6 ms·

When people talk about seeing something in your mind's eye, do they mean a virtual image actually appears _as if_ you are seeing it in place of the real world o

When people talk about seeing something in your mind's eye, do they mean a virtual image actually appears _as if_ you are seeing it in place of the real world or the blackness of your eyelids? Like do they somehow replace the picture from the eyes to the brain with whatever they are trying to visualize in a sort of hallucination? Or do they still 'see' the blacks of their eyelids or the world around them while visualizing the apple but not _really_ seeing it?

christophilus 1mo ago
I don’t see anything, but I also wonder if this is semantics, and we are all describing the same phenomena with different language.
- _dwt 1mo ago
  I'm very convinced this is what's going on. Qualia are super hard to convey with language! If I had to guess these self-reported instruments are also measuring, indirectly, conscientiousness (do I _really_ see it? it'd be wrong to lie on a survey!) as well as neuroticism (oh God what does that mean? do I _really_ see it? do other people _really_ see it? am I broken?).
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Noaidi 1mo ago
    It is Qualia only until they can measure it. Which they can now. Blaming everything you do not understand on neuroticism? Might as well go back to dunking witches. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220420092150.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220420092150.h...
    - _dwt 1mo ago
      I'm not really sure what the hostility is about. That's an interesting study albeit small: 42 non-aphantasiacs and 18 self-diagnosed phantasiacs. If one really wanted to quibble I'm sure there are other possible confounding variables which could be involved in both pupil dilation and self-reported aphantasia. I'm not "blaming" neuroticism, I'm pointing out that these self-reporting surveys are subjective in a way that can be influenced by personality traits.
      - jibal 1mo ago
        A lot of people here are insisting, with no evidence whatsoever, that a lot of other people are deluded, or are in it to make money, or for an ego boost, or to get pity, etc. ad nauseam ... so don't play dumb. Aphantasia, hypophantasia, phantasia, and hyperfantasia are all real, per the evidence. Absolutely no evidence supports the contrary claim. I won't respond further.
  - jtbayly 1mo ago
    It’s very hard to prove, yes. But you need to deal with the association with SDAM, and the differences in outcomes on the https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq.
  - D-Machine 1mo ago
    I think a couple of the comments in this very thread above, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49467695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49467695 and https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=slibhb https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=slibhb are quite relevant to your case. Thinking this is just semantics is a strong indicator you are likely highly aphantasic. It is highly unlikely to just be semantics, because when it comes to visualizing complex objects as a non-aphantasic, the specific details spring forth unbidden as an image first, and then you attach the language, and it isn't the reverse order. I suspect also tests of visual memory of complex pictures should reveal similar things here, because e.g. language and other things don't really seem to be able to represent such details, and neurobiologically, there isn't much plausible other way your brain could be memorizing a complex photo without retaining / having activation patterns similar to the actual viewing (and this is what we see in fMRI studies). If you are careful at noticing your thoughts (and not aphantasic), you can also notice if you are a highly visual thinker, you might sometimes confuse certain memories of things (spellings, place names, other things) that are similar only visually, but not logically or in any other sense modality representation. This would suggest the representations are genuinely visual in these cases. But yes, no way to be 100% certain, but the "it is just semantics" case is very weak and can't explain much.
    - _dwt 1mo ago
      I am reasonably confident I am not aphantasiac in the sense described here. My apple is red with some nice green mottling, dust, etc etc. I can see my wife and children in detail in my "mind's eye". As a child people told me I had a "photographic memory", which I also think is sort of "fake" or semantic, but nonetheless: I can remember images I have seen with visual detail and I can imagine hypothetical objects "visually". I still think many self-diagnosed aphantasiacs are tripping on the semantics of wording in a self-report survey, because I could easily talk myself into the other label based on second-and-third-guessing "but what does it mean to _see_ something I'm imagining?" etc. If there is a group of people with an actual quantifiable brain difference, I suspect it is much smaller than the group of "all self-diagnosed aphantasiacs".
      - D-Machine 1mo ago
- quickthrowman 1mo ago
  Yeah, I’m convinced this is the case. Accurately conveying something like that (the qualia of mental imagery) to another person using words is more or less impossible, in my opinion. People like to label themselves and feel special, this is an easy way to do it.
- Al-Khwarizmi 1mo ago
  Yeah, I think I have aphantasia as I definitely don't see anything, but after reading a lot about it I still haven't totally ruled out that it's simply a big semantic misunderstanding with people that describe things in a different way. All the easily accessible aphantasia tests (such as the one in this link) seem to rely on subjectively deciding whether you "see" or not. But this "seeing" seems to be a metaphor (even people who claim to be non-aphantasiacs will concede that it's not literally like seeing), so how do I know that other people aren't having essentially the same internal experience but choosing different words to describe it? It also doesn't help that it doesn't seem to have any bearing on cognitive ability, or ability to perform tasks that one could effectively measure. I have never felt like I can't do something because I have aphantasia. I have seen people mentioning difficulty on problems where you need to mentally rotate a cube, but I can do that just fine - it's just that I don't "see" or "picture" the cube, but I still have the concept in my mind of the cube being in a certain orientation and that suffices to solve the task. I have read that there are some tests for aphantasia that don't ultimately depend on introspection and vocabulary (e.g. pupils reacting to imagining something bright or dark, see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35356890/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35356890/) but I haven't found anything that I can do at home to be sure that I'm really aphantasiac and not just pessimistic about describing "inner images". If anyone knows such a test that one can do at home, I would be very interested.
  - slibhb 1mo ago
    This is what I used to think. That "aphantasia" was just people arguing semantics about subjective experience. But my belief now is that if you think this way, you likely have aphantasia (I think I do). A couple things that convinced me that the phenomenon is probably real: 1. I can visualize when I dream, or when I'm dozing/napping. But I can't while awake 2. I can "visualize" sounds, so I can hear a sound/song in my head and it's pretty much like actually hearing it. But I can't do this for imagery Admittedly, neither of those is a smoking gun and I'd also be interested in a more objective test.
    - vidarh 1mo ago
      This is my experience too. I have aphantasia for all intents and purposes but I have had one single experience years ago during meditation where I suddenly experienced "being in" a scene that was vivid and clear that I knew to not be real. It's nothing like when I "imagine" something and don't see anything. It was also nothing like when I dream, where I too can visualise - it was much clearer. It's clear to me that most of the time when people question that this is possible, it's an indicator they have aphantasia.
- mucha 1mo ago
  Aphantasia and hyperphantasia can be measured. See section 6 here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11437436/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11437436/
- drakonka 1mo ago
  I have been wondering this as well. I took part in a study at the local university that seemed related to visualization ability. Aside from various questionnaires about imagining different types of objects, they had me do a test on a PC where I had to look at moving shapes for a few seconds at a time. The shapes would then disappear and I'd have to click on it when it reappeared in a new position a few seconds later. You were meant to be able to predict the location based on the shape's trajectory and could react faster that way. I doubt it was trying to identify aphantasia though, since that seems like a task you could do well in even without being able to visualize the shape.
- fellowniusmonk 1mo ago
  I developed full aphantasia at 16 after being put under for a heart procedure. My minds eye was somewhat diminished after a procedure at 11 when they put me in a twilight instead of fully under. I have a sister younger who is 6 years younger, we used to play imaginary games all the time, few years ago she asked why we just stopped playing games and it was because I couldn't see the characters anymore. I eventually recovered like, idk, a faint outline of my parents faces from before the surgery that I can kind of conjur. It's not semantics.
- ajkjk 1mo ago
  I'm sure it's not, because most of the time I'm aphantasic and rarely I'm not and they're completely different phenomenological experiences.
- andy99 1mo ago
  I’ve see no evidence it’s anything but this. I have no idea if I have it or not or just describe stuff differently. I think this is logically much more likely. It’s a “what does it feel like to be conscious?” or “is my red your red” kind of question. There’s no external benchmark, no way to objectively compare, so you just get a spectrum of reports about the same thing.
- edgyquant 1mo ago
  Sometimes I think so, I don’t visually see anything in my mind it’s all just thoughts about things like I can feel the image but can’t actually see it. However I have taken psilocybin mushrooms and when I do I can literally visualize things in my mind as crystal clear as I can see the real world. So I think it isn’t just semantics
- D-Machine 1mo ago
  Then you are almost certainly aphantasic. "It is all just semantics" has to do some incredible acrobatics to make sense of so much language and reported experiences, and doesn't seem biologically plausible either. Of course, we can never be sure, but from a theoretical and empirical standpoint "all aphantasia discussion is just semantic confusion" is not useful and a complete non-starter.
  - vehemenz 1mo ago
    I have doubts about aphantasia as a legitimate phenomenon, but whether it is or it isn't, it seems likely that many of the positive reports are a result of a misunderstanding, semantic or otherwise.
    - D-Machine 1mo ago
      Certainly some self-diagnoses (positive or negative) are definitely based on misunderstanding, much semantic, as I already agreed in this very thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468528.
randomImmigrant 1mo ago
For me the image in front of my eyes is not gone. I’m just not going to remember any details about it because my focus is inwards, on what my minds eye is showing me.
- PcChip 1mo ago
  exactly the same for me
- cassianoleal 1mo ago
  Right, but the question is - do you see actual images with this "mind's eye", or is it more of a sensation, a logical understanding of what you're imagining but with no real imagery?
  - athorax 1mo ago
    I see actual images, but at least for me its not anywhere near the same as actually looking at something. Its sort of like watching a low fidelity movie for me and I can't really "focus" in on specific details of what I'm visualizing. I think there is definitely a spectrum.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
  - randomImmigrant 1mo ago
    Oh proper images. And if I focus I can increase resolution. I can get to where it’s as good as real life, for most things. But if it’s a book character I’ve never seen, the details are more oddly distributed and not stable over time, except when the author does a really good job with descriptions. Seeing mental images that are as good as a well done animation, on the other hand, is a lot easier and less draining to hold.
chmod775 1mo ago
If I had to describe it, I'd say it's more like an extra set of eyes that is just looking at the thing I'm imagining. It doesn't replace what my physical eyes see. Note that these eyes need not be static, even when I am. I can easily imagine myself flying through some space, looking out through those eyes, even if I'm in my chair. I can also have them grow a body and interact with the imagined scene in front of me. While it doesn't replace what I'm seeing in the real world, it takes up some attention - I might not be paying as much attention to things physically in front of me.
feverzsj 1mo ago
It's just some vague image. Only outstanding features like shape and color are recognizable. Probably how brain processes and stores these visual data.
- athorax 1mo ago
  This is close to my experience as well, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case for everyone. My wife can picture things in her head and describe them in vivid detail and talks about how she can move and manipulate the objects and change the colors and shapes in more or less infinite detail
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
mostlylurks 1mo ago
For me, it's like a second sense of vision, which does not get hallucinated into the primary sense of vision and which cannot be confused with actual vision, yet nonetheless feels much like vision, with the exception of "not feeling real". By default it is "someplace else", but I can overlay it onto my primary vision if I want to (e.g. imagining an object on my real-life desk), but that doesn't affect my primary vision, merely gives me a sense that the imagined sight corresponds spatially with the actual reality in the intended manner.
inigyou 1mo ago
I think I must have below average phantasia. I can recall the rough shapes and colors of things, even things that don't exist, in a way that is like a real image. If I imagine a red apple it has those vertical stripes that some apple varieties have, and a green apple doesn't, and it has a short stem and a supermarket sticker on it. But I can't really imagine an entire scene at once - just one little piece at a time. Which is also how your eyes work, actually. There is absolutely no chance I would confuse something held in my imagination with real sensory inputs from my eyeballs.
- kwarcode 1mo ago
  Can you imagine peeling the stripes off?
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    Oddly, it keeps shifting to cutting a slice out of the apple instead. But with a bit more focus, yes. Even with the specific peeler I have in the kitchen, which has a blue handle. Maybe I'm not actually below average.
jareklupinski 1mo ago
wild attempt: try to put your hand behind your back: are you aware of "where" your hand is, even though you cant see it? now if someone taps on one of those fingers on that hand behind your back, could you put that same finger down (curl it) without seeing which finger was tapped? lastly, could you open your hand, put it back in front of you, and put down the same finger that was tapped when they were behind your back? it's the same way with my mental images; i'm aware the object exists and ive seen it before, so i can "see" them again in the same headspace to do things like analyze angles between molecular bonds, in the same way i can "feel" things that i'm recalling (i was tapped on this finger, i am putting this finger down (i dont think "right index finger" or anything...consciously? i just remember how the touch impulse felt and 'replay' it))
throw4747283858 1mo ago
[dead]
D-Machine 1mo ago
If you have good visualization ability, you can project your image onto a location in the real world, maybe sort of like a translucent layer or image placed on a clear film placed over reality, or you can just sort of visualize the image in "mental space" which doesn't correspond to any particular location. Likely what is more common depends on the person.
suusjejwuwiw 1mo ago
It’s not hallucinating. Drugs of a certain type will do that, but even then you can still visualize at the same time. It’s a different “set of eyeballs”. A third eye.. if you will. I don’t know if you know how to lucid dream but I find I can visualize inside one while still just seeing the regular scene in front of me. Even “over there” it’s a separate sense. There is no “really” seeing. There is just “seeing with this sense”, “seeing with that sense”. You can feel with your right and left hand separately, no? It’s not “one thing”.
weezing 1mo ago
It's hard to explain but the image just appears "in my brain". A third eye I guess. I can visualise anything, any object, faces of kids from my childhood school, a map etc. I am curious how people with aphantasia navigate without being able to visualise the road beforehand.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  I don't navigate by visualizing the road ahead, I mostly navigate by recalling what I saw on Google Maps. Yes, always with north at the top and if I rotate the map 90 degrees it'll be completely unfamiliar - I have tried that - I think that's fairly normal though.
starky 1mo ago
No I don't actually see it, but I can clearly think of the concept of it down to the details and can alter that concept in space (like spinning the globe in Google Earth). What happens when you think of memories? Like imagine the feeling after someone tells you a joke so good that has you gasping for air, can you imagine that without actually feeling it? Visualization is similar to me just about a different sense.
jpfromlondon 1mo ago
Neither, they imagine that they see something and lack the language to convey the imagined unperceived object, the notion of phantasia or aphantasia is merely a by-product of the term "picture it in your mind's eye" or the like, leading many ignorant people to believe that something is literally rendered within the individual's head. Realising this is not the case is waking up, but then some attention seekers gave it the name aphantasia to make themselves feel special.

christophilus 1mo ago

I don’t see anything, but I also wonder if this is semantics, and we are all describing the same phenomena with different language.

_dwt 1mo ago
I'm very convinced this is what's going on. Qualia are super hard to convey with language! If I had to guess these self-reported instruments are also measuring, indirectly, conscientiousness (do I _really_ see it? it'd be wrong to lie on a survey!) as well as neuroticism (oh God what does that mean? do I _really_ see it? do other people _really_ see it? am I broken?).
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- Noaidi 1mo ago
  It is Qualia only until they can measure it. Which they can now. Blaming everything you do not understand on neuroticism? Might as well go back to dunking witches. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220420092150.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220420092150.h...
  - _dwt 1mo ago
    I'm not really sure what the hostility is about. That's an interesting study albeit small: 42 non-aphantasiacs and 18 self-diagnosed phantasiacs. If one really wanted to quibble I'm sure there are other possible confounding variables which could be involved in both pupil dilation and self-reported aphantasia. I'm not "blaming" neuroticism, I'm pointing out that these self-reporting surveys are subjective in a way that can be influenced by personality traits.
    - jibal 1mo ago
      A lot of people here are insisting, with no evidence whatsoever, that a lot of other people are deluded, or are in it to make money, or for an ego boost, or to get pity, etc. ad nauseam ... so don't play dumb. Aphantasia, hypophantasia, phantasia, and hyperfantasia are all real, per the evidence. Absolutely no evidence supports the contrary claim. I won't respond further.
- jtbayly 1mo ago
  It’s very hard to prove, yes. But you need to deal with the association with SDAM, and the differences in outcomes on the https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq.
- D-Machine 1mo ago
  I think a couple of the comments in this very thread above, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49467695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49467695 and https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=slibhb https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=slibhb are quite relevant to your case. Thinking this is just semantics is a strong indicator you are likely highly aphantasic. It is highly unlikely to just be semantics, because when it comes to visualizing complex objects as a non-aphantasic, the specific details spring forth unbidden as an image first, and then you attach the language, and it isn't the reverse order. I suspect also tests of visual memory of complex pictures should reveal similar things here, because e.g. language and other things don't really seem to be able to represent such details, and neurobiologically, there isn't much plausible other way your brain could be memorizing a complex photo without retaining / having activation patterns similar to the actual viewing (and this is what we see in fMRI studies). If you are careful at noticing your thoughts (and not aphantasic), you can also notice if you are a highly visual thinker, you might sometimes confuse certain memories of things (spellings, place names, other things) that are similar only visually, but not logically or in any other sense modality representation. This would suggest the representations are genuinely visual in these cases. But yes, no way to be 100% certain, but the "it is just semantics" case is very weak and can't explain much.
  - _dwt 1mo ago
    I am reasonably confident I am not aphantasiac in the sense described here. My apple is red with some nice green mottling, dust, etc etc. I can see my wife and children in detail in my "mind's eye". As a child people told me I had a "photographic memory", which I also think is sort of "fake" or semantic, but nonetheless: I can remember images I have seen with visual detail and I can imagine hypothetical objects "visually". I still think many self-diagnosed aphantasiacs are tripping on the semantics of wording in a self-report survey, because I could easily talk myself into the other label based on second-and-third-guessing "but what does it mean to _see_ something I'm imagining?" etc. If there is a group of people with an actual quantifiable brain difference, I suspect it is much smaller than the group of "all self-diagnosed aphantasiacs".
    - D-Machine 1mo ago
quickthrowman 1mo ago
Yeah, I’m convinced this is the case. Accurately conveying something like that (the qualia of mental imagery) to another person using words is more or less impossible, in my opinion. People like to label themselves and feel special, this is an easy way to do it.
Al-Khwarizmi 1mo ago
Yeah, I think I have aphantasia as I definitely don't see anything, but after reading a lot about it I still haven't totally ruled out that it's simply a big semantic misunderstanding with people that describe things in a different way. All the easily accessible aphantasia tests (such as the one in this link) seem to rely on subjectively deciding whether you "see" or not. But this "seeing" seems to be a metaphor (even people who claim to be non-aphantasiacs will concede that it's not literally like seeing), so how do I know that other people aren't having essentially the same internal experience but choosing different words to describe it? It also doesn't help that it doesn't seem to have any bearing on cognitive ability, or ability to perform tasks that one could effectively measure. I have never felt like I can't do something because I have aphantasia. I have seen people mentioning difficulty on problems where you need to mentally rotate a cube, but I can do that just fine - it's just that I don't "see" or "picture" the cube, but I still have the concept in my mind of the cube being in a certain orientation and that suffices to solve the task. I have read that there are some tests for aphantasia that don't ultimately depend on introspection and vocabulary (e.g. pupils reacting to imagining something bright or dark, see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35356890/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35356890/) but I haven't found anything that I can do at home to be sure that I'm really aphantasiac and not just pessimistic about describing "inner images". If anyone knows such a test that one can do at home, I would be very interested.
- slibhb 1mo ago
  This is what I used to think. That "aphantasia" was just people arguing semantics about subjective experience. But my belief now is that if you think this way, you likely have aphantasia (I think I do). A couple things that convinced me that the phenomenon is probably real: 1. I can visualize when I dream, or when I'm dozing/napping. But I can't while awake 2. I can "visualize" sounds, so I can hear a sound/song in my head and it's pretty much like actually hearing it. But I can't do this for imagery Admittedly, neither of those is a smoking gun and I'd also be interested in a more objective test.
  - vidarh 1mo ago
    This is my experience too. I have aphantasia for all intents and purposes but I have had one single experience years ago during meditation where I suddenly experienced "being in" a scene that was vivid and clear that I knew to not be real. It's nothing like when I "imagine" something and don't see anything. It was also nothing like when I dream, where I too can visualise - it was much clearer. It's clear to me that most of the time when people question that this is possible, it's an indicator they have aphantasia.
mucha 1mo ago
Aphantasia and hyperphantasia can be measured. See section 6 here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11437436/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11437436/
drakonka 1mo ago
I have been wondering this as well. I took part in a study at the local university that seemed related to visualization ability. Aside from various questionnaires about imagining different types of objects, they had me do a test on a PC where I had to look at moving shapes for a few seconds at a time. The shapes would then disappear and I'd have to click on it when it reappeared in a new position a few seconds later. You were meant to be able to predict the location based on the shape's trajectory and could react faster that way. I doubt it was trying to identify aphantasia though, since that seems like a task you could do well in even without being able to visualize the shape.
fellowniusmonk 1mo ago
I developed full aphantasia at 16 after being put under for a heart procedure. My minds eye was somewhat diminished after a procedure at 11 when they put me in a twilight instead of fully under. I have a sister younger who is 6 years younger, we used to play imaginary games all the time, few years ago she asked why we just stopped playing games and it was because I couldn't see the characters anymore. I eventually recovered like, idk, a faint outline of my parents faces from before the surgery that I can kind of conjur. It's not semantics.
ajkjk 1mo ago
I'm sure it's not, because most of the time I'm aphantasic and rarely I'm not and they're completely different phenomenological experiences.
andy99 1mo ago
I’ve see no evidence it’s anything but this. I have no idea if I have it or not or just describe stuff differently. I think this is logically much more likely. It’s a “what does it feel like to be conscious?” or “is my red your red” kind of question. There’s no external benchmark, no way to objectively compare, so you just get a spectrum of reports about the same thing.
edgyquant 1mo ago
Sometimes I think so, I don’t visually see anything in my mind it’s all just thoughts about things like I can feel the image but can’t actually see it. However I have taken psilocybin mushrooms and when I do I can literally visualize things in my mind as crystal clear as I can see the real world. So I think it isn’t just semantics
D-Machine 1mo ago
Then you are almost certainly aphantasic. "It is all just semantics" has to do some incredible acrobatics to make sense of so much language and reported experiences, and doesn't seem biologically plausible either. Of course, we can never be sure, but from a theoretical and empirical standpoint "all aphantasia discussion is just semantic confusion" is not useful and a complete non-starter.
- vehemenz 1mo ago
  I have doubts about aphantasia as a legitimate phenomenon, but whether it is or it isn't, it seems likely that many of the positive reports are a result of a misunderstanding, semantic or otherwise.
  - D-Machine 1mo ago
    Certainly some self-diagnoses (positive or negative) are definitely based on misunderstanding, much semantic, as I already agreed in this very thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468528.

randomImmigrant 1mo ago

For me the image in front of my eyes is not gone. I’m just not going to remember any details about it because my focus is inwards, on what my minds eye is showing me.

PcChip 1mo ago
exactly the same for me
cassianoleal 1mo ago
Right, but the question is - do you see actual images with this "mind's eye", or is it more of a sensation, a logical understanding of what you're imagining but with no real imagery?
- athorax 1mo ago
  I see actual images, but at least for me its not anywhere near the same as actually looking at something. Its sort of like watching a low fidelity movie for me and I can't really "focus" in on specific details of what I'm visualizing. I think there is definitely a spectrum.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
- randomImmigrant 1mo ago
  Oh proper images. And if I focus I can increase resolution. I can get to where it’s as good as real life, for most things. But if it’s a book character I’ve never seen, the details are more oddly distributed and not stable over time, except when the author does a really good job with descriptions. Seeing mental images that are as good as a well done animation, on the other hand, is a lot easier and less draining to hold.

chmod775 1mo ago

If I had to describe it, I'd say it's more like an extra set of eyes that is just looking at the thing I'm imagining. It doesn't replace what my physical eyes see. Note that these eyes need not be static, even when I am. I can easily imagine myself flying through some space, looking out through those eyes, even if I'm in my chair. I can also have them grow a body and interact with the imagined scene in front of me. While it doesn't replace what I'm seeing in the real world, it takes up some attention - I might not be paying as much attention to things physically in front of me.

feverzsj 1mo ago

It's just some vague image. Only outstanding features like shape and color are recognizable. Probably how brain processes and stores these visual data.

athorax 1mo ago
This is close to my experience as well, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case for everyone. My wife can picture things in her head and describe them in vivid detail and talks about how she can move and manipulate the objects and change the colors and shapes in more or less infinite detail

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

mostlylurks 1mo ago

For me, it's like a second sense of vision, which does not get hallucinated into the primary sense of vision and which cannot be confused with actual vision, yet nonetheless feels much like vision, with the exception of "not feeling real". By default it is "someplace else", but I can overlay it onto my primary vision if I want to (e.g. imagining an object on my real-life desk), but that doesn't affect my primary vision, merely gives me a sense that the imagined sight corresponds spatially with the actual reality in the intended manner.

inigyou 1mo ago

I think I must have below average phantasia. I can recall the rough shapes and colors of things, even things that don't exist, in a way that is like a real image. If I imagine a red apple it has those vertical stripes that some apple varieties have, and a green apple doesn't, and it has a short stem and a supermarket sticker on it. But I can't really imagine an entire scene at once - just one little piece at a time. Which is also how your eyes work, actually. There is absolutely no chance I would confuse something held in my imagination with real sensory inputs from my eyeballs.

kwarcode 1mo ago
Can you imagine peeling the stripes off?
- inigyou 1mo ago
  Oddly, it keeps shifting to cutting a slice out of the apple instead. But with a bit more focus, yes. Even with the specific peeler I have in the kitchen, which has a blue handle. Maybe I'm not actually below average.

jareklupinski 1mo ago

wild attempt: try to put your hand behind your back: are you aware of "where" your hand is, even though you cant see it? now if someone taps on one of those fingers on that hand behind your back, could you put that same finger down (curl it) without seeing which finger was tapped? lastly, could you open your hand, put it back in front of you, and put down the same finger that was tapped when they were behind your back? it's the same way with my mental images; i'm aware the object exists and ive seen it before, so i can "see" them again in the same headspace to do things like analyze angles between molecular bonds, in the same way i can "feel" things that i'm recalling (i was tapped on this finger, i am putting this finger down (i dont think "right index finger" or anything...consciously? i just remember how the touch impulse felt and 'replay' it))

throw4747283858 1mo ago

[dead]

D-Machine 1mo ago

If you have good visualization ability, you can project your image onto a location in the real world, maybe sort of like a translucent layer or image placed on a clear film placed over reality, or you can just sort of visualize the image in "mental space" which doesn't correspond to any particular location. Likely what is more common depends on the person.

suusjejwuwiw 1mo ago

It’s not hallucinating. Drugs of a certain type will do that, but even then you can still visualize at the same time. It’s a different “set of eyeballs”. A third eye.. if you will. I don’t know if you know how to lucid dream but I find I can visualize inside one while still just seeing the regular scene in front of me. Even “over there” it’s a separate sense. There is no “really” seeing. There is just “seeing with this sense”, “seeing with that sense”. You can feel with your right and left hand separately, no? It’s not “one thing”.

weezing 1mo ago

It's hard to explain but the image just appears "in my brain". A third eye I guess. I can visualise anything, any object, faces of kids from my childhood school, a map etc. I am curious how people with aphantasia navigate without being able to visualise the road beforehand.

inigyou 1mo ago
I don't navigate by visualizing the road ahead, I mostly navigate by recalling what I saw on Google Maps. Yes, always with north at the top and if I rotate the map 90 degrees it'll be completely unfamiliar - I have tried that - I think that's fairly normal though.

starky 1mo ago

No I don't actually see it, but I can clearly think of the concept of it down to the details and can alter that concept in space (like spinning the globe in Google Earth). What happens when you think of memories? Like imagine the feeling after someone tells you a joke so good that has you gasping for air, can you imagine that without actually feeling it? Visualization is similar to me just about a different sense.

jpfromlondon 1mo ago

Neither, they imagine that they see something and lack the language to convey the imagined unperceived object, the notion of phantasia or aphantasia is merely a by-product of the term "picture it in your mind's eye" or the like, leading many ignorant people to believe that something is literally rendered within the individual's head. Realising this is not the case is waking up, but then some attention seekers gave it the name aphantasia to make themselves feel special.