What do you mean by "obviously smaller"? How do you make that judgement without ever being told one is smaller than the other and without being able to visualize both?
As opposed to never having seen or been told about a tennis ball or a keyhole, and expected to know which is smaller?
The idea of aphantasia doesn't imply being blind. Assuming someone is sighted, you can still see objects and internalize an order of "small to large" things without necessarily using mental imagery to make those connections. I'm not sure if I have some "kind of aphantasia" but I also don't generally visualize things in my head, instead remembering logical relations based on my (non-visual) memories.
Besides, visualizations aren't perfectly accurate, they are subject to your own knowledge and memories. And they can be distorted by poor recall or just the imagination itself. I'm capable of visualizing a tennis ball that is small enough to fit inside a typical keyhole, or a keyhole big enough to permit a standard size tennis ball. That doesn't make either scenario realistic just because I can visualize them.
I'm trying to understand how things can be compared without some sort of internal visualization.
But now I know the fact, a standard baseball is larger than a standard tennis ball (now, don't ask me in a few weeks what the actual sizes are, I will probably forget, though I will probably remember that the baseball is larger).
Another way is just having knowledge of relative sizes and the ability to perform rudimentary logic. A tennis ball feels about the same in my hand as a door knob (in terms of size and ability to wrap my hand around it, bigger than most but not by too much). A keyhole fits into a doorknob. I'd have to be really drunk to not realize the logical implication of that: A tennis ball won't fit into a keyhole (assuming both are standard sized and we're not talking about a comedian's prop key and keyhole).
Now I've said nothing specific about either these things, besides size.
Can you tell me if a barbaz fits through a door? Probably.
Can you see that you can reach that anwser without doing any math about how big doors and washing machines are, but just with implicit knowledge?
The source of truth here is not visualization, it's knowledge. In fact, whatever you visualized, I gave you too little details so that your visualization would have to make up extra things that aren't true. You don't even know if the shape of those things is square or circular.
So even if you can't do it without visualizing, you should see that visualization is really just pulling from some other source (abstract knowledge). You can bypass that step and just get to know the result, without visualizing it.
I'm particularly curious about a bowling pin because we often only see them from far away, so size is harder to gauge in the first place. I can't form detailed images of anything in my mind, but those images are also all "normalized" to an extent - e.g. in my head, both bowling pin and baseball bat seem to be similar in size. Even though that's very much not true. So to me, visualization and size comparison are totally different faculties.
A bat is definitely longer than a bowling pin, but not by much. I don't see either in mind when doing this referencing.
These ideas are linked through memories of spatial relatedness, not imagery.
I once had an interesting discussion with someone who had participated in unique treatments for PTSD. The councilors advised the patients, when they saw disturbing imagery in mind, to place the imagery on a poster. They indicated that most patients could do this task. They then proceeded to have the patient put the poster on the wall "across the room". The image "shrunk" in mind by forcing it into spatial perspective. They then had the patient put the poster on a telephone pole "across the street". This shrunk it even more. A diminishment in the strong feelings (stress) related to the imagery was reported in some patients. So, the smaller something appears, the less some appear to react to the imagery. Small monsters vs. large ones, I guess.
At least to me if you are even just imagining the lengths you are still visualizing.
I don't assign numbers when mentally comparing things. I compare them relative to each other. I think that's why it's hard to compare things that have a large difference in size.
I thank you for your question, given it has given me a rather large dump of an idea into thinking mind that I will implement in my conscious AI project. Gratitude also goes out to whoever put spacial search into Solr: https://solr.apache.org/guide/8_1/spatial-search.html
<flip>.com~> Should I use whomever or whoever in this sentence: Also, thanks goes out to whoever put spacial search into Solr?
system=> No training data found for that command. Consider revising. x
ambrosial-hound*> ...
ambrosial-hound*> There is no definitive answer to this question, as both forms are considered acceptable. However, many people prefer to use "whoever" in situations where the subject of the sentence is unknown or unclear.I literally can't imagine what it's like to have a vivid imagination because to me my perception of reality and whatever I can "imagine" are as obviously different as black is from white. I could never confuse one for the other, and I don't know how they can even be compared.
This gets back a bit to what alar44 was saying:
>> I'm still all in on these people thinking imagining something is a hallucination.
Having a vivid imagination is not the same as hallucinating. There is no confusion in my mind between what is real and what is imagined (visual or auditory imaginations, I can also imagine smell and taste, but to a much lesser extent). I don't "see" my mental images through my eyes, in the sense that if I want to imagine what a chair would look like in the corner of my loft, I see the real scene (loft without the chair) and imagine (in my mind) a separate scene, the same (to the accuracy of the imagination) but with the chair.
But it very much is an image in my head. It's not an abstract sense of what it would be like to have the chair there, it is the same as recalling a scene from the past to me. But deliberately altered, rather than accidentally altered based on faulty memory. In the same way, I can recall the visual image of pages I have read (this ability has declined with age) and read the words off that recalled image.
I get more of a picture than `chousuke, but it's certainly not a scene or an image. The best way I can think of describing it is a very low-res/blurry/faded image. Like I sorta can picture my mom's hairstyle and sorta put it on top of a face and pull in a few other details from specific memories here and there. But things like color of eyes, or size of certain facial features vs other? No way.
Consider the lobotomy procedure, for instance.
> There's no way someone can't picture their mom in their head.
No matter how limited your thinking of other's experiences, I don't consciously see an image of anyone or anything at anytime while awake, in mind. Period. I know exactly what my mom looks like, but I still love her with all my heart. She is aware that I can't see her in mind and has said that she always knew I was different, but loves me just the same! I guess she "makes up" for my lack of this ability, given she can take herself back anywhere at anytime and see anyone that was there in that place in excruciating detail. It's a bit odd, but she has reported she can't see people in mind she doesn't love. I view this as a "tag" on which she is able to recall the images...