Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 12:29:33 UTC No. 16200679

>>16200670
I am convinced that this is less about the ability to visualise images and more just regular low IQ individuals not understanding the abstraction posed with the question. I have a feeling that they don't lack the ability, just that they are too stupid to understand it doesn't mean "a literal image projected on the inside of your eyelids"

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:14:38 UTC No. 16200809

>>16200679
yeah

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:16:43 UTC No. 16200811

>>16200670
When I do this I just picture an apple I've picked up in the past. Is that a 1 or is it just cheating?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:17:30 UTC No. 16200813

>>16200679
It does mean that actually.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:20:37 UTC No. 16200814

>>16200813
No it doesn't. We all know what image visualisation means, and it's not the same as literal images being protected onto the back of your eyelids like a TV. That is more like those "stare at this image and then close your eyes" optical illusions. The visualisation is in the "minds eye".

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:28:31 UTC No. 16200824

>>16200814
Yeah well that's what some people claim that they do. So if you don't then you're nothing more than a hairy banana eater I guess.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:31:37 UTC No. 16200829

>>16200824
They are stupid as well

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:36:46 UTC No. 16200835

>>16200829
>"They is just dumb"
>Anon wins the nobel science prize

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:39:28 UTC No. 16200837

>>16200835
I am rotating the medallion in my MINDS EYE as we speak (note: not the back of my eyelids)

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:49:29 UTC No. 16200844

>>16200679
abstraction is a cultural affectation. it comes from representative art, the renaissance in particular. cultures which have symbolic or geometric art only do not have the linguistic equipment for abstraction and also cannot think in generalities, they have a "how does that apply to me?" mentality that is ingrained and leads a collectivist approach to civilization because anything else would be unthinkable to them, because they are inherently unstable individually and perceive all others likewise, because of the aforementioned "memememe" attitude.

>what do you mean there isn't a massive state to punish maladaptive behavior everyone would just kill each other and steal, are you a retard anon, do you want to live in total anarchy?

what representative art does is it creates aspirational qualities in the perceiver of the art, which leads to appreciation of beauty and nature for its own sake and not from what it can give you, and typically a seeking or yearning for something more eg. an elevation of the self.

when a rich arab sees a beautiful painting it's beauty to him is in the value of the painting because if he owns something worth 100 million he can show off to his other arabs. he doesn't carry the painting inside his mind, it's simply an object that elevates his status. that wasn't the point of the painting, its point was to make you marvel at the skill of the artist in capturing a slice of reality or divinity, and then to aspire to build or make beautiful things and learn the complex processes involved in advancing this.

zoomers grew up with little representational art, they grew up with reality digitized through a screen. a painting of a drunk vagrant accosting people on a busy morning in a city market as shop owners set up their stalls and watch on bemused as children play with a dog and women fill buckets from a nearby well can be illuminating into the human condition and expand the mind. a photo of a video of the same thing is vulgar

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 15:11:04 UTC No. 16200873

One thing that I find strange is that while I can generate more or less any picture I want in my head, I find it hard to recreate the faces of people I know with accuracy.
I can do this unconsciously in dreams and obviously I very easily recognise people in real life, but consciously visualising someone's face is very difficult.
Funnily enough I can very easily recreate people's voices in my head but not their faces.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:01:09 UTC No. 16200947

>>16200679
It's nonsense, research about this shows people who were 5 became 1 with minutes of coaching. People are just too retarded to understand simple questions. It's the same reason why Dunning-Kruger effect is not a thing. Other research of this phenomenon show no such effect especially when reward is given for correctly estimating own's abilities.
It honestly baffles me the benefit of the doubt some researchers give to people in these studies. Retard bias is real and many people lie or (more likely) misunderstand the question. Doctors deal with patients that lie and overexaggerate daily but suddenly during research all subjects are 100% truthful.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:26:58 UTC No. 16200997

>>16200670
What the fuck is anaduralia?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 17:10:25 UTC No. 16201048

>>16200997
It's what you have.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 17:33:11 UTC No. 16201072

>>16200670
Maybe they confused on the question. Maybe they think to be a one on that scale you have actively hallucinate the object rather just thinking about the object in a 3d space.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 19:45:13 UTC No. 16201252

>>16201048
What I have is autism.
Also OP is a dyslexic faggot. The word is "anauralia".

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 19:48:56 UTC No. 16201257

>>16201252
You don't have autism.
You just proved it.
Don't let the retards lable you "retard-lite".

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:32:21 UTC No. 16201315

>>16200670
>>16201252
>anauralia
Just looked up that and I must have the opposite of it. At the worst I can have a song stuck in my head all day and all night, when I'm sleeping. 24/7. I think I woke up more tired after hearing that song all night.
If you're feeling adventurous I think the last song it happened to was the Astor Piazzolla history of tango, and especially with all the different instruments used to cover it on YouTube. Let me know if it happens to you too.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:20:02 UTC No. 16201552

>>16200679
I can project an image with my eyes closed. I can even smell it and feel its texture

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:39:49 UTC No. 16201573

>>16200670
I tried doing this but the first time the apple disappeared and Miku popped up instead. The second time I could only visualize half an apple core. How do I fix this?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:55:13 UTC No. 16201599

>>16200670
>seven (7) Twitter users are the entire "zoomer" demographic
No, anon.
Also, a lack of an inner monologue isn't that odd. I don't have an inner monologue, but that's not because I *can't* think in words. It just slows down my thinking process. I think more in abstract concepts. It's more like, instead of thinking a whole sentence, i can skip the sentence part and just think with the idea that the sentence conveys.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:24:20 UTC No. 16201641

>>16201552
We all can. Many don't even have to close their eyes. Look at a real, physical object in front of you. Now close your eyes and visualize the same object. Though you can accurately depict it, it's NOT the same experience in perception. It's in your "minds eye". The brain does actually trigger a similar circuit to your visual one when doing this. That is, we can evoke a "simulation" of the visual circuitry if it were to see an apple, but it does not trigger other circuitry. You are not SEEING a projection of the apple on the back of your eyelids, you are SIMULATING an image of the apple. This is the minds eye.

The best concession for "back of eyelids projection" I can give is REM sleep or deep meditation, but that involves whole other processes. Otherwise it's people not understanding the question or not grasping the concept of abstraction. It's concerning to me that this question/topic seems to cause some kind of cognitive overload for so many people.

Question: Can you visualize an apple?

>Group 1: No, I can't see anything.
>Group 2: Yes, I can see it as if it were REALLY there!
>Group 3: Yes, it in my minds eye.

Group 3 is the only correct one.

Group 1 can't understand abstraction and does not understand what "visualize" means. They think you are asking "can you LITERALLY see the apple?". They don't understand you abstracting the concept of the "minds eye". I think this is just caused by low IQ or something.

Group 2 can understand the abstraction in the question, but don't seem to have the cognitive ability to tell "where" the simulated image is. They think this means they have ubermensch visualization ability but it's just a poor understanding of their own perception.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:47:19 UTC No. 16201658

>>16200679
>>16200829
>>16201641
>I am convinced that this is less about the ability to visualize images and more just regular low IQ individuals not understanding the abstraction posed with the question
Every thread someone says this, and doesn't understand they are wrong. People who are aphantasiatic clearly describe the complete lack of visual content, even in weak or vague form, and in contrast make it clear that they can only conceptually imagine things, i.e. they can't even *remember* images and only "know that they did x". They can't contemplate the image of a beautiful woman, they can only conceptualize that they can judge a girl to be attractive, which they can't get off too. The studies that have been done one these people clearly show different brain patterns when 'imagining', with a lack of visual activity corresponding to aphantasia.

You people are retards who have to think yourself more clever than others via your extreme skepticism, even when evidence is there. These people aren't fucking stupid and are clear about what they mean. People think in completely different ways and have different capacities. Whether these people could "learn to imagine" is another thing, but for whatever reason they just don't.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:16:11 UTC No. 16201690

>>16201658
>If an extremely small subset of people legitimately can't visualize things due to aphantasia, it must mean that low IQ people who don't understand abstraction don't exist!

And everyone who has had extended focus issues must have ADHD - right? Are you really going to trust the visualization testimony of someone who struggles with the "How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?" question? Abstraction is simply a foreign concept to a sizeable portion of the population. You are conflating real data with the musings of retards who don't possess a high mental capacity to extrapolate meaning from abstraction. The ability to reason (an abstract concept in itself) is literally what IQ measures. They cannot reason what you mean, so their default position is that they must not possess the ability you're describing.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:19:08 UTC No. 16201692

>>16201599
This is like the guy suffering from aphantasia saying he doesn't waste time seeing the apple.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:23:36 UTC No. 16201699

>>16200679
There are low IQ people who can't remember more than 4 digits. If you try to tell them a seven digit phone number they can't remember it. Visualizing an apple probably requires more working memory capacity than memorizing a phone number, so yeah, there are low IQ people out there who literally cannot visualize simple objects. People are dumb as hell.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:33:58 UTC No. 16201720

>>16201692
>This is like the guy suffering from aphantasia saying he doesn't waste time seeing the apple.
This is a great line.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:34:07 UTC No. 16201721

>Aphantasia thread

I don't agree that it's "not real". But I have seen that there are a lot of people out there that somehow got the idea that it's "normal" to be able to fully see imagined objects, just like they're real, and anything else is "aphantasia". It's really, truly not.

Please, PLEASE try understanding how light works sometime.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:35:29 UTC No. 16201724

>>16201692
>>16201720
Reminds me of split brains and corpus callosum damage.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:37:02 UTC No. 16201728

>>16201721
What's this picture about?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:39:45 UTC No. 16201730

>>16201699
Everyone who memorizes long chains of numbers uses image encoding. In general, random string memorization is much more difficult than an image. This has to do with letters typically being small and lots of replacement effect. Many mnemonic methods rest on the simplicity of visual memory.
Look at a string of any length. Not all of the similarities between the different elements. It would be very easy to mistakenly encode this. What the mind naturally does is tune out the memorizing feature because it is an extreme burden. There might be some way to train reading to restore the memorizing feature, and some have posited ideas here over time.
>flash memory using dark room and a flashlight
>repetitive reading, read entire page until you get to a word you dont remember and start over from the beginning of a page
Memorization of text is a generally a stupid pursuit. Textbooks are the worst kind of text to even be reading. Instead, most of the focus on memory has been on breaking test into concepts and memorizing those. Anki is one universally recommended route. Where memorization of text shines is poetry, speech, and acting.

Some forms of eidetic memory is the legendary case of people that can encode arbitrary characters, but most cases involve longterm memory of other things, like conversations and foods going back decades.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:41:07 UTC No. 16201734

>>16201728
Math is so beautiful… like crystal…

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:42:57 UTC No. 16201738

>>16201730
Brah, are you saying that those synesthesiacs who can count a gazillion digits of pi aren't actually counting but are just calculating whatever the next base 10 decimal integer is by moving through the z axis of some planar image?
Amazin'!

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:54:45 UTC No. 16201753

>>16201315
Babyshark was a biowarfare experiment and no one can convince me otherwise.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:58:09 UTC No. 16201758

>>16201738
>calculating
Found the mistake. Most arithmetic magic you see is pure memorization as well. In general, you need to memorize squares from 1-100 and then perform differential manipulation.
This is also one of the weird cases where visual memory hypothetically offers a better alternative, because like an accountant with an abbacus, you could just encode a damn slide rule to some arbitrary degree.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 01:24:54 UTC No. 16201794

>>16201641
No, you don't understand. What makes you so sure that it's impossible and nobody can do it? Just because you can't?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 01:25:38 UTC No. 16201795

>>16201072
If you are just 'thinking' and not 'seeing' the object, you are a 1. If you confuse imagination with hallucination, this might be a sign that you lack an imagination, or just the ability to express your thoughts to others in a precise and accurate way.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 01:28:23 UTC No. 16201801

>>16201690
>it must mean that low IQ people who don't understand abstraction don't exist!
Why the fuck are you now claiming things I've never said? You've gone from being sure that everyone was mistaken, to conceding that some people really aren't, yet are now trying to claim I'm wrong because you're making out like I think that nobody could possibly have mistaken ideas about this, and making out like it must be so rare that it's a default non issue. You're a dishonest piece of shit who has to get the last word in and be right somehow. Tame your ego.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 01:29:19 UTC No. 16201802

>>16200670
>is it true all zoomers suffer from aphantasia and anaduralia?
Everyone on the left does.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 01:50:21 UTC No. 16201820

>>16201795
Are there resources on the topic of distinguishing between imagination and hallucination? I can point to differences on the visual and aural imagination and hallucinations, but do you know of any work where someone has analyzed this concept?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:18:58 UTC No. 16201842

When I went full schizo and made a tulpa, (picrel) I got auditory hallucinations that made it nearly impossible for me to tell what sounds were real and what weren't. they're at a completely different level than just having music stuck in your head. I'd imagine that the only way to spawn something like an apple in the "real world" plane (as opposed to the mind's eye plane) is to literally go full schizo

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:21:05 UTC No. 16201844

>>16201801
>"I'm going to be an obtuse and pretend like we can't talk about generalizations when very rare exceptions exist"
>Calls others dishonest

Stop being a dumb fuck. Are you really implying that EVERY single zoomer on the internet who claims NO visualization is actually afflicted by aphantasia? Are you also implying that there aren't people who misinterpret the question due to not being able to understand the abstract nature of it?

You're just another midwit redditor who thinks there is profundity in pointing out rare exceptions to a generally accepted truth and that it somehow negates the entire discussion. Go look at the actual percentages of people with "no image" aphantasia.

Imagine a world where we can say "fat people consume too many calories" and not having some mouth breather leap to attention to tell me about hypothyroidism. The irony of your whole post is that generalizations are an abstract concept, and one that you're clearly struggling with. I hope your IQ is at least high enough to be able to conclude what that means for you.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:30:06 UTC No. 16201855

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od-tfL8u_aQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelvic_splanchnic_nerves
Direct stimulation of the vestibular cortex.
>Proprioception is the sense of body awareness, or "sixth sense," that allows us to sense our body's position in space, movement, and force.
Proprioception is the sense of body awareness, or "sixth sense," that allows us to sense our body's position in space, movement, and force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqkxyz3mh5Q
Normies can't imagine flying alongside by a bike at that speed.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:31:25 UTC No. 16201856

>>16201820
The difference between the two concepts is in their definitions. Imagination is a discipline or practice that one must actively partake in, whereas an hallucination is something passive that occurs to a person without any effort and in some case without their even being aware that they are hallucinating (see deleriants). This contrast is the same as the difference between listening and hearing, one is active the other passive. So the difference is one of semantics. That is the sense in which, I imagine, the original poster was referring to it and so that us how i formulated my reply. If you are looking for actual neuroscientific research on this topic, I doubt anything substantial exists.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:36:28 UTC No. 16201860

>Zoomers are X
You do realize it's a repeat of "Millenials killed X"?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:49:29 UTC No. 16201873

>>16201844
>Are you really implying that EVERY single zoomer on the internet who claims NO visualization is actually afflicted by aphantasia?
No. I explicitly said I DON'T think this. That was my whole bloody point in the previous post. You are an illiterate fucktard with a stick up your ass.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 03:00:47 UTC No. 16201879

>>16201842
I am pretty sure most have a squared off space for visually working on things. My case is something like a monitor. I bet a lot of people have chalkboards / whiteboards. So this object is what we look at, which is in parallel with the real. And this is what we imagine on.
uhm.. I can project line-like objects into the real. Something like the plane cut by where my focus cuts. I haven't really thought about projecting into it like that before. I think it can be done in steps probably.
I remember looking at a chain link fence ~ 5 ft away and about 20 ft in the back drop was a plain manila color. Each of the different link cells had a different pastel color mirage. I was able to change those colors.
I am thinking the way forward would be to start with a monotone color surface and project the imagination board onto that. It might be the intuitive way to being overwriting sensory data.
Maybe we don't do it because there is no point to really bring it into space like that and it doesn't seem as easy. Can anyone think of a use case?
For example, If I am tearing equipment apart, I think of it from different views in my imagination, would there be an advantage if I could bring that out into 3 space? I am not exactly sure. Maybe measurements? Shooting guns? Art maybe?
On second thought, I am not sure this is a good avenue to go down. I was thinking about the effect of shrooms and such where people do see vivid lines and patterns, probably related to some neurological thing. Hacking this open may not lead to a desirable outcome. Log your story if you go down this road. The standard schizo break is seeing cracks when looking at the ceiling.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 03:28:48 UTC No. 16201911

>>16201873
So as I said, you were just raising the rare exception for your own intellectual masturbation and didn't have anything to actually contribute. You fundamentally agree with the point, but decided to latch onto pretending we weren't talking about the average person in the general sense (or zoomers, as raised in the OP's post). You have low IQ if you didn't realize you were doing this, and dishonest if you did.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 03:46:02 UTC No. 16201943

>>16201911
No you stupid fuck. I know people who actually have aphantasia. It's not a stupid crazy rare thing, and even if only a minority of people can't imagine shit, it's useful to know that it's a real phenomena, as opposed to letting people act like it couldn't be real and everyone is just bullshitting about it and just doesn't understand what they're on about. Like what is your problem? It's not like like saying "some people are trans, and therefore gender *isn't real*".

Like, even the people in the OP image are clearly describing 'actual' aphantasia, and not the "I can't spontaneously hallucinate" version you're claiming would be a common mistake. You specifically claim these people must be stupid, then are shown otherwise, and then hanker down onto the idea that you were only saying that some people would be confused, and act like we weren't rightfully shitting on you.

Good day to you.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 05:28:57 UTC No. 16202062

>>16201692
? I can think in words just fine. it's just not my natural state. Are you really incapable of thinking in concepts even a little bit? like, you're physically unable to think without talking in your head?