Aphantasiac here, happy to discuss or answer any questions
Edit: this comment is shadowbanned, apparently because of a keyword filter.
It's an interesting angle to investigate though. Eg is there a reliable or at least common connection between aphantasia and response to porn? Again speaking for myself as someone with pretty total aphantasia, visual porn does very little for me. I guess it did as a kid, but I think that was more about finding things out? Video can work, but only by communicating actions that appeal to me. Most of it seems almost entirely pointless; I had never considered the possibility that it's because vision isn't as connected to experience for me as much as it seems like it is for most other people? I guess I've just always imagined that other people were better at relating to the experience of the people in the images or videos.
If you think of a movie scene you've seen, what is that like? Can you recount what was in it, even if you can't "picture" it? Or does this also prevent you from recalling the details of the scene?
Wdym? I think that the inner monologue is "hearing it", with a varying degree of vividness between people, of course.
I don't know how much this style of thought came about because I really didn't enjoy constantly visualizing things and consistently fought against it; mainly due to the constant intrusive visual sequences of various types, of which I still have far too many for my taste. I use schematic and visual imaginations all the time, but I guess I feel safer using the monologue and so it has become the bulk of my thought. At the same time the fact that I have learned several languages and have had to consciously focus on language over the years undoubtedly plays a big part. I wonder how many polyglots who learned languages later in life use a similar monologic imagination style?
My monologue uses several languages... But my monologue has always been there, since years before I learnt my second language.
I can think about a song, think about the melody, lyrics, etc… but I don’t hear it. If I hear a couple notes that remind me of a song, I can go through the rest of the intro, get to where the lyrics start, and get to the chorus and remember the name of the song (if it doesn’t come to me instantly), but it’s nothing like playback. It’s more like my inner monologue doing a bad a cappella cover version.
I sometimes wonder if everyone is talking about the same thing, but using different language to describe it. Some being more vivid and metaphorical in their speech than others.
As someone who can hear music "on demand" in my head I can say that's not the case. I can hear the music with instruments and the original singer's voice. It's not as clear as listening to actual music, and in some cases it may be incomplete if I havent' listened to the song for a while, but it's definitely a playback.
As an example, right now I am thinking of The Trooper by Iron Maiden, and I can hear the drums, base, guitars and the lead singer's own voice. I can also separate the different instruments if I want to listen to just the guitar or the singer's voice because I know the song well. I can also change the lyrics or the guitar solo if I want.
It's the same as imagining an image. It is not a perfect reproduction of a "photo" that pops up in my mind, but it is still an image with colours, shapes and faces.
I understand where you are coming from, because you don't have the necessary context. When I read about people who "see" music in colours or smells, or even simple colour blindness, it is hard to imagine. But I still accept that it exists
A percussionist takes a day off and decides to see one of his orchestra's performances. The next day he's back and talking to one of the other percussionists. "How was it?" the other one asks.
"Unbelievable! You know the part where we go buhm buhm buhm buhm?"
"Yeah?"
"Well guess what the rest of the orchestra is doing?"
hums a spirited rendition of the William Tell Overture!
As for movie scenes, I rarely tend to remember specific scenes - I tend to remember concepts and dialogue - but when I do remember a scene, I can often describe it in detail, and I can sketch out scenes, be it from movies or real life, that I remember well with a lot of spatial detail.
I suspect I probably do remember less of visuals than people without aphantasia because I don't really get much value from it, but I definitely can.
I image a movie scene: There is a man sitting at a table in a cantina. He has dark hair, slightly rugged clothes. Standing next to his table is a little green alien that targets a blaster at him. The person is sitting low, at an angle that prevents the alien from seeing that he has drawn his own blaster below the table. I know all of this, but I have no visual image of it. If I had to draw what I see in my head it would be a blank piece of paper with arrows pointing at certain points, labeled with "Han", "Table" and "Greebo".
My inner dialogues almost always come with full fidelity, visual, audio, tactile, I can still smell the Marlboros on my dad's flannel even though he stopped smoking 20+ years ago.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I have achieved visualisation during meditation, once.
I also can visualise while dreaming.
I do not visualise while awake other than that one time.
The difference is extremely stark and very obvious.
But heck, if that's it then hail, brother.
It's what I used to think most of my life...
Note that some people who do picture things do visualise it so clearly that it is comparable to seeing, and that was my one singular experience with it as well, but that is the far other end of the scale. Most people will definitely be able to tell it apart from "actually" seeing, but it will be distinctly visual.
When I draw a comparison to dreaming it's about the images, not about being able to will it or dimiss it.
No wonder it feels it's hard to explain things to people a lot of the time...
Do these symptoms count?
Either way it seemed relevant enough to me that I vouched for it.
I think about the axis on which the fold is performed. Because of “square” and “diagonal”, for the two corners to touch, the fold axis must lie on both of the “other two corners”. A reflection about an axis does not change points on the axis, both points are unchanged, so their distance is also unchanged.
1) State the order of the surfaces it hits/passes through if you choose to cast it at a point where it passes through the maximum number of surfaces in the structure.
2) Is it possible to choose a different point where it would still pass through the cube but would pass through a different number of surfaces? (such as by missing the pyramid or sphere or both). State the distinct counts of how many surfaces it could pass through depending on where you cast it horizontally, like how many different counts exist. (Being tangent does not count as passing through a surface.)
I would answer this question by just picturing it and moving the ray around in my mind. How do you do it?
The pyramid can’t take up all the space inside the cube, only another cube could do that. So there must be some points that are “inside cube, outside pyramid” and other points “inside cube, inside pyramid”. The pyramid is given as wholly inside the cube so there are no “outside cube, inside pyramid” points. Same for sphere inside the pyramid. So it’s
{ out-cube | in-cube out-pyramid | in-cube in-pyramid out-sphere | in-cube in-pyramid in-sphere }
{ out-cube (=0) | in-cube(2) out-pyramid (=2) | in-cube(2) in-pyramid(2) out-sphere (=4) | in-cube(2) in-pyramid(2) in-sphere(2) (=6 }
2) Distinct, that’s `0 2 4 6`. `0` doesn’t count because we want “still passes through the cube”, so 3 counts exist. Thankful that “tangents don’t count” so I don’t have to think about them, because nothing immediately comes to mind on how to handle them.
It's a bit surprising to me that it was unclear what I meant by horizontal/level, I thought this word is well-known and easy to understand. Here's what I mean by horizontal: For me, it means that with respect to the ground, the ray isn't rising or falling as it travels, i.e. it's level (like a plane flying in level flight with respect to the ground, not rising or falling). This constraint doesn't really matter I guess, except that I said that the cube is also level on the ground on one of its surfaces, so since you have to cast the ray in a horizontal/level way, you can't cast the ray at an angle through one of the corners so it goes through the opposite corner of the cube, since - if you think of the ray like a plane - you can only move the angle of the ray side to side not up and down, it stays in level flight = horizontal, so you can't cast it through both opposite corners if the cube is lying flat on the horizontal on one of its surfaces. As I just wrote this paragraph, I pictured what my description of casting through both corners the would look like and why it's not level with the ground anymore. I guess it's harder to follow my words without picturing it.
You mentioned it's not clear how being horizontal constrains the ray, based on what I wrote and what I meant about it being level, is it now clearer how this constrains some of the rays that can be cast? (Like how you can't cast a ray through the opposite ends of the cube now)? Or is that hard for you to follow? For me I think maybe my words could be written in a bit confusing way but I think someone can understand them if they can picture what I referred to. Without that mental picture it could be difficult though.
The 0.01% of the time, I have seen blue lights. Without trying to look around too much, it’s something like this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-OzQ0zAtFL0
This has only happened a handful of times, maybe 5, definitely less than 10. I was in my mid-30s the first time it happened, at some house learning transcendental meditation. I opened my eyes for a second, thinking they were shining some lights to make it seem like something was happening. Sadly, I was never able to repeat this through meditation, but it has happened a few times as I try and fall asleep. I wish I could trigger it on demand. It’s super cool when it happens.
A thing that seems to kinda trigger the visualizations I've experienced is to focus on where those blueish blobs disappear into nothing. For me, that looks like an intense brightness kinda sorta collapsing into the center of my vision which happens again starting from the edges of my vision. In a way it feels like I'm watching some low level neuron activity.
But if I close my eyes and try to force some sort of visualization, it doesn't happen until I slow down and just pay attention to that middle point between my brain and my vision. Not really a meditator, but I've experienced it the strongest when I'm about to fall asleep.
Once I'm in that headspace, I can keep it going until I see those wild, megalithic visualizations.
e.g. if you put your hand behind your back and move it up and down randomly, then stop suddenly, can you tell if it's stopped closer to your legs than your neck?
i cant think of a better test for it :( (clinicians?)
I can also draw what I can't see pretty well from memory.
Not being able to visualize anything, all of this fell very flat. It wasn’t until later I found out there actually are people who can visualize things as if they were happening. I have trouble wrapping my mind around what that must be like, but I bet all these visualization exercises make a lot more sense.
Outside of that, the whole visualization to practice idea rarely does anything for me. (I still use the term visualization even now that I've discovered it doesn't mean for most others what it did for me!)
I get stressed out having to meet someone I haven't seen for a long time in a cafe or something. I have to scan everyone and wait for that ping of recognition to happen.
In answer to the question though, no - even as someone with face blindness, the faces of people I've known and loved for a long time are burned in somewhere - I just can't access that part of my brain at will.
For reference, she didn't know the twins from "Property Brothers" were twins until I told her, after watching about, say, 6 seasons together.
It's like the two Ryans who insist on pretending they're different people.