| |
| ▲ | D-Machine 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The projected image is not typically indistinguishable from normal vision, namely in that there will be an "ephemerality" to the image. Some examples of this ephemerality: - the projected image usually has a translucency, i.e. it doesn't also block what is behind where it would be physically if it were really there - the projected image requires sustained concentration and mental effort to maintain detail, and if you let any aspect of your mind wander or stray from the task, the translucency increases, it may pop out of the visual field, or lose details - the projected image (say, an apple) doesn't have full details at every particular point, i.e. if I focus on where the stem would be, that detail intensifies, but the surrounding areas become more ephemeral; with a real apple, this happens somewhat depending on the focal point too, but not nearly as much - the projected image can be made less ephemeral and more rich and stable with the use of pscychedelics (e.g. psilocybin) or quasi-psychedelics (e.g. cannabis) So, yes, you can "see" it in reality, but not, in most cases, to the degree that you "see" a real apple. Often the ephemerality really does manifest in a way extremely similar to how an afterimage persists, but this isn't always the case. | | |
| ▲ | andrewla 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I created https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49469365 to see how many people perceive things this way. It is quite possible that this is drawing a line, as you say, between hyperphantashia and regular phantasia, though I'm not yet willing to give up on the idea that we are just giving subjective names to the same phenomenon. To wit, when I "hear" things with my "mind's ear" I can "hear" them very well in all the layers and components, I can "hear" drums and guitar and bass and voice, etc., but they are very clearly in my head -- they do not have a location in real space the way that real sounds do; I can't "hear" a sound so loud that it makes me cringe or so quiet that I have to strain to hear it. | | |
| ▲ | D-Machine 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | In case you missed my other comment linking to similar polls and stuff on Reddit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49469522. The hyperphantasia subreddit covers all other sense imagery too, and I am high on all of them. Also, to be clear, my images usually are NOT spatially located, but I can choose to make them so if needed, and occasionally they just are spontaneously. You might also find the work of Louis Sass ("Madness and Modernism", and other works) to be relevant, as he notes it is extremely common for schizophrenics to always be localizing (sensing) their thoughts have specific locations in space, or e.g. are "moving from the front of my head to the back", and other such extreme (and arguably unhelpful) spatialization of aspects of the mind's eye. He argues this might be part of why they are prone to hallucinations and delusion. |
|
| |
| ▲ | komadori 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would characterise myself, per your original question, of being able to superimpose imagined objects onto my visual field. I would not say that such a superimposed red circle is entirely indistinguishable from a real one, but the experience is very much akin to seeing. For one thing maintaining superimposed objects requires a degree of mental focus of which I am constantly aware, especially if the object is detailed and solid. This feels a bit like "is my red the same as your red?". What do even mean when you say you can "imagine that wall with the red circle on it", but you can't "see" it? Is there no visual aspect to your experience whatsoever? Do you have a spatial sense of the red circle's size and position? Do you experience (hear?) verbal statements about the red circle's existence and properties, or is this some conceptual sense of the red circle that is both non-verbal and non-visual? | | |
| ▲ | andrewla 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I actually agree with you about the "is my red the same as your red" -- I do not believe that aphantasia is real but simply that people are talking past each other and getting hung up on semantics. I see things with my eyes, experience has taught me that when I cover my eyes I cannot see things, when I close my eyes I cannot see things. That is what seeing is. I cannot see with my ears, I cannot see with my fingers. I can imagine shapes and faces and objects just fine, and can rotate them around if necessary, etc., but I cannot see them because my eyes are not involved; when I close them the imagined images do not disappear. The visualization is *akin* to seeing, but obviously I am not seeing them. Some people on this thread claim that they can see imagined objects in their field of view. I cannot do this. I don't know if I believe that other people can. But a lot of people like you are saying "well, I can 'see' but I can't 'see-see'" -- I'm not interested in you, you are like me, I'm interested in people who say that they can "see". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49469365#49469495 | | |
| ▲ | D-Machine 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > when I close my eyes I cannot see things. That is what seeing is. [...] The visualization is akin to seeing, but obviously I am not seeing them. [...] a lot of people like you are saying "well, I can 'see' but I can't 'see-see' I most definitely am not accusing you of this, and your other comments I think make clear you have considered this, but I would be wary of collapsing a continuum to a binary here. Most of the time, visualizing is indeed only analogous to seeing, i.e. visualizing is "seeing, but not 'see-see'ing". However, with extreme focus, regular practice, and/or altered states, this distinction breaks down, and it is harder to make the separation so clear. I suspect the more hyperphantasic you are, the more easily you can find examples in experience that blur the boundary between seeing vs. visualization, but with normal visualization capacity, these blurred cases are likely quite rare. But I don't think, fundamentally, except in true aphantasics, that there is always a 100% clear dividing line between seeing and visualization. | | |
| ▲ | andrewla an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm with you -- human experience is complicated, and language is a poor approximation to our inner lives. But there are lots of people on this thread who are saying "well, of course you can't *see* the apple, it's just a helpful metaphor", but there are a lot of people (including yourself) who say that you can. I want to see if I can pick out that difference. I almost wish the survey instead said "No, of course I can't *see* it, nobody can" to really nail down that perspective. | | |
| ▲ | D-Machine an hour ago | parent [-] | | Cool, I was really worried I might be sounding dismissive. This has been an obsession of mine since long before it got popular, and I've been enjoying your comments particularly in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
