Hacker News Reader

None of those three seem to fit my experience of visualising things. I can conjure the image of a triangle in my mind with my eyes open without any difficulty, I can move it around, I can change its colour, I can make it shrink and grow; but it's not superimposed on what I'm looking at. It's as if I had a second pair of eyes looking at a scene entirely controlled my my imagination.

Isn't that what the "mind's eye" is?

My experience is very similar to yours

The interpretation of "superimposed" is important here. It doesn't mean that the imaginary image and the real image are merged like titles composited onto a TV screen.

Reading your other comment, I think I sort of agree with it.

I can look at a sheet of paper and imagine something on it, and then draw that (if it's simple enough), but my ability to visualise something precisely enough to draw it rapidly degrades as the image gets more complex.

On the other hand, if I'm not intentionally projecting the image onto something, my visual imagination doesn't occupy the same space as my visual field at all. If anything it's "above" or maybe "inside" my head. I can then visualise an almost arbitrarily complex image, but if I try to focus on the details they shift: I'm "seeing" the whole but not the parts.

I love hearing how other people's imagination functions.

Your experience sounds similar to mine, but I feel like there's two distinct levels to the mind's eye.

There's the level you describe, where it doesn't feel like you're seeing through your real eyes but I find it's also possible to have images that feel very much like they're coming in through your eyes – almost as if there's a tap on the optic nerve.

For me these images are for the most part only visible with my eyes closed and most visible when falling asleep. I also cannot precisely control them in the same way I can instantly imagine a shape, instead I have to influence them indirectly bit by bit with lots of effort (but I usually get there – I'm practising to see if it can become easier). These images can be much more vivid, they're usually in full color and animated, but with a small field of view. It looks a bit like having a small CRT-style color TV at the center of my vision and it feels like watching a dream while you're awake.

To go into more detail on the process: when I close my eyes I don't see black but a sort of vague mix of colored blobs, a little bit like this but darker [0]. As I start to think, I pick out patterns in the blobs that look like the thing I'm trying to imaging, until eventually they sort of become full images that evolve on their own. They become vivid enough that I feel like the muscles in my eyes are straining to try to focus on them. It's not that dissimilar to those deep-dream images (but much less creepy!).

Is this something that happens for you too?

[0] https://image.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/colored-no...

I can also attest to this two-level phenomenon.

> These images can be much more vivid, they're usually in full color and animated, but with a small field of view. It looks a bit like having a small CRT-style color TV at the center of my vision and it feels like watching a dream while you're awake.

This almost exactly. I have experienced this a handful of times on waking. A stream of photoreal content, in a small round field of view in the center of my vision. The images often have fewer colors than real life, and some kind of artifact not unlike "scanlines" from a CRT. So far, they're also distinctly 2D. It's like watching broadcast from the part of my brain that's still dreaming, through my eyes. It's what I expect retinal projection looks like.

As opposed to the "back buffer" of normal visualization or daydreaming, there are separate "front buffer" phenomenon that are as close to hallucinations as I've ever experienced. If they happened at any time other than waking or falling asleep, I would drive myself straight to the ER.

To be honest I'm really surprised about this as well, like you I have no trouble imagining a triangle, changing it's form even having it animate to a different shape, multiply etc..

I always thought everyone could do this. It makes me realize how far we are from grasping the true depth our brain abilities.

This is also why creating a true is very far. We must first understand, then replicate.

I don't think the definition of "bring up the image" is clear here. I can sort of do the 3rd thing, but I certainly couldn't draw a projected outline of that mental image.

Am I supposed to literally see a triangle? I can't do that. As far as I can tell, I'm "imagining it." The triangle doesn't interfere with anything I see, it's not really anchored to anything visual, and, while I can alter it, the triangle is not specific. It's a fairly ephemeral imagination or idea that I can conjure up. Most importantly, I'm not "seeing it," I'm "picturing it" or "imagining it"

Wait, I can't believe that I am a "rare individual" who can visually imagine things. Is visual imagination really not a wide spread ability among the population at large? I would think that it is the opposite. That aphantasia would be rare.

I found that surprising too. I picture things in a space that's not even here. Where does that fit in?

Here's the book that the quote is apparently from: https://books.google.com/books?id=dZyPAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA52&ots=...

I'm like you, which I had assumed is the norm: I can visualize things, but that "visualization space" is completely separate from my normal vision. When I'm imaging an image (or, more often, a short "clip" of something) I can't also focus my attention on what's in front of me at the same time.

You put it into words better than I could. That's the exact same for me.

Yes, that's the source, sorry.

Math, CS, physics and engineering tend to attract people with visual/spatial aptitude. This may be because sighted people first encounter the subject matter of those disciplines through their visual perception. Whatever the explanation is, HN readers are likely to be an atypical population.

My interpretation of the "superimposed" comment is that we are not talking about images appearing as if literally overlaid on what we are seeing. What people experience is that an object that they are visualizing seems to be spatially located in the same place as their visual field—hence Elmer Sperry's comment that he could just "draw around it". Would you agree that your visual imagination and your visual field occupy the same space "in front of" your head?

If it's any help, what I'm trying to say about the relationship between real and imaginary is close to the mathematical idea of a covering space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering_space

The "rare" part is referring to the ability to keep a coherent visualization in focus while also paying attention to real stuff.

I can see a ball of plasticine revolving, changing shape and shaping colour at the same time very strongly with my eyes open, I can move it around the room, bounce it on my hand etc., yet I still can’t draw for shit. I can’t even draw the legs on a side view of a four-legged animal without it having three left legs, so I agree with the premise of the OP and don’t feel like artistic ability is really linked to this.

I can "draw" the triangle in my mind, as you would with fingers in the air: I know the shape it would have made if I drew it on paper, but when drawing with my fingers in the air, my fingers leave no trail, and that's the same in my mind if I try to "project" something mentally.

I can draw a world map from memory with well above average accuracy, but I can't picture it even if I mentally trace the outline I would put on paper.

That's a really interesting insight. I fall into the third category, I was not very academic in school and it wasn't until University when I really understood that I learn best by visualisation, by doing and or experiencing something.

As far as drawing bodies from memory, it should be noted that Davinci was an art apprentice that would spend weeks just on the thumb, drawing it from different angles. At the end of that kind of intensive training, I imagine (hardy-har-har) that being able to draw the body from memory would come as naturally as the skills professional athletes develop.