It’s like a 3d file without the 2d renderer. That example just fits perfectly my perception of things. I habe a very good mental model of everything that fits well in my brain but it's sometimes hard to put them into words... yet I get better by describing "my view". Funny that I have a graphical memory but can't construct any new in my mind.
  - jsrcout 2y ago
    This is so interesting. As a test, I wonder if you could make something out of Legos without any issues if you blocked your vision so you couldn't see them or your hands. Guessing that that you could.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    > It’s as if there’s a bunch of points in virtual space, again not visualized, but accessible to my thinking process. I can imagine how they relate, and how they can fit together, without actually seeing it rendered. Not sure if that makes sense or I’m just muddying the waters. Would it be accurate to call it a wireframe? https://boingboing.net/2023/07/05/this-wireframe-car-looks-like-a-digital-model-but-its-real-and-made-from-actual-wire.html https://boingboing.net/2023/07/05/this-wireframe-car-looks-l... If so, this isn't considered aphantasia, just a very weak visualization. A 4 on this scale rather than a 5: https://creativerevolution.io/aphantasia-a-blind-minds-eye/ https://creativerevolution.io/aphantasia-a-blind-minds-eye/
    - sb8244 2y ago
      I describe myself as similar to parent post. There is no wireframe. There's no visual component for me in any capacity. I have no ability to perceive a visualization of something. But I know what something would look like if I could see it. I know what an apple looks like. I can know that things are connected or related without seeing them. It is fairly easy for me to "conceptualize" a graph, but there's 0 visual component even if closing my eyes. I would love if I could wireframe visualize like that post you sent. That would be actually awesome, but I cannot.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Just close your eyes and rely on your hands for a bit.
  - UncleOxidant 2y ago
    If you're saying to close my eyes and use my hands to manipulate some 3D shape, I'm going to be visualizing it while I do that.
- toolslive 2y ago
  it's like a lidar (I have aphantasia too)
mondrian 2y ago
Do you remember events visually? Does your memory work differently than imagination?
karmakaze 2y ago
The way I imagine it works is like the weights of a machine learning network. The lower-level convolutional layers are discarded and only the higher-level feature extracted weights (latent space I believe it's called) are remembered. We can then 'think' in that feature space with no associated imagery but feel our way around in that space. There was one time (before the web) where I was trying to solve a physical puzzle of balancing many long construction nails on the head of a standing one. I couldn't solve it, but must have thought about it because when I woke up, I knew the solution and demonstrated it (I already knew it would work) as soon as I got to the office where the nails were. I also spend long periods pondering a problem staring into space and not thinking of anything specific but during that time my mind is mixing and matching and trying different arrangements of possible solutions. I can't see any of this happening, but every now and then I'll have an idea making connections I hadn't considered before. Often one of them will pan out well.
bengale 2y ago
I’ve always suspected it makes it easier for me to think abstractly without having any images to tie concepts to in my mind.
gxara 2y ago
our thoughts are not linear. This is why I prefer to express ideas and even take notes using a mind map (graph) structure. Like the one provided by https://nodeland.io https://nodeland.io
Groxx 2y ago
I'm kinda similar. Like 99%(?) aphantasic, but very good at 3D stuff. Seeing the object has nothing to do with knowing something about it or being able to predict it. Plus, just look at how bad many phantasics are at drawing common stuff like a bicycle - that's easy for me. I can draw whole diagram teardowns of machines I've only seen once, and that isn't what I do normally. I don't practice it or use it day-to-day (or even yearly). I really don't think these things are anywhere near as connected as many feel they should be. I completely understand why people feel that way, they really do feel like they should overlap heavily, but that doesn't mean it's reality.

UncleOxidant 2y ago

> Again, there’s nothing “visual” about the way this works. My mind just prefers spatial thinking over visual thinking. It's hard to imagine (for us visual thinkers) how one could think spacially without also visualizing.

givinguflac 2y ago
The best description I’ve come across (as someone with aphantasia myself, which I discovered after reading this article yesterday) is that it’s like describing the metadata and emotional sensations associated with an image in my mind. I really thought people talked about “seeing with the minds eye” as a metaphor, until yesterday.
taberiand 2y ago
I suppose it's all fundamentally just electrical and chemical impulses - presumably for most people those pulses pass through the visualisation part of the brain, and for others it takes another path - yet the end result of the processing is more or less the same, just mapped onto maybe smells or feelings or something instead of images
jumploops 2y ago
Yes, it’s hard to describe with words. The spatial thinking is relational in concept, such that I can think about distances and angles in relationship to one another. I can describe (and build), with my hands, but I can’t “see” the object from a certain angle. It’s as if there’s a bunch of points in virtual space, again not visualized, but accessible to my thinking process. I can imagine how they relate, and how they can fit together, without actually seeing it rendered. Not sure if that makes sense or I’m just muddying the waters. Another example would be Legos, which I played with a ton as a kid. I can think about the exact piece I need, and think about the larger thing I’m building as a composite of said pieces. I keep mentioning my hands, because the way it’s expressed in my mind is more of a “feeling” than anything visual. Another way to think about it would be like a 3d model of the world, where I can think about my route/position/etc. through it, without having any concrete view. It’s like a 3d file without the 2d renderer.
- SeriousM 2y ago
  The article made me thinking if my way of "visualizing" things is limited. My kids do have a vivid imagination for visual things out of nowhere, I on the other hand need a spark or idea to get the flow going. > Another way to think about it would be like a 3d model of the world, where I can think about my route/position/etc. through it, without having any concrete view. It’s like a 3d file without the 2d renderer. That example just fits perfectly my perception of things. I habe a very good mental model of everything that fits well in my brain but it's sometimes hard to put them into words... yet I get better by describing "my view". Funny that I have a graphical memory but can't construct any new in my mind.
- jsrcout 2y ago
  This is so interesting. As a test, I wonder if you could make something out of Legos without any issues if you blocked your vision so you couldn't see them or your hands. Guessing that that you could.
- Izkata 2y ago
  > It’s as if there’s a bunch of points in virtual space, again not visualized, but accessible to my thinking process. I can imagine how they relate, and how they can fit together, without actually seeing it rendered. Not sure if that makes sense or I’m just muddying the waters. Would it be accurate to call it a wireframe? https://boingboing.net/2023/07/05/this-wireframe-car-looks-like-a-digital-model-but-its-real-and-made-from-actual-wire.html https://boingboing.net/2023/07/05/this-wireframe-car-looks-l... If so, this isn't considered aphantasia, just a very weak visualization. A 4 on this scale rather than a 5: https://creativerevolution.io/aphantasia-a-blind-minds-eye/ https://creativerevolution.io/aphantasia-a-blind-minds-eye/
  - sb8244 2y ago
    I describe myself as similar to parent post. There is no wireframe. There's no visual component for me in any capacity. I have no ability to perceive a visualization of something. But I know what something would look like if I could see it. I know what an apple looks like. I can know that things are connected or related without seeing them. It is fairly easy for me to "conceptualize" a graph, but there's 0 visual component even if closing my eyes. I would love if I could wireframe visualize like that post you sent. That would be actually awesome, but I cannot.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Just close your eyes and rely on your hands for a bit.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  If you're saying to close my eyes and use my hands to manipulate some 3D shape, I'm going to be visualizing it while I do that.
toolslive 2y ago
it's like a lidar (I have aphantasia too)

mondrian 2y ago

Do you remember events visually? Does your memory work differently than imagination?

karmakaze 2y ago

The way I imagine it works is like the weights of a machine learning network. The lower-level convolutional layers are discarded and only the higher-level feature extracted weights (latent space I believe it's called) are remembered. We can then 'think' in that feature space with no associated imagery but feel our way around in that space. There was one time (before the web) where I was trying to solve a physical puzzle of balancing many long construction nails on the head of a standing one. I couldn't solve it, but must have thought about it because when I woke up, I knew the solution and demonstrated it (I already knew it would work) as soon as I got to the office where the nails were. I also spend long periods pondering a problem staring into space and not thinking of anything specific but during that time my mind is mixing and matching and trying different arrangements of possible solutions. I can't see any of this happening, but every now and then I'll have an idea making connections I hadn't considered before. Often one of them will pan out well.

bengale 2y ago

I’ve always suspected it makes it easier for me to think abstractly without having any images to tie concepts to in my mind.

gxara 2y ago

our thoughts are not linear. This is why I prefer to express ideas and even take notes using a mind map (graph) structure. Like the one provided by https://nodeland.io https://nodeland.io

Groxx 2y ago

I'm kinda similar. Like 99%(?) aphantasic, but very good at 3D stuff. Seeing the object has nothing to do with knowing something about it or being able to predict it. Plus, just look at how bad many phantasics are at drawing common stuff like a bicycle - that's easy for me. I can draw whole diagram teardowns of machines I've only seen once, and that isn't what I do normally. I don't practice it or use it day-to-day (or even yearly). I really don't think these things are anywhere near as connected as many feel they should be. I completely understand why people feel that way, they really do feel like they should overlap heavily, but that doesn't mean it's reality.