Aphantasia and Psychedelics(psychedelirium.substack.com)
psychedelirium.substack.com
Aphantasia and Psychedelics
https://psychedelirium.substack.com/p/aphantasia-and-psychedelics
121 comments
I have aphantasia and psychedelics definitely give me visuals. However it‘s more like shifting and warping stuff I and not very pronounced. DMT however is one of the only things that gave me strong visuals, LSD in combination with DXM too so I wonder if it has something to do with the sigma receptor
The visuals you get from psychedelics and the visuals from imagination are different. Psychedelics seem to affect your real visual field. You're not imagining textures melting with colors and walls turning into liquid, it becomes what you see.
I normally have aphantasia, at about 2/5 on one those pop scales that show various versions of an apple. I can sort of rotate geometric shapes without the notion of color or texture.
But rarely, while lying in bed I get these full vivid pictures. It feels like a whole another visual field. I can't really control it, but these are fully detailed like a painting.
It's dizzying how fast I can imagine these when my mind decides to switch into this mode, and how it can switch from one painting to the next fully detailed picture in a fraction of a second. I normally have to strain hard to hold just a few outlines of simple shapes in my mind, evaporating the moment my focus wavers.
I normally have aphantasia, at about 2/5 on one those pop scales that show various versions of an apple. I can sort of rotate geometric shapes without the notion of color or texture.
But rarely, while lying in bed I get these full vivid pictures. It feels like a whole another visual field. I can't really control it, but these are fully detailed like a painting.
It's dizzying how fast I can imagine these when my mind decides to switch into this mode, and how it can switch from one painting to the next fully detailed picture in a fraction of a second. I normally have to strain hard to hold just a few outlines of simple shapes in my mind, evaporating the moment my focus wavers.
I'm quite strongly aphantasic, I can, for a split second, hold the essence of a thing in my brain, but it's not even vaguely visual. I have though, several times, experienced almost exactly what you decribe - also while laying in bed trying to get to sleep. Every now and then I can kind of see a room, sometimes the room I'm in, sometimes not, even though my eyes are closed. I love it. I can't switch what I'm seeing though, but possibly because as soon as it happens I'm just laying there marvelling at being able to see something with my eyes shut, and staring intently at the details.
I can also only experience true visualizations when falling asleep or dreaming. I concluded that being awake (correctly?) suppresses vivid visuals and some people when awake simply do not have this (mal?)adaptation.
I think you're probably right, though sometimes when this happens I feel very awake indeed.
I do suspect "visions" can come from different sources as well. I've worked at an ayahuasca retreat center and have drank about 500 times so had some opportunities to investigate this. My vision is typically very "closed" (often it is just a massive intuition increase, it takes me a huge dose to get really into the visionary aspects). I have had visions seemingly from the top of my head (these are the most intense, all encompassing for me), in my "mind's eye"/imagination, in my normal visual field, and from my heart space, and sometimes a mix of all of it. My big suspicion is that DMT induces a type of synesthesia, a mixing of all of the senses, plus intuition, thoughts, and memories, plus a big increase in sensitivity (meaning what we see/feel is not precisely a hallucination).
This matches my experience and I was quite surprised to find out other aphantasiacs have their “minds eye open” when tripping. For me psychedelics only ever produced a fractal overlay on top of what I was already seeing.
I wondered for a long time why everyone else experienced such strong visuals and eventually decided on my own it must be related to aphantasia. It’s nice to find out I might not have been a total crank with that hypothesis :).
I wondered for a long time why everyone else experienced such strong visuals and eventually decided on my own it must be related to aphantasia. It’s nice to find out I might not have been a total crank with that hypothesis :).
It depends on the psychadelic. Acid will be fractal overlay and color shifts, breathing textures. Mushrooms, you will see a face in the treebark and the clouds, plus the color shifts and breathing textures.
> psychedelics definitely give me visuals. However it‘s more like shifting and warping stuff I and not very pronounced.
At least with LSD and psilocybin, that’s what visuals are. You don’t hallucinate things out of thin air on either one of those drugs, things morph and shift and wobble and waver and shimmer and so on.
At least in the dosage ranges I have explored, 7g dried mushrooms and 10 ‘hits’ of LSD which was probably at least 500mcg?
At least with LSD and psilocybin, that’s what visuals are. You don’t hallucinate things out of thin air on either one of those drugs, things morph and shift and wobble and waver and shimmer and so on.
At least in the dosage ranges I have explored, 7g dried mushrooms and 10 ‘hits’ of LSD which was probably at least 500mcg?
With mushrooms it is certainly possible to see faces/eyes and such in certain textures like bark or cloud formations.
I was going to edit my post and add that mushroom visuals can be more tangible than the swirling/shimmering/morphing of LSD.
During one particularly strong mushroom trip I was seeing geometric patterns on surfaces that were very similar to ‘Navajo Print’ fabrics woven by Native Americans. It was uncanny, and I’m convinced to this day that those patterns were revealed to the indigenous Americans during psilocybin experiences.
During one particularly strong mushroom trip I was seeing geometric patterns on surfaces that were very similar to ‘Navajo Print’ fabrics woven by Native Americans. It was uncanny, and I’m convinced to this day that those patterns were revealed to the indigenous Americans during psilocybin experiences.
Ever tried 2CB or mushrooms/psilocybin and if so, how prominent were the visuals? Always found those to be more visual (for better or worse), particularly compared to LSD, but I don't have aphantasia.
I tried them and probably have apanthasia. Similar experience to the other comments: it's usually just overlaid on what I see. A few time when I closed my eyes and got taken away by music, it would give me a more "story-like" trip, but I don't specifically recall visuals.
I scored as hypophantastic, but I'm not sure if I'm skewing the results because I draw/paint too. So I'm not sure if I'm triggering some detail processing/recall function. I see nothing, but I know what I should be seeing. For a lot of the examples I could... I don't want to call it "visualise" details, but I could describe in detail what should be there, but its in fact blank. Not sure how relevant this is, but I'm also neuro divergent; some diagnosed: ADHD, severe dyslexia, occasionally migraine + auditory hallucinations, undiagnosed but obviously there is also tinnitus. Dunno if I'm also a bit on the spectrum becau I also need to take at least 2x the dose my friends do, and stuff like amphetamines have _zero_ effect on my headspace
I scored as hypophantastic, but I'm not sure if I'm skewing the results because I draw/paint too. So I'm not sure if I'm triggering some detail processing/recall function. I see nothing, but I know what I should be seeing. For a lot of the examples I could... I don't want to call it "visualise" details, but I could describe in detail what should be there, but its in fact blank. Not sure how relevant this is, but I'm also neuro divergent; some diagnosed: ADHD, severe dyslexia, occasionally migraine + auditory hallucinations, undiagnosed but obviously there is also tinnitus. Dunno if I'm also a bit on the spectrum becau I also need to take at least 2x the dose my friends do, and stuff like amphetamines have _zero_ effect on my headspace
Not GP but 2CB and psilocybin were never very visual for me compared with LSD in my tripping days. I have aphantasia and the only chemical to give me full eyes open visuals was DMT. Mescaline was a very distant second.
I have aphantasia but I have visuals when dreaming, and have OEV's on any psychedelic in high enough doses.
So I think it's useful to talk about dosages here.
For example, I won't have OEV's until around 200-250ug of LSD, or 20-22mg 2C-B, or 3.5g mushrooms.
Marijuana gives me the ability to have closed-eye visuals ("mind movies") even in low doses, though I don't use it because it gives me panic attacks.
So I think it's useful to talk about dosages here.
For example, I won't have OEV's until around 200-250ug of LSD, or 20-22mg 2C-B, or 3.5g mushrooms.
Marijuana gives me the ability to have closed-eye visuals ("mind movies") even in low doses, though I don't use it because it gives me panic attacks.
> has something to do with the sigma receptor
Why? Because two of those drugs are agonists?
Why? Because two of those drugs are agonists?
I listened to a recent podcast that discussed why giving people with aphantasia the chance to see images is ethically complicated:
https://www.hyperfixedpod.com/listen/hyperfixed/third-eye-bl...
(Presented by Alex Goldman from Reply All)
https://www.hyperfixedpod.com/listen/hyperfixed/third-eye-bl...
(Presented by Alex Goldman from Reply All)
My aphantasia mainly feels like a super power, that I process at the conceptual level rather than the visual level. I feel like it helps me focus on the important things and ignore the extraneous. It's strange to read it described as a 'deficit' and as something needing to be corrected.
I came to say the same. For the longest time I never realized that I was missing anything. Most of my dreams don't feature color unless its relevant to the story. This is the superpower, no distractions. It allows keeping a large amount of context of related things, even without physical form, abstract things, while working through them. It also explains why I discovered early on that I can't stand descriptive prose that paints with words for pages to set the scene before getting on with why any of it is relevant.
Reminds me of the quote "Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things." - Henri Poincaré. [As opposed to Poetry is the art of giving different names to the same thing]. If different things can be the same, then their physical form wasn't relevant and you can consider the abstract thing singular.
Although I don't feel like I'm missing out, I read that Nikola Tesla was able to work out how to construct the first A/C motor by constructing it in his mind's eye. That's pretty cool, I'd never have to draw any system diagram again except to transcribe for communication.
Reminds me of the quote "Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things." - Henri Poincaré. [As opposed to Poetry is the art of giving different names to the same thing]. If different things can be the same, then their physical form wasn't relevant and you can consider the abstract thing singular.
Although I don't feel like I'm missing out, I read that Nikola Tesla was able to work out how to construct the first A/C motor by constructing it in his mind's eye. That's pretty cool, I'd never have to draw any system diagram again except to transcribe for communication.
I have aphantasia, after psychedelic experiences for the next few nights I see small poorly defined things when falling asleep. I don’t enjoy it and the idea of seeing things all the time sounds exhausting. I also have a slight astigmatism and prefer not to wear my glasses because the details of perfect vision are tiring.
I'm not taking the time to listen through that. Is there a transcript?
I haven’t listened to this podcast, but I listened to an excellent RadioLab podcast a while ago on the topic. They ended the podcast by discussing some of the ethics of “fixing” aphantasia, many of which I had never considered.
I recall them mentioning: 1. the ethical challenge of arguing that aphantasia is something that needs “fixed” in the first place 2. The unknowns of what might happen to someone emotionally if they go from nothing to something. This might sound odd, but we know that hyperphantasia can be associated with schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric issues. 3. The implications of downstream cognitive “enhancements” that might result from this.
I have aphantasia, and I do not think I’d want it “fixed”.
My partner has hyperphantasia, and similarly she wouldn’t want it “fixed”.
I recall them mentioning: 1. the ethical challenge of arguing that aphantasia is something that needs “fixed” in the first place 2. The unknowns of what might happen to someone emotionally if they go from nothing to something. This might sound odd, but we know that hyperphantasia can be associated with schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric issues. 3. The implications of downstream cognitive “enhancements” that might result from this.
I have aphantasia, and I do not think I’d want it “fixed”.
My partner has hyperphantasia, and similarly she wouldn’t want it “fixed”.
An aphantasia "beginner's guide" for those who aren't familiar or just want to learn more: https://aphantasia.com/guide/
I read much of that guide. I was initially led to believe that I have aphantasia. I certainly don't see things that don't exist - that would be an hallucination. I can imagine and describe it in vivid detail if I want, but it's not there - I don't see it in the same way I see the physical reflection of light on surfaces.
Similarly I don't hear sounds that are not produced by difference in air pressure hitting my ear drums. Again, that would be an hallucination. But I can certainly imagine sounds, again in great detail, including musical melodies and different instrument timbres.
Then, I get to the part about dreaming. I don't dream often, which also seems like a sign that I have it. That said, on some of my dreams, all sensations feel very real. Images, sounds, conversations, faces, colours, emotions... Those are hallucinations for all practical purposes though.
Except the fact that I have those vivid dreams seems to say I don't have aphantasia.
Not that it will make a lot of difference in my life, but where does that leave me? :D
Similarly I don't hear sounds that are not produced by difference in air pressure hitting my ear drums. Again, that would be an hallucination. But I can certainly imagine sounds, again in great detail, including musical melodies and different instrument timbres.
Then, I get to the part about dreaming. I don't dream often, which also seems like a sign that I have it. That said, on some of my dreams, all sensations feel very real. Images, sounds, conversations, faces, colours, emotions... Those are hallucinations for all practical purposes though.
Except the fact that I have those vivid dreams seems to say I don't have aphantasia.
Not that it will make a lot of difference in my life, but where does that leave me? :D
It leaves you with not having aphantasia! I rather suspect quite a lot of people who believe they have it simply differ on the level of literalism they're willing to use to describe their imagination than those who've led them to believe they have it.
> It leaves you with not having aphantasia!
That's what I always assumed from reading about it in the past, where it was mostly "I can't imagine things in my mind". Well, I can certainly imagine things.
Now, the guide in the top comment talks about actually seeing things. I don't. As in, really not at all, for any interpretation of "seeing" I can think of.
I wouldn't even describe it as fuzzy - it's just not an image at all, it's more abstract thought and abstract perception.
Hence my confusion.
That's what I always assumed from reading about it in the past, where it was mostly "I can't imagine things in my mind". Well, I can certainly imagine things.
Now, the guide in the top comment talks about actually seeing things. I don't. As in, really not at all, for any interpretation of "seeing" I can think of.
I wouldn't even describe it as fuzzy - it's just not an image at all, it's more abstract thought and abstract perception.
Hence my confusion.
Can you sit back and picture something at all? Like if I said "imagine the exterior of your house" would you actually imagine that or would you just be unable to do that at all?
I've been trying to work out for a while how much aphantasia I have, and I think it might help to give more detail to your instruction, and then your follow-up question.
If you said that to me, I would imagine the exterior of my house. But one of the things I am trying to work out is whether my definition of "imagine" is different. I would think of, and sort of see different details of the house at different times. Sort of like picturing one part at a time, but perhaps more like remembering than picturing. I know the overall layout, but I don't know if I literally "see" it.
I've tried a few times to actually _see_ something in my mind, and there have been moments, usually when I'm close to falling asleep, where I have actually seen something vividly. So much more vividly than usual, that I remember thinking that if this is what other people can do easily, then sketching must be far easier than for me - you'd just copying down what you see in your head!
Edit: I remember thinking the illustration on the Wikipedia page might be a good way to think of it. I picture things with less vividness/detail, so I'm not sure whether I really see them.
Ironically, the Wikipedia image is not loading for me right now, so I can't see that either :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
If you said that to me, I would imagine the exterior of my house. But one of the things I am trying to work out is whether my definition of "imagine" is different. I would think of, and sort of see different details of the house at different times. Sort of like picturing one part at a time, but perhaps more like remembering than picturing. I know the overall layout, but I don't know if I literally "see" it.
I've tried a few times to actually _see_ something in my mind, and there have been moments, usually when I'm close to falling asleep, where I have actually seen something vividly. So much more vividly than usual, that I remember thinking that if this is what other people can do easily, then sketching must be far easier than for me - you'd just copying down what you see in your head!
Edit: I remember thinking the illustration on the Wikipedia page might be a good way to think of it. I picture things with less vividness/detail, so I'm not sure whether I really see them.
Ironically, the Wikipedia image is not loading for me right now, so I can't see that either :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
> But one of the things I am trying to work out is whether my definition of "imagine" is different.
Yeah that's where I'm at as well. I can answer yes to that question but I'm not sure my answer means what GP might interpret from it.
> Sort of like picturing one part at a time, but perhaps more like remembering than picturing. I know the overall layout, but I don't know if I literally "see" it.
Similar here, though in my case I wouldn't necessarily call it "remembering". I can "picture" a completely made up house and it will "appear" similarly in my mind.
> there have been moments, usually when I'm close to falling asleep, where I have actually seen something vividly
Same, or during actual dreams.
> I remember thinking the illustration on the Wikipedia page might be a good way to think of it.
If you mean the one with the apple inside the heads, it doesn't help me at all. I can't relate to any of the pictures in it. :D
Yeah that's where I'm at as well. I can answer yes to that question but I'm not sure my answer means what GP might interpret from it.
> Sort of like picturing one part at a time, but perhaps more like remembering than picturing. I know the overall layout, but I don't know if I literally "see" it.
Similar here, though in my case I wouldn't necessarily call it "remembering". I can "picture" a completely made up house and it will "appear" similarly in my mind.
> there have been moments, usually when I'm close to falling asleep, where I have actually seen something vividly
Same, or during actual dreams.
> I remember thinking the illustration on the Wikipedia page might be a good way to think of it.
If you mean the one with the apple inside the heads, it doesn't help me at all. I can't relate to any of the pictures in it. :D
Your comments, and your other reply to the parent post I was replying to, really resonated with me.
I think by default I imagine things the same way as you - not images, not words, but just knowing how something is. I think perhaps that is similar to what I called remembering. When I think of something that way, I can think of, for example, a whole house. But I don't see anything.
But, if I try to picture something instead, as an actual image, I can actually picture smaller specifics parts of something. I think when I do that I am actually doing what people are talking about when they say they are picturing something, or seeing something in their mind's eye. All I get then is like an outline, or faded details, and I can only do small details at a time. Between a 3 and 4 in the Wikipedia representation of aphantasia. It sounds to me like you aren't able to switch to seeing something at all.
A while ago, after reading about someone curing their aphantasia, I thought about this a lot, and I think at the time I suddenly remembered something that made me think I could picture things clearly when I was a child. I also know that I see things when I dream, so I decided I should be able to get the ability back.
I used to try quite often to picture things in my mind, and would do some of the tricks like having eyes open a crack, and just waiting to recognise things in the patterns on my eyelids, etc. Occasionally I would suddenly see something as if it were really there. Like a 2 on the scale. The one thing I remember now is that I saw an entire chair, well enough that I could have sketched it. Have you tried often, or I guess practiced?
Edit: I tried some of the things this person described. They took a Better Living Through Chemistry approach that I didn't want to try though, so I skipped all drugs/chemicals/teas:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CureAphantasia/comments/vrih14/how_...
I think by default I imagine things the same way as you - not images, not words, but just knowing how something is. I think perhaps that is similar to what I called remembering. When I think of something that way, I can think of, for example, a whole house. But I don't see anything.
But, if I try to picture something instead, as an actual image, I can actually picture smaller specifics parts of something. I think when I do that I am actually doing what people are talking about when they say they are picturing something, or seeing something in their mind's eye. All I get then is like an outline, or faded details, and I can only do small details at a time. Between a 3 and 4 in the Wikipedia representation of aphantasia. It sounds to me like you aren't able to switch to seeing something at all.
A while ago, after reading about someone curing their aphantasia, I thought about this a lot, and I think at the time I suddenly remembered something that made me think I could picture things clearly when I was a child. I also know that I see things when I dream, so I decided I should be able to get the ability back.
I used to try quite often to picture things in my mind, and would do some of the tricks like having eyes open a crack, and just waiting to recognise things in the patterns on my eyelids, etc. Occasionally I would suddenly see something as if it were really there. Like a 2 on the scale. The one thing I remember now is that I saw an entire chair, well enough that I could have sketched it. Have you tried often, or I guess practiced?
Edit: I tried some of the things this person described. They took a Better Living Through Chemistry approach that I didn't want to try though, so I skipped all drugs/chemicals/teas:
https://old.reddit.com/r/CureAphantasia/comments/vrih14/how_...
I can imagine it, yes. But there's no images. Not in practice, at least. I don't see the shapes and colours, but I know how they are. It's more abstract thought than image per se. It's not words either, so it's very hard to describe.
I feel in my gut that this is fad-driven internet bullshit, and I would like to learn less, if it were possible.
> Dr. Adam Zeman, a neurologist from Exeter, receives a patient who can no longer imagine — known as patient MX. MX goes blind in his mind’s eye after undergoing surgery.
> Media outlets like the New York Times report the findings. This leads to an outpouring of new discoverers.
Hmm
> Dr. Adam Zeman, a neurologist from Exeter, receives a patient who can no longer imagine — known as patient MX. MX goes blind in his mind’s eye after undergoing surgery.
> Media outlets like the New York Times report the findings. This leads to an outpouring of new discoverers.
Hmm
My gut feel has always been that it is just a language thing where some people think that when others imagine things that they literally see it right in front of them _the same way_ they see real things.
Like, when I imagine a scene or object in my head, I am not literally seeing it. It's like some vague in-between thing. And that people who claim to have aphantasia just have a higher bar for what it means to "see" something.
Though I'm open to being corrected if there's some concrete experiment that can be performed that shows definitively that some people can not imagine things _at all_.
Like, when I imagine a scene or object in my head, I am not literally seeing it. It's like some vague in-between thing. And that people who claim to have aphantasia just have a higher bar for what it means to "see" something.
Though I'm open to being corrected if there's some concrete experiment that can be performed that shows definitively that some people can not imagine things _at all_.
Maybe you have aphantasia as well. I had without knowing it.
Some observations:
Someone told me to close my eyes and think about "an apple at a table".
Then I was told to open my eyes and tell what color the apple was.
The question didn't make sense to me:
I only thought about about the concept of "an apple on a table". When my eyes are closed it is black. Absolutely black. Blacker than a Norwegian winter night with cloud cover and no moon. There is nothing.
Until then I thought all this talk about seing things was just a metaphor for what I had also done.
But when I talk to others they will often immediately say it was green or red. Because they saw it.
Two extra observations:
Sometimes just before I fall asleep I can sometimes think images of stuff that doesn't exist: think 3d modeling with simple shapes.
And just after waking up I can sometimes manage to see relatively detailed images of actual physical things.
Both these only last for a few seconds to a few minutes.
Does this help?
Some observations:
Someone told me to close my eyes and think about "an apple at a table".
Then I was told to open my eyes and tell what color the apple was.
The question didn't make sense to me:
I only thought about about the concept of "an apple on a table". When my eyes are closed it is black. Absolutely black. Blacker than a Norwegian winter night with cloud cover and no moon. There is nothing.
Until then I thought all this talk about seing things was just a metaphor for what I had also done.
But when I talk to others they will often immediately say it was green or red. Because they saw it.
Two extra observations:
Sometimes just before I fall asleep I can sometimes think images of stuff that doesn't exist: think 3d modeling with simple shapes.
And just after waking up I can sometimes manage to see relatively detailed images of actual physical things.
Both these only last for a few seconds to a few minutes.
Does this help?
I also have this mostly when I'm half asleep and have had some very 4K sharp lucid dreams as well, including seeing leaves on a tree up close and feeling the texture.
Under normal circumstances, my imagination is also colorless and is more about spatial layout and shapes. Like an untextured 3D model.
Under normal circumstances, my imagination is also colorless and is more about spatial layout and shapes. Like an untextured 3D model.
It's hard to describe. I think there's more nuance here. When you ask "What colour was the apple?" then I can "fill in" the colour and imagine a "red" one. But it's more like the details are filled in "on demand" or "lazilly" rather than "ahead of time". And like I said, it's not the same thing as actual visual hallucination.
It is helpful to have someone engage, for sure. I have a question for you: if you look at a 3d object that you can only see one side of, can you make inferences about the other side of the object? Can you rotate it in your head? Could you quickly be able to tell whether an object will fit in a particular hole, without actually trying it?
It is helpful to have someone engage, for sure. I have a question for you: if you look at a 3d object that you can only see one side of, can you make inferences about the other side of the object? Can you rotate it in your head? Could you quickly be able to tell whether an object will fit in a particular hole, without actually trying it?
> if you look at a 3d object that you can only see one side of, can you make inferences about the other side of the object? Can you rotate it in your head? Could you quickly be able to tell whether an object will fit in a particular hole, without actually trying it?
Obviously I cannot know for sure what the other side looks like without seeing it, but I can make a reasonable guess and yes, I can mentally turn around objects in my head to see if they fit.
I also enjoy woodworking and repairs and other activities that force me to think 3D, but I believe it would be much easier if I could think in images.
Obviously I cannot know for sure what the other side looks like without seeing it, but I can make a reasonable guess and yes, I can mentally turn around objects in my head to see if they fit.
I also enjoy woodworking and repairs and other activities that force me to think 3D, but I believe it would be much easier if I could think in images.
Are you trying to help them believe?
Yes. Or maybe rather understand. For me it was a lightbulb moment just like my realisation of exactly how bad my colourblindness was: what is next to impossible for me to see (red drawings on woods in maps) was chosen by someone who thought it stood out.
I'm at least pointing out that I now know personally that there are multiple levels of visualisation, from me just "feeling" what it would mean to rotate a 3d object (it works, I can absolutely determine if it will fit but it is absolutely not visual) up to some close friends of mine that see vivid pictures of faces and can combine them with eyes closed.
For me who cannot see images except what I physically see it certainly is interesting to hear people describe remembering peoples phone numbers as text that they can see (I remember the feeling of myself saying it, not the sound) or memorising my name by mentally putting the image of ne next to their image of their brother who has the same name as me (!)
It really is funny, because I can draw. For example the famous "draw a bike" thing seems weird to me because I can't see myself making any of the mistakes from any of the drawings. Not because I can see a bike, but because I know it.
I'm at least pointing out that I now know personally that there are multiple levels of visualisation, from me just "feeling" what it would mean to rotate a 3d object (it works, I can absolutely determine if it will fit but it is absolutely not visual) up to some close friends of mine that see vivid pictures of faces and can combine them with eyes closed.
For me who cannot see images except what I physically see it certainly is interesting to hear people describe remembering peoples phone numbers as text that they can see (I remember the feeling of myself saying it, not the sound) or memorising my name by mentally putting the image of ne next to their image of their brother who has the same name as me (!)
It really is funny, because I can draw. For example the famous "draw a bike" thing seems weird to me because I can't see myself making any of the mistakes from any of the drawings. Not because I can see a bike, but because I know it.
I really wish I could occupy your brain for a few minutes to see just how much of this is language. There's an amazing effect in this conversation where I remain convinced that basically everything I've heard could come down to definitional differences, and yet it really could come down to a radically different subjective experience between us, and I have no real way of knowing.
With me I know:
I know if I close my eyes now there is nothing visible.
I also know if I have a good night's sleep and wake up late on Saturday I might be able to see images of things I am working on in the garden or elsewhere.
So I know seing nothing is my default and I know that seing something vividly can be possible.
I know if I close my eyes now there is nothing visible.
I also know if I have a good night's sleep and wake up late on Saturday I might be able to see images of things I am working on in the garden or elsewhere.
So I know seing nothing is my default and I know that seing something vividly can be possible.
Being able to draw better than people who can "visualize" better throws doubt on what type of thing "visualizing" really is.
I can draw better than most people, but have nearly zero internal visualization. I learned to draw by direct observation, committing the patterns to memory, and repetition.
As a result, I have excellent (if I do say so myself) drawings from life, some shockingly good portraits in oil, and also I can reproduce a few cartoon characters (which I’ve practiced extensively) almost perfectly. BUT, ask me to draw my mom from memory, and I can’t do it, like at all. I have, really, no idea what my own mom looks like.
As a result, I have excellent (if I do say so myself) drawings from life, some shockingly good portraits in oil, and also I can reproduce a few cartoon characters (which I’ve practiced extensively) almost perfectly. BUT, ask me to draw my mom from memory, and I can’t do it, like at all. I have, really, no idea what my own mom looks like.
I'm referring to this experiment / art thing:
https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...
https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...
I don't think that makes sense. Most people struggle to draw even with something to copy right in front of them. Seeing something is insufficient to draw well. It's also not necessary in order to draw well.
I don't say I draw nice drawings. I am referring to this art/experiment:
https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...
I don't draw impossible bikes. Because I know what bikes are. That is what I mean. Not that I can make nice or even photographically correct images of them.
https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...
I don't draw impossible bikes. Because I know what bikes are. That is what I mean. Not that I can make nice or even photographically correct images of them.
Patient MX there is quite persuasive. Lots of neuroscience discoveries start with somebody having some brain damage and losing a facility of some kind. However, most of the people claiming aphantasia, or the extreme opposite, are not brain damaged. At least not literally.
It would also be more valuable information if some area was damaged that was known to cause the effect.
It would also be more valuable information if some area was damaged that was known to cause the effect.
My gut feel is that people's experiences can be quite different. V.S. Ramachandran's books have nudged me to take these things more seriously.
I think visual imagination is also related to spatial rotation abilities. For example can you imagine yourself in your hometown, then imagine an "animation" as you (from a first-person perspective) fly up vertically, then turn in various directions and sort of feel where the landmarks are in the mind's eye? Or does that sound nonsense to you? Would you agree that being faster at certain tasks (that require a visual scratchpad - e.g. imagining a tabletop and being told what happens e.g. add a triangle on the left, add a square halfway overlapping the triangle etc) indicates that someone has more vivid imagination?
I think visual imagination is also related to spatial rotation abilities. For example can you imagine yourself in your hometown, then imagine an "animation" as you (from a first-person perspective) fly up vertically, then turn in various directions and sort of feel where the landmarks are in the mind's eye? Or does that sound nonsense to you? Would you agree that being faster at certain tasks (that require a visual scratchpad - e.g. imagining a tabletop and being told what happens e.g. add a triangle on the left, add a square halfway overlapping the triangle etc) indicates that someone has more vivid imagination?
The parent article has brain scans showing different activations in control brains vs aphantasia vs hyperphantasia. Also when people self report that their experience has qualitatively changed that seems like a pretty strong indicator that’s at least a range.
The fact that some people report aphantasia and some people don't implies that their brains are different but it does not imply that the reason the brains are different is aphantasia. For example, aphantasia has some comorbidity with autism, probably because autism leads people to interpret expressions in different ways.
So you’re saying you think people who report aphantasia see mental imagery but don’t think of it as imagery? And that the brain scans indicate difference but not around mental imagery?
Yeah essentially, or alternatively neither group has visual imagery. I think it fundamentally comes down to phenomenology being very hard to express in language.
That’s why the self reports seem valuable to me. If someone says “I’ve never seen something in my minds eye” and then they do dmt and say “oh shit I can see things in my minds eye now I totally get what people mean now” it seems to imply there’s a spectrum of visualization capabilities. There’s also people who’ve gone in the opposite direction due to injury.
But people who do dmt are also liable to say "oh shit I can see the machine elves, I totally get what people mean now". Which is not to say that their reports are unreliable, just inscrutable.
I have aphantasia, but I have had one experience of seeing clear imagery while awake (and it was not on drugs)
They are not remotely similar.
They are not remotely similar.
Honestly, your meditation experience sounds more like an altered state induced by the meditation, rather than confirmation of what non-aphantasiacs experience on a daily basis. And I'm jealous you had that experience.
Whether it was an altered state or not, it showed me the ability to see vivid imagery. And the experience isn't even on the high end of reported abilities to visualise.
Yea and it seems weird to assume that since these states are possible that most humans are mistaken when for millennia they’ve talked about having mental imagery. The idea that aphantasia is just language confusion is so strange to me. As someone who has aphantasia I understand the “oh shit” moment when you realize that there’s more going on but the evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me that most people have some internal imagery.
That almost all our language about recalling physical objects talk in terms related to images in retrospect should've been a dead giveaway, and I do remember many instances growing up I found it weird, because it seemed like dumb ways of talking about things you couldn't see...
It's to the point as we see it's hard to even talk about recall without recalling such words - e.g. "imagination" itself presumes images.
It's to the point as we see it's hard to even talk about recall without recalling such words - e.g. "imagination" itself presumes images.
I have aphantasia. I do not normally see things in my inner eye at all, but I still "imagine" things. I can draw things I imagine, even though I can't see them.
But I do see images while dreaming. It's very distinct from imagining things while awake and unable to see them.
And I have had one waking experience where I saw images as clearly as if I was looking at a photograph while awake, in a dark room, with my eyes closed during meditation. It was very different from when I'm dreaming.
This is not a "language thing". Until the experience mentioned above, I had gone ~40 years with no idea seeing things in your minds eye while awake was a thing at all.
But I do see images while dreaming. It's very distinct from imagining things while awake and unable to see them.
And I have had one waking experience where I saw images as clearly as if I was looking at a photograph while awake, in a dark room, with my eyes closed during meditation. It was very different from when I'm dreaming.
This is not a "language thing". Until the experience mentioned above, I had gone ~40 years with no idea seeing things in your minds eye while awake was a thing at all.
> I can draw things I imagine, even though I can't see them.
This is what I mean though. What do you mean by "see" exactly, if not imagine? You can imagine something so clearly that you are able to replicate it on paper, yet that is not the minds eye? I also see while dreaming, in a way that is more like my day to day experience, and not at all how I would describe imagining things.
> I saw images as clearly as if I was looking at a photograph while awake
If anything this is more mind's eye clarity than I have ever experienced. My mind's eye is nothing like looking at an actual photograph.
This is what I mean though. What do you mean by "see" exactly, if not imagine? You can imagine something so clearly that you are able to replicate it on paper, yet that is not the minds eye? I also see while dreaming, in a way that is more like my day to day experience, and not at all how I would describe imagining things.
> I saw images as clearly as if I was looking at a photograph while awake
If anything this is more mind's eye clarity than I have ever experienced. My mind's eye is nothing like looking at an actual photograph.
It's super interesting to read these accounts. I have my doubts that Aphatasia is real for 99% of people who claim to have it and its a language issue.
What is imagination if not seeing the thing in your head. Do people think others LITERALLY see an object like photons are hitting their neurons directly?
What is imagination if not seeing the thing in your head. Do people think others LITERALLY see an object like photons are hitting their neurons directly?
Some people do report seeing things as clear as if photos are hitting their eyes. Most people report more diffuse views.
I see nothing, but I have seen once, and when I did, I did "literally" see an object as clear as if I was looking straight at it, or to be more precisely a I saw a whole scene.
I see nothing, but I have seen once, and when I did, I did "literally" see an object as clear as if I was looking straight at it, or to be more precisely a I saw a whole scene.
I don’t think anyone thinks it should be like photons. I think we all understand that internal visualization is something different.
This is hard to talk about because all of our terms for it involve assumptions of seeing.
But when I "imagine" something, there is unambiguously no visual whatsoever. I can't see lines, colors, points. Nothing, any more than if there was a wall between me and an object I have never seen.
But that doesn't mean I don't have knowledge of it.
> I also see while dreaming, in a way that is more like my day to day experience, and not at all how I would describe imagining things.
Then how would you describe imagining things? Because if you don't see something when imagining it while awake, then that sounds like aphantasia.
> If anything this is more mind's eye clarity than I have ever experienced. My mind's eye is nothing like looking at an actual photograph.
And yet what I experienced isn't even near the high end of reported experiences of people.
But when I "imagine" something, there is unambiguously no visual whatsoever. I can't see lines, colors, points. Nothing, any more than if there was a wall between me and an object I have never seen.
But that doesn't mean I don't have knowledge of it.
> I also see while dreaming, in a way that is more like my day to day experience, and not at all how I would describe imagining things.
Then how would you describe imagining things? Because if you don't see something when imagining it while awake, then that sounds like aphantasia.
> If anything this is more mind's eye clarity than I have ever experienced. My mind's eye is nothing like looking at an actual photograph.
And yet what I experienced isn't even near the high end of reported experiences of people.
Maybe let's loop in other senses for a second. Since, presumably aphantasia doesn't apply to all senses? I can imagine the sensation of my tongue on a cold ice cream, and even the taste. But I don't _taste and feel_ it. I can imagine burning my hand on a hot stove, but I don't recoil. See how they are separate but related? The same is true for how I imagine things visually. I don't actually see them, but I imagine them. I don't know how else to articulate that seeing and visualising are not the same thing.
What you describe makes it sound like you have aphantasia.
People who don't have aphantasia do report "actually seeing" things with various degrees of fidelity, in some (less common) cases clearly enough to "overlay" on objects with their eyes open.
When I had my experience I did "actually see things". Yes, I know they weren't there, but it looked as if they were, in high resolution, full colour, with motion.
EDIT: Also, people "imagine" things with other senses or without too, and people have or don't have inner monologues, or dialogues, in their own voice, or separate voices - the breadth of inner life is very significant.
For my part, I don't recall sounds either, but I "reproduce them" in inner monologue in my own voice roughly in proportion to my ability to reproduce them out loud, but others do recall sounds as they heard them, reporting various degrees of fidelity. The same for smells. Most assumptions about how people's internal life "must" be tends to fall apart once you ask enough people.
E.g. There are writers I know with no internal monologue or dialogue. I know others for whom writing is like listening in to characters acting out scenes and just transcribing it. In some cases watching them act out scenes and just describing them.
People who don't have aphantasia do report "actually seeing" things with various degrees of fidelity, in some (less common) cases clearly enough to "overlay" on objects with their eyes open.
When I had my experience I did "actually see things". Yes, I know they weren't there, but it looked as if they were, in high resolution, full colour, with motion.
EDIT: Also, people "imagine" things with other senses or without too, and people have or don't have inner monologues, or dialogues, in their own voice, or separate voices - the breadth of inner life is very significant.
For my part, I don't recall sounds either, but I "reproduce them" in inner monologue in my own voice roughly in proportion to my ability to reproduce them out loud, but others do recall sounds as they heard them, reporting various degrees of fidelity. The same for smells. Most assumptions about how people's internal life "must" be tends to fall apart once you ask enough people.
E.g. There are writers I know with no internal monologue or dialogue. I know others for whom writing is like listening in to characters acting out scenes and just transcribing it. In some cases watching them act out scenes and just describing them.
Personally I can imagine something with such detail and depth that my eyes are effectively blacked out despite being open. I can also imagine a grayscale 2D apple fine too, so Im not completely fucked if I have an abstract thought driving a car.
Are you saying you think everyone can see basically the same amount of imagery?
I’m quite convinced it’s a real distinction. I have nearly zero visualization. The main thing for me is that I may get a fleeting glimpse of part of an image if I focus, but it evaporates instantly. I can’t hold it for any amount of time whatsoever.
On the other hand, I have very strong internal audio. I can play back music I haven’t heard for years or even decades. I hear the different instruments come in, the timbres, etc. It’s obviously not the same as music hitting my eardrums, but it is full, detailed audio which I can pause at will, rewind and pick apart. I’m told there are people that can’t hear any sound in their heads at all...
I’m quite convinced it’s a real distinction. I have nearly zero visualization. The main thing for me is that I may get a fleeting glimpse of part of an image if I focus, but it evaporates instantly. I can’t hold it for any amount of time whatsoever.
On the other hand, I have very strong internal audio. I can play back music I haven’t heard for years or even decades. I hear the different instruments come in, the timbres, etc. It’s obviously not the same as music hitting my eardrums, but it is full, detailed audio which I can pause at will, rewind and pick apart. I’m told there are people that can’t hear any sound in their heads at all...
I also lost the ability to think in images after a series of surgeries at 13. I went from being a very imaginative kid with dream like states while awake to purely lexical. I stopped enjoying playing pretend with my sister basically overnight, I just couldn't see it any more.
I still do have visual dreams though they are rare, I can no longer conjure any sense of an object while awake. I have a couple images from before this (my mother's face before she died) that I can kind of almost see, idk, or I have the feeling like I'm seeing them.
Call it whatever you like, maybe there is a natural distribution, I always thought of it as the cost I paid to stay alive, my own personal brain damage even though my surgeries were all cardiovascular.
I still do have visual dreams though they are rare, I can no longer conjure any sense of an object while awake. I have a couple images from before this (my mother's face before she died) that I can kind of almost see, idk, or I have the feeling like I'm seeing them.
Call it whatever you like, maybe there is a natural distribution, I always thought of it as the cost I paid to stay alive, my own personal brain damage even though my surgeries were all cardiovascular.
I respect you, fellowniusmonk, but all we ever get about aphantasia is self-report, anecdote, self-assessment questionnaire, subjective impression. People want me to be nice about this and acknowledge that the thing exists because they all say it does. The best I can offer is acknowledgement that you all say it does.
On the other hand, you have a special claim to plausibility because of the surgery. Oh wait cardiovascular surgery? So, are we saying anaesthetic side effects? Or brain damage from reduced blood flow maybe.
I'll note that a lot of people's impressions and feelings about ... what it's like to be alive, generally ... undergo a radical transformation at about age 13, because hormones.
On the other hand, you have a special claim to plausibility because of the surgery. Oh wait cardiovascular surgery? So, are we saying anaesthetic side effects? Or brain damage from reduced blood flow maybe.
I'll note that a lot of people's impressions and feelings about ... what it's like to be alive, generally ... undergo a radical transformation at about age 13, because hormones.
As someone with aphantasia, all I ever get from people who can visualize is self-report, anecdote, self-assessment, etc.
By definition, this will always be the case until we have a deep enough understanding of the brain to diagnostically assess this.
What I can assure you is that I cannot see/imagine with my mind, and that many other aspects of my life make sense given this limitation, e.g. when people describe their experience of reading books and mental world building, it’s entirely foreign to me. Or when my brother describes his ability to create mind palaces, manipulate visual concepts mentally as if he were using CAD software, etc. it seems preposterous.
But I have to take his word that it’s something he can actually do. Such is the nature of this subject.
Until I discovered the concept of aphantasia in my early 30s, I genuinely thought that people’s descriptions of “visualization” were just a figure of speech. It was mind blowing to learn that people actually see anything more than nothing at all, and a lifetime of experiences and confusion about what other people described about theirs suddenly made sense.
By definition, this will always be the case until we have a deep enough understanding of the brain to diagnostically assess this.
What I can assure you is that I cannot see/imagine with my mind, and that many other aspects of my life make sense given this limitation, e.g. when people describe their experience of reading books and mental world building, it’s entirely foreign to me. Or when my brother describes his ability to create mind palaces, manipulate visual concepts mentally as if he were using CAD software, etc. it seems preposterous.
But I have to take his word that it’s something he can actually do. Such is the nature of this subject.
Until I discovered the concept of aphantasia in my early 30s, I genuinely thought that people’s descriptions of “visualization” were just a figure of speech. It was mind blowing to learn that people actually see anything more than nothing at all, and a lifetime of experiences and confusion about what other people described about theirs suddenly made sense.
Well said.
I have similar feelings about those who claim to have an internal monologue or voice etc. It's all so alien to me. Outside of dreams or hynagogia, my "self" and internal experience is non-verbal, non-visual, and mostly lacking any other sensory qualia.
If "me" is rooted in any perceptual qualia, I think and experience a vague mixture of a spatial awareness, proprioception, topology, and emotion. I can barely summon sound memories like music, and this could include lyrics. This recall is very faintly rooted in auditory qualia. Like the ghost of an echo down a distance corridor. Moreso, I can "feel" such music memory as a hint of proprioception, i.e. the after-thump of bass in my body or the after-tingle of a cymbal in my ear. But it utterly lacks the presence and richness of real listening.
I can think about words and phrases I've either heard or read, or try to arrange some words to write or speak later. But they're fleeting concepts, neither visual nor auditory in quality. They're not like the sound or music memory above. They're also not visuals of typography. In fact, I've more than once had words in my lexicon that I could neither pronounce nor reliably spell. I could readily match them to parsed words when reading, but would be unable to express them.
Finally, I have a relative with schizophrenia. I've witnessed how she behaves when hallucinating and/or having delusions. She often seems to experience her thoughts as if being talked to over her shoulder, or can manifest a fear into seeing dangerous threats. Her experience seems a kind of polar opposite to mine.
I wonder how it is to be somewhere in the middle of this range. It must be different from hers, to be useful but not schizoid. And it also seems like it must be a lot more vivid and accessible than my usual experience.
I have similar feelings about those who claim to have an internal monologue or voice etc. It's all so alien to me. Outside of dreams or hynagogia, my "self" and internal experience is non-verbal, non-visual, and mostly lacking any other sensory qualia.
If "me" is rooted in any perceptual qualia, I think and experience a vague mixture of a spatial awareness, proprioception, topology, and emotion. I can barely summon sound memories like music, and this could include lyrics. This recall is very faintly rooted in auditory qualia. Like the ghost of an echo down a distance corridor. Moreso, I can "feel" such music memory as a hint of proprioception, i.e. the after-thump of bass in my body or the after-tingle of a cymbal in my ear. But it utterly lacks the presence and richness of real listening.
I can think about words and phrases I've either heard or read, or try to arrange some words to write or speak later. But they're fleeting concepts, neither visual nor auditory in quality. They're not like the sound or music memory above. They're also not visuals of typography. In fact, I've more than once had words in my lexicon that I could neither pronounce nor reliably spell. I could readily match them to parsed words when reading, but would be unable to express them.
Finally, I have a relative with schizophrenia. I've witnessed how she behaves when hallucinating and/or having delusions. She often seems to experience her thoughts as if being talked to over her shoulder, or can manifest a fear into seeing dangerous threats. Her experience seems a kind of polar opposite to mine.
I wonder how it is to be somewhere in the middle of this range. It must be different from hers, to be useful but not schizoid. And it also seems like it must be a lot more vivid and accessible than my usual experience.
If your core issue is with trying to quantify and observe others Qualia I think you're going to have a hard time.
I still have people tell me I must be faking my colorblindness, or just treat me like I'm blind. Normally teenagers, theory of mind is tough at that age.
I'm not sure nice or just a smidge of humility/uncertainty in expressing doubt.
Propagation of information pre-internet was so low people just couldn't easily triangulation on some of these things.
Fwiw I generally agree with you, my wife brought this up to me just in the last few years and I was like, oh I just thought this happened to everyone around 13 like a reverse Hook (the movie) thing.
But I can't paint or draw worth a damn sense then and she can freehand paint hyper realistic pictures. I don't see how she could do that without the imagination version of a stencil.
After I found out it wasn't a normal part of puberty I just figured it was brain damage acquired during the surgeries.
Also, from what I understand fMRI shows enough of a difference I'm inclined to believe the other people who say they were born that way.
I still have people tell me I must be faking my colorblindness, or just treat me like I'm blind. Normally teenagers, theory of mind is tough at that age.
I'm not sure nice or just a smidge of humility/uncertainty in expressing doubt.
Propagation of information pre-internet was so low people just couldn't easily triangulation on some of these things.
Fwiw I generally agree with you, my wife brought this up to me just in the last few years and I was like, oh I just thought this happened to everyone around 13 like a reverse Hook (the movie) thing.
But I can't paint or draw worth a damn sense then and she can freehand paint hyper realistic pictures. I don't see how she could do that without the imagination version of a stencil.
After I found out it wasn't a normal part of puberty I just figured it was brain damage acquired during the surgeries.
Also, from what I understand fMRI shows enough of a difference I'm inclined to believe the other people who say they were born that way.
Well, I'm an artist, but I don't insist that I can visualise things vividly, whatever that really means.
I'm looking at the brain scans in the article now. It's good that it's got 'em. Do they really mean what they're presented as meaning? It shows that some people, when told to imagine things, activate a bunch of brain regions. Some of those are also involved in actual looking, though not with clear purposes. Then there's also areas to do with memory and salience. I'll say that the people in this group are having a more emotional experience when they imagine. They give more of a shit, they pay more attention. I'm not sure that this qualifies as a skill, or an ability, or "seeing". But heck, what's seeing anyway?
I'm looking at the brain scans in the article now. It's good that it's got 'em. Do they really mean what they're presented as meaning? It shows that some people, when told to imagine things, activate a bunch of brain regions. Some of those are also involved in actual looking, though not with clear purposes. Then there's also areas to do with memory and salience. I'll say that the people in this group are having a more emotional experience when they imagine. They give more of a shit, they pay more attention. I'm not sure that this qualifies as a skill, or an ability, or "seeing". But heck, what's seeing anyway?
Ed Catmull surveyed people at Pixar, and there wasn't a particularly strong correlation in their staff between ability to draw and aphantasia or not - they had artists with aphantasia such as Glen Keane, who created Ariel[1]
For my part, while I'm not a great artist by any means, there was absolutely a time where I was well above average at drawing, despite aphantasia.
People struggle to draw things that are right in front of them - being able to see what you draw is not inherently a huge asset.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47830256
For my part, while I'm not a great artist by any means, there was absolutely a time where I was well above average at drawing, despite aphantasia.
People struggle to draw things that are right in front of them - being able to see what you draw is not inherently a huge asset.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47830256
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
Obviously because each person is different a/b tests are somewhat impossible for qualia issues. All I have is access to my pre/post expierence. It seems aphantasia can be intrinsic or emergent and since mine developed potentially through damage or re-wiring during surgery I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest that the pathways and compensations are different or non-existent for my case but not for others.
Obviously because each person is different a/b tests are somewhat impossible for qualia issues. All I have is access to my pre/post expierence. It seems aphantasia can be intrinsic or emergent and since mine developed potentially through damage or re-wiring during surgery I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest that the pathways and compensations are different or non-existent for my case but not for others.
>all we ever get about aphantasia is self-report, anecdote, self-assessment questionnaire, subjective impression.
Is there any other way to get information on what people see internally?
The idea that great artists, for example, don't have dramatically different visualization than people who report not seeing sharp images or images at all seems like the theory in need of proof.
You can't just say the evidence is subjective so you're right. The evidence only ever could be subjective.
Is there any other way to get information on what people see internally?
The idea that great artists, for example, don't have dramatically different visualization than people who report not seeing sharp images or images at all seems like the theory in need of proof.
You can't just say the evidence is subjective so you're right. The evidence only ever could be subjective.
Did I say I'm right? I assume we're all wrong in ways yet to be discovered, that's my default position on everything. And I've modified my viewpoint slightly just now: I accept that there are loose groups of people who experience imagination differently. So I'm being decently open-minded here, what do you want, blood?
The only basis we have for assuming you're a self-aware sentient being is also your self report.
For my part, I have experienced both aphantasia - for my entire life - and seeing images clearly. Once, during meditation. No drugs involved. No health issues. Not during puberty.
The two are not remotely alike.
I also see images regularly while dreaming. That is different from both experiences.
For my part, I have experienced both aphantasia - for my entire life - and seeing images clearly. Once, during meditation. No drugs involved. No health issues. Not during puberty.
The two are not remotely alike.
I also see images regularly while dreaming. That is different from both experiences.
What are you trying to imply with the “hmm”?
I personally found out about my aphantasia when reading an article in Scientific American titled “When the Mind’s Eye is Blind”. A whole lifetime of experiences clicked into place.
So it’s not surprising that there would be an outpouring of new discoveries after more people learn of the concept.
Learning about aphantasia is how I learned people experience anything other than nothing visually in their mind’s eye.
I personally found out about my aphantasia when reading an article in Scientific American titled “When the Mind’s Eye is Blind”. A whole lifetime of experiences clicked into place.
So it’s not surprising that there would be an outpouring of new discoveries after more people learn of the concept.
Learning about aphantasia is how I learned people experience anything other than nothing visually in their mind’s eye.
Good question, I couldn't quite put it in words, but it's the popularity that bothers me. It could be popular because everybody's having great insights, but it could also be popular because everybody's greatly persuaded by a fashionable media buzz. On the internet, discussions like this always turn into a love-in where everyone reports anecdotal experiences and gets treated with esteem for being part of the community of believers. Back in the 90s I was briefly on a mailing list for people who had done the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator test so we could all report how INTP we were (that's the sensitive nonjudgmental intellectual one). It reminds me of that.
It's popular because most of us had never heard about it until a few years ago, and for a lot of us a whole lifetime of experiences suddenly made sense.
I always wondered why people would talk metaphorically (because I assumed they must do, because clearly you don't see things that aren't there other than while dreaming... or so I thought) about images of people they knew fading, or forgetting what they looked like.
And then suddenly I was told it wasn't metaphorical.
And then a few years later I had my one experience of seeing vivid imagery outside of a dream.
It also keeps coming up because people get all weirded out at the thought that this is a thing, and start insisting the distinction isn't real.
But having experienced both: Imagining things without visuals and with is nothing alike.
And I knew that before the experience I mentioned too, because images while dreaming is also wildly different from how I imagine things while awake.
I always wondered why people would talk metaphorically (because I assumed they must do, because clearly you don't see things that aren't there other than while dreaming... or so I thought) about images of people they knew fading, or forgetting what they looked like.
And then suddenly I was told it wasn't metaphorical.
And then a few years later I had my one experience of seeing vivid imagery outside of a dream.
It also keeps coming up because people get all weirded out at the thought that this is a thing, and start insisting the distinction isn't real.
But having experienced both: Imagining things without visuals and with is nothing alike.
And I knew that before the experience I mentioned too, because images while dreaming is also wildly different from how I imagine things while awake.
Aphantasia makes a number of testable hypotheses and can/has/continues to be dealt with as a serious scientific question. But instead of taking the time to do even the bare minimum of research, you trust your gut to tell you that it's bullshit. Classy.
You didn't really say anything here yourself other than that you're awed by it. Also that I'm the one who has to do all the work apparently.
If you're gonna come out and say "trust my gut, this is bullshit" - yes, you do need to do all the work.
Why's that, then?
I'm digging around in the Wikipedia article on "burden of proof", quick, head me off at the pass before I quote it.
Heh, it mentions "burden tennis". It all devolves to who's got the status quo on their side and who's making the extraordinary claim, or not. I can see why fistfights are a popular way to resolve disagreements.
I'm digging around in the Wikipedia article on "burden of proof", quick, head me off at the pass before I quote it.
Heh, it mentions "burden tennis". It all devolves to who's got the status quo on their side and who's making the extraordinary claim, or not. I can see why fistfights are a popular way to resolve disagreements.
Google scholar has 5000+ hits on the term, I'd suggest starting there. Once you've completely your meta-analysis proving that it's all "bullshit", let us know. That's how science works. You think your 10 minutes scrolling wikipedia substitutes for decades of research? Surely, since you and your gut feel so strongly about it, the evidence should speak for itself.
It's not decades of research, the term was coined in 2015. There's a vague reference to something similar earlier but it doesn't constitute pre-existing research. It's an extremely recent phenomenon to research it.
You can tell me what the testable hypothesis is.
it is, it's unfalsifiable nonsense because nobody actually "sees" things in their "minds eye", when someone imagines something it's just a generic default instantiation of whatever, the properties might list "red" and "cube" but the individual doesn't "see" the red cube.
It's just another way for attention seekers to feel special.
It's just another way for attention seekers to feel special.
My understanding is that most aphantasics (like myself) can still see images while dreaming—suggesting that dreaming uses a different network for visualization. I have vivid dreams most nights.
Shane Williams (an aphant) hosts a podcast where he interviews people using a set of questions designed to probe their inner sensory world. From it I’ve learned, for example, that some people can taste food when reading a menu, or have a conversation with a deceased loved one and actually hear their voice. One of his prompts is whether guests can place themselves inside a photo of a carnival (which he provides); many say they can smell the cotton candy or hear the chatter of the crowd.
It’s striking how little we really know about the variety of inner sensory experiences: Discovering Your Mind – Aphantasia and Beyond https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/discovering-your-mind-...
A favorite research paper compares brain activity in identical twin sisters, only one of whom is aphantasic: The Neural Underpinnings of Aphantasia: A Case Study of Identical Twins https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.23.614521v2
Shane Williams (an aphant) hosts a podcast where he interviews people using a set of questions designed to probe their inner sensory world. From it I’ve learned, for example, that some people can taste food when reading a menu, or have a conversation with a deceased loved one and actually hear their voice. One of his prompts is whether guests can place themselves inside a photo of a carnival (which he provides); many say they can smell the cotton candy or hear the chatter of the crowd.
It’s striking how little we really know about the variety of inner sensory experiences: Discovering Your Mind – Aphantasia and Beyond https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/discovering-your-mind-...
A favorite research paper compares brain activity in identical twin sisters, only one of whom is aphantasic: The Neural Underpinnings of Aphantasia: A Case Study of Identical Twins https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.23.614521v2
Interesting. I'm somewhere on the aphantasia spectrum, but I very rarely have vivid dreams. Most dreams I would describe it almost like remembering an audiobook instead of a movie.
But I do occasionally have a vivid dream, and though I can't be certain I could swear that I remember more vivid dreams as a child/early adolescent. But by the time I was entering college I rarely remember my dreams and the ones I do remember are like those I described above with little visualization.
It's really interesting to hear about how others perceive these sensory experiences.
But I do occasionally have a vivid dream, and though I can't be certain I could swear that I remember more vivid dreams as a child/early adolescent. But by the time I was entering college I rarely remember my dreams and the ones I do remember are like those I described above with little visualization.
It's really interesting to hear about how others perceive these sensory experiences.
Yes, I also see images while dreaming.
I've also once seen super-vivid (far higher fidelity than dreaming) images, while lucid during meditation, and able to "look around", so I don't think we can't (or at least not universally so) - but I've not managed to find a way back to that experience even years later.
I've also once seen super-vivid (far higher fidelity than dreaming) images, while lucid during meditation, and able to "look around", so I don't think we can't (or at least not universally so) - but I've not managed to find a way back to that experience even years later.
On the graph for aphantasia where it's words. I certainly dont imagine words. If I were to stretch the truth about seeing an apple, I maybe see an outline. Certainly no detail inside, like the relfection of light off the apple.
Psychedelics, like mushrooms, do nothing for me. Mushrooms, I've never had a high better than say a light buzz from alcohol, generally nothing. I never get the wavvy or beer goggles from alcohol. I could be absolutely smashed, drink a micky in a couple hours and still pass a field sobriety test; and im a cheap drunk. THC doesnt do much of anything. Opiates take alot; any amount of morphine and nothing. Still feel the pain. One time I had Dilaudid. That helped with the surgical pain maybe 50%; from intolerable to tolerable. Nothing though, no hallucinations or anything. Maybe at some peak I was feeling a wierd flush or wave feeling in my body but nothing significant.
Psychedelics, like mushrooms, do nothing for me. Mushrooms, I've never had a high better than say a light buzz from alcohol, generally nothing. I never get the wavvy or beer goggles from alcohol. I could be absolutely smashed, drink a micky in a couple hours and still pass a field sobriety test; and im a cheap drunk. THC doesnt do much of anything. Opiates take alot; any amount of morphine and nothing. Still feel the pain. One time I had Dilaudid. That helped with the surgical pain maybe 50%; from intolerable to tolerable. Nothing though, no hallucinations or anything. Maybe at some peak I was feeling a wierd flush or wave feeling in my body but nothing significant.
I interpreted it as more of "concepts" and not the word floating in space. That's closer to how I would describe my experience. With effort I can kinda force a static visualization but for lack of a better explanation it feels almost like a wireframe pre-render. Sounds similar to how you describe it.
Dreaming feel reminiscent to what an Audiobook feels like when thinking about the dream after waking up.
Dreaming feel reminiscent to what an Audiobook feels like when thinking about the dream after waking up.
i have aphantasia and extensive experience with psychedelics
for me, as long as my consciousness is still in control, i have no closed-eye visuals akin to what others see. the more i lose control/consciousness, the more visuals i get but only over a certain (high) threshold.
dmt is the only substance that consistently gives me visuals but only at close to breakthrough dosages where i effectively lose consiousness. and they are never "things", they are always the known patterns, ie just raw signals and nothing meaningful - but my mind interprets them in whatever it thinks sensible.
otherwise i hallucinate like i dream or think - in an abstract, non visual way, the only thing i "see" are white flashes in nothingness
for me, as long as my consciousness is still in control, i have no closed-eye visuals akin to what others see. the more i lose control/consciousness, the more visuals i get but only over a certain (high) threshold.
dmt is the only substance that consistently gives me visuals but only at close to breakthrough dosages where i effectively lose consiousness. and they are never "things", they are always the known patterns, ie just raw signals and nothing meaningful - but my mind interprets them in whatever it thinks sensible.
otherwise i hallucinate like i dream or think - in an abstract, non visual way, the only thing i "see" are white flashes in nothingness
Curious - do people see a picture perfect apple when they close their eyes?
If you ask me to imagine a red apple, i can, but i have the image somewhere other than my actual vision... If i close my eyes I can't manipulate that space to show the apple.
If you ask me to imagine a red apple, i can, but i have the image somewhere other than my actual vision... If i close my eyes I can't manipulate that space to show the apple.
There is a very huge spectrum of answers for this, ranging from complete inability to picture literally anything to being able to visualize it with greater clarity than their actual eye-balls.
That’s similar to my experience.
Apparently it is possible, at least for some people, to "cure" aphantasia with a training technique is called "image streaming." I'm on the aphantasia side of the spectrum, and it has certainly help me see more vidid images in my mind's eye. Here is a link to the article where I learned about it, which also includes a video explaining the technique.
https://photographyinsider.info/image-streaming-for-photogra...
Rubbing your eyes thins their keratocyte layer and is a risk factor for eye deformation and damage: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6848869/
I have no idea if the technique you linked works, but anyone stumbling across this should be aware that it has very real and potentially serious risks - if rubbing them at all increases your odds of keratoconus, just think what 10min/day for months will do.
I have no idea if the technique you linked works, but anyone stumbling across this should be aware that it has very real and potentially serious risks - if rubbing them at all increases your odds of keratoconus, just think what 10min/day for months will do.
You rub your eyes for a few seconds, not 10 minutes. Read the first Q in the FAQ.
I have aphantasia and have been practicing meditation with the goal of improving the condition for a couple years. I have seen some minor improvements - when I'm in a pretty relaxed state I can see some visuals, but am not able to control the stream of images.
I haven't been working on this quite as much recently since there seems to be a connection with the meditation causing an ocular migraine with aura.
I haven't been working on this quite as much recently since there seems to be a connection with the meditation causing an ocular migraine with aura.
The more I read about aphantasia, the more I'm convinced half the people who claim to have it are simply of the anxious persuasion. The language used to describe imagination, or the perceived lack thereof, is pretty conducive to fostering doubt and confusion.
I wonder if schizophrenia is not partially disregulated phantasia. Or at least one of the symptoms.
I feel like there's more to aphantasia than just "can you see the apple or not?". I can't for the life of me imagine an apple. At best, I get a very faint and dark picture of something resembling the fruit. Plus, there's one on the desk right next to me, so I shouldn't have too much trouble with the assignment, but here we are.
On the other hand, I have a pretty good memory (compared to my peers) and I can recall vivid (at least to me) images of the past. For example, I can still picture a scene of me and my dad picking apples in my grandparents' garden years ago, just after my grandmother passed away. I recall the cold November weather, the grey sky, the felled apples laying on the ground, some rotten. I can still remember what I was wearing that day. Similarly, I do dream a lot, most often accompanied with clear images of places and people, fictional or not. Even though I am utterly incapable of drawing these memories and dreams (I tried), I would still qualify these things as "image", and I can't fathom them being any clearer.
Am I just misunderstanding the exercise or is there something here?
On the other hand, I have a pretty good memory (compared to my peers) and I can recall vivid (at least to me) images of the past. For example, I can still picture a scene of me and my dad picking apples in my grandparents' garden years ago, just after my grandmother passed away. I recall the cold November weather, the grey sky, the felled apples laying on the ground, some rotten. I can still remember what I was wearing that day. Similarly, I do dream a lot, most often accompanied with clear images of places and people, fictional or not. Even though I am utterly incapable of drawing these memories and dreams (I tried), I would still qualify these things as "image", and I can't fathom them being any clearer.
Am I just misunderstanding the exercise or is there something here?
I think I have a similar experience. I can remember scenes to some degree and my dreams are extremely vivid. I wish I could `see` in my mind like I do when I dream. But I don't think I can imagine an image very well. I certainly can't close my eyes and `see` it and I find it hard to believe that others can.
> I feel like there's more to aphantasia than just "can you see the apple or not?".
There is. I think the definition is still being worked on. Here is an overview, but I don't see your particular case: https://aphantasia.com/article/science/aphantasia-definition...
Since you can recall scenes you saw, it might not be Aphantasia. Not being able to create visuals of random stuff might be called differently.
There is. I think the definition is still being worked on. Here is an overview, but I don't see your particular case: https://aphantasia.com/article/science/aphantasia-definition...
Since you can recall scenes you saw, it might not be Aphantasia. Not being able to create visuals of random stuff might be called differently.
There is a simple (unofficial?) test for aphantasia, and I have tried it on many of my peers, it seems to be accurate.
_Close your eyes and ask someone else to read the instructions for you. If you really want to take it stop reading here._
.
.
.
Imagine a room with a table in it. Someone comes in, puts a ball on the table and the ball falls down from the table.
- What age was the person that came in?
- What hairstyle did they have?
- What was that person wearing?
- How big was the table? Describe how it looked like.
- What color was the ball?
... and similar questions.
In my experience, people with aphantasia will say "I don't know" or "I didn't pay attention" to almost all of these questions. For me personally, everything is "blank." There was no ball to see there, and the person did not have a face. I just experience "feelings" or "sensations" of the scenario, like in the matrix movie. At most some wire frames. Most other people would say, for example, there was a big brown table with metallic legs in the middle of the room, and the person that came in had a blue T-shirt.
_Close your eyes and ask someone else to read the instructions for you. If you really want to take it stop reading here._
.
.
.
Imagine a room with a table in it. Someone comes in, puts a ball on the table and the ball falls down from the table.
- What age was the person that came in?
- What hairstyle did they have?
- What was that person wearing?
- How big was the table? Describe how it looked like.
- What color was the ball?
... and similar questions.
In my experience, people with aphantasia will say "I don't know" or "I didn't pay attention" to almost all of these questions. For me personally, everything is "blank." There was no ball to see there, and the person did not have a face. I just experience "feelings" or "sensations" of the scenario, like in the matrix movie. At most some wire frames. Most other people would say, for example, there was a big brown table with metallic legs in the middle of the room, and the person that came in had a blue T-shirt.
Another thing is this effect: https://cognitivewonderland.substack.com/p/meta-knowledge-an...
People will claim a lot of things but if there is no external "ground truth" to test against, people tend to overclaim. They will tell you they can imagine a penny or the apple logo or whatever it is, but then fail these objective tests.
If you can pass or fail the aphantasia test simply by saying words that are up to introspection, it won't be a useful test. Most people under most circumstances simply say what their concept of a normal person is supposed to say.
People will claim a lot of things but if there is no external "ground truth" to test against, people tend to overclaim. They will tell you they can imagine a penny or the apple logo or whatever it is, but then fail these objective tests.
If you can pass or fail the aphantasia test simply by saying words that are up to introspection, it won't be a useful test. Most people under most circumstances simply say what their concept of a normal person is supposed to say.
> Most other people would say, for example, there was a big brown table with metallic legs in the middle of the room, and the person that came in had a blue T-shirt.
I would only take that seriously from thoughful, detail-oriented, intelligent people who have demonstrated critical introspection abilities before. Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc. People often swear up and down in witness testimonies about what they saw and it just turns out to be complete post-hoc fabrication of their mind, even if it seems true to them. Similarly I think they post-hoc think it was a big brown table but this is like a language model completing the sentence.
It's been shown how in split brain patients the language center of the brain can make up totally unsupported justifications for actions that "explain" its experience, fully unrelated to what actually happened.
I would only take that seriously from thoughful, detail-oriented, intelligent people who have demonstrated critical introspection abilities before. Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc. People often swear up and down in witness testimonies about what they saw and it just turns out to be complete post-hoc fabrication of their mind, even if it seems true to them. Similarly I think they post-hoc think it was a big brown table but this is like a language model completing the sentence.
It's been shown how in split brain patients the language center of the brain can make up totally unsupported justifications for actions that "explain" its experience, fully unrelated to what actually happened.
> Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc.
You are right, in that this test might not live up to the highest of standards. But then there are variations in the details. For example one of my friends who happened to be a soccer player said more details about the ball. Other people described familiar objects such as their own kitchen table. You can also tell if someone is starting to think about the answers vs. when they are recalling from memory.
Overall, this method is often (IMO) a better indicator than the typical "apple test" as the context is more natural. Anecdotally the difference between the aphantasia group (incl. those who didn't know this condition existed) and the average response is just too large to ignore.
You are right, in that this test might not live up to the highest of standards. But then there are variations in the details. For example one of my friends who happened to be a soccer player said more details about the ball. Other people described familiar objects such as their own kitchen table. You can also tell if someone is starting to think about the answers vs. when they are recalling from memory.
Overall, this method is often (IMO) a better indicator than the typical "apple test" as the context is more natural. Anecdotally the difference between the aphantasia group (incl. those who didn't know this condition existed) and the average response is just too large to ignore.
I'm not so sure. People also describe their visual experience such as if it was camera-like. A rectangle window out of their ead with colors, like a photo/painting.
Perception and experience are very hard to describe. We constantly automatically fill in things that weren't observed or explicitly imagined. It requires conscious effort to notice how foveation and saccades work, the blind spot, the less vivid color perception the further we are from the center etc.
Perception and experience are very hard to describe. We constantly automatically fill in things that weren't observed or explicitly imagined. It requires conscious effort to notice how foveation and saccades work, the blind spot, the less vivid color perception the further we are from the center etc.
I'm not sure that these types of questions necessarily capture the different levels of what people might "see," though. I couldn't tell you the age or even face of the person I imagined, but I can say with confidence that they were male; I also didn't imagine the table in much fidelity, but I very clearly pictured the person approaching the table from my right side (his left side) and that when the ball fell, it rolled towards me.
[deleted]
I can give you a quick and infallible test, but it has to be done live. How do I reach out?