Comment by rappatic
14 hours ago
I agree. The afterimage test was a major red flag for me. To see something in your “mind’s eye” has nothing to do with physical vision, yet the afterimage works by exhausting some of the eye’s physical cones. It’s a confusing non sequitur and totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I have always suspected that people with “aphantasia” simply misunderstand the idea of a “mind’s eye,” believing that others can somehow superimpose something onto their actual field of vision at will. Of course, this is not possible.
Edit: it’s also telling that this website sells an “Aphantasia Membership” for a monthly fee.
> To see something in your “mind’s eye” has nothing to do with physical vision, yet the afterimage works by exhausting some of the eye’s physical cones. It’s a confusing non sequitur and totally unrelated to the subject at hand.
Which they go to the correct length to explain in the link associated with that demonstration. I found that exercise quite apt. They aren't saying "This is what non-aphants see" but rather "This is an approximation of what someone who can see images in their mind sees using a separate process so that you get an idea".
For me, the afterimage effect really DOES look similar to aspects of my own internal image perception (colors that are sort of there, but not quite; hazy quality; transparency).
If you can merge them, that's the key to a few things.
Maybe you're right, but there are people on this thread claiming that they can actually see things in their field of vision, not "akin to seeing things" but see-see them. I can't do this and I don't think I have aphantasia; I am interested in people who say that they can do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49469365
Do the apple test (closed eye imagination and then pick the most-similar image on the scale). It's a validated test. And yes, apparently some people actually see an apple (not me, as a total aphantasic). Whether that means in their eyes or in their brain is pretty irrelevant. The people who claim to see an apple have physically observable differences in reactions to other mental imagery tests.
2 replies →
> I have always suspected that people with “aphantasia” simply misunderstand the idea of a “mind’s eye,” believing that others can somehow visualize something in their actual field of vision at will.
Many people can do precisely this, though the projected image is not usually 100% clear in some form, i.e. it may have a translucence or impermanence, and it can indeed take some practice to develop this skill. But it isn't uncommon at all, and comes up regularly in some spiritual and meditation practices.
Tell me you can still tell it's two separate layers though. You aren't actually getting visual feedback, you are combining the actual visual feedback from your eyeballs with the pseudo-visual feedback from your imagination.
I would say when I do this, it's more like underlaying my imagination with reality, than overlaying reality with imagination - the combination is still clearly imaginative. Right? (I think I'm a 3 or a fraction higher, on the apple test scale)
I can almost always tell the projection and reality are different, but in some very rare and extreme cases (psychedelics, sleep deprivation, extremely protracted and deliberate meditative focus / practice, or e.g. in situations where the projection is properly aligned with the actual stimuli, like seeing a face in the clouds, or in vivid / lucid dreams), the differences can be so small that what allows you to distinguish the two can simply be knowledge of the will / effort involved or e.g. knowledge from laws of physics that what is visualized cannot be present, or, in the case of dreams, an inconsistency with autobiographical memory.
Otherwise, yes, in almost all other cases, I suspect our experiences aren't that much different.
For me, when I'm really concentrating, the imagined becomes more dominant.
I like to do mechanical/visual designs in my head, intentionally avoiding whiteboards and whatnot, so I don't lose the ability! When I do this, I've had people come up to me and wave their hands right in my face to get my attention, because I don't see them. I "spaced out" alll the time as a kid.
Those people here (not you) telling all of us what is and what is not possible have their view based on how they see things. That's it. I hear they don't see things in mind, visually like a phone or a screen. Or do overlays. I remember finding out and being incredulous about whether others did something I don't.
My mother can take herself anywhere in the world she has been. However, she doesn't render people. This is full immersive. She said I disappear when she's doing it, if sitting there with her. This is simply daydreaming, a well explored topic.
All one has to do is read up on the idea. Anyone arguing against "seeing in mind" likely doesn't and will have some degree of difficulty understanding they are that way. I did. You may as well, or not.
In closing, what exactly is the Mind's Eye. History tells us a lot about what people describe it doing, when it works or is not blown out.
It is a red flag to me too.
If you have working vision, the brain is doing a ton of post-processing that you're unaware of. The eyes are part of the brain, after all. Closing them with your eyelids doesn't magically turn off those post-processing circuits that do most of the heavy lifting.
There is a full visual memory, just not any sense of an image or sound nor smell in my case. I am very sure there is a difference after interrrogating multiple people about it.
> Of course, this is not possible.
I keep hearing conflicting answers on this and its a debate I've had with several people.
I have aphantasia based on the description here because I don't see jack.
Some people I talk to though say that they can visualize at the same fidelity as they dream at.
When I dream, I do "see" things in a way that is much more "real" than when I "imagine" them - to the point where I would basically describe it as effectively identical to seeing them.
So now I'm confused about if these few people are the exceptions or the norm, and to what extent I'm lacking something that some others have.
I think when I dream it feels real, but upon closer analysis, it's about as unstable as when I imagine things. It's just overlaid with the additional semantic vector of "yes this is the real world and everything is normal" or something.