Hacker News Reader

Comment by djeastm | Hacker News Reader

>Saw the apple? Shomstein was confused. She didn’t actually see an apple. She could think about an apple: its taste, its shape, its color, the way light might hit it. But she didn’t see it. Behind her eyes, “it was completely black,” Shomstein recalled. And yet, “I imagined an apple.” Most of her colleagues reacted differently. They reported actually seeing an apple, some vividly and some faintly, floating like a hologram in front of them.

I suppose I have limited mental imagery because when people say they "see" things, I want to say "with what?"

To me, "seeing" has to involve an operation of the eyes, but if your eyes aren't taking in any light, what are you seeing?

I can imagine things and have vague visual imagery appear in my head, but I can't see them as "floating like holograms".

I wish I could borrow someone's mind for a minute and understand more.

View on HN

It makes me wonder how much of this is pseudoscience, especially internet discourse around it.

How do we know that we don’t have the same experience vs we just describe our experience differently?

How much of this is just people having a normal human experience of not seeing literal visuals getting confused by people who are a much more figurative in the description of their own experience?

Kinda reminds me of smoking weed in high school and there was always the kid who roleplayed that he was seeing a bunch of green men in the room.

I address the "maybe we describe our experience differently" in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41139321

>How do we know that we don’t have the same experience vs we just describe our experience differently?

The article makes clear there are significant differences in how multiple areas of the brain are activated in people at different ends of the "has aphantasia"/"doesn't have aphantasia" spectrum.

There is obviously a spectrum at work, as some people seem to be better at visualizing things in their mind than others. This does not surprise me at all.

What does surprise me is that most discussions on aphantasia are very similar to those on religious experiences. Some of us can talk to God, while others are pretty sure He does not exist, because they never get an answer.

Most scientists have given up on trying to prove that God does or does not exist. But quite a lot of ink had been spilled to get to that point. And it seems we still have some bytes to go in the phantasia discussion.

There are now three distinct methods to measure visual imagery objectively, without relying on someone's description of the vividness.

Here is a video in which prof Joel Pearson describes them: https://youtu.be/tA_4HNaKsS0 , IIRC Joel Pearson was involved in developing each of the methods, so I'm sure you can find his publications on the subject as well.

Seeing most likely takes place deeper in the brain, not in the eyes.

One hint for this is that we see the world upside-down by default. Another is the evidence that visual evidence cannot be trusted in a court case.

It then seems likely that the responsible brain areas can be activated by memory, as well as by the eye sensors.

The level of reality at which all this is possible in different individuals is obviously an open question. Whether one can train this is also not entirely clear to most.

Aphantasia is one end of a spectrum, Hyperphantasia [0] is on the other end. You might simply have a more normal mind that can imagine things, but not have something akin to a manipulable hologram. As I have aphantasia, though, I can’t for sure say if that’s really on that end of it ;)

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperphantasia

When I "see" an object what I'm doing is imagining a picture (or movie) of the object. That image that I imagine is remotely in my actual eyesight -- there's no object floating in front of me. But I do imagine it as if it was in front of me, "floating like a hologram" in a way. It's like recalling a memory of a photograph.

(Based on the rest of the comment I think you left out a word and meant "that I imagine is not remotely in my actual eyesight")

I suspect this is what's going on, and they're not describing it well.

There's a test used for perfect eidetic memory that as far as I remember no one has ever passed. The primary requirement for passing it is to be able to project what you've previously seen, "floating like a hologram", on top of a second image you're currently looking at. The two patterns combine to reveal a message or image.

But kids will often describe what they're imagining as if they're doing exactly that, because they don't yet have the words or context to be precise.

Yes, I left out that word, 'not'. Oops.

No one has ever seen anything with anything but their brain. It hardly makes much difference how some info got to the part of the brain that creates what we call an image, delivered direct from a retina or fabricated from memory.

You've articulated how I'd describe my experience as well. I'd not ever describe something in my mind's eye as 'floating like holograms'.

"Vague visual imagery appear in my head" resonates with me.

Edit: typo

> I wish I could borrow someone's mind for a minute and understand more.

When you say "understand", I want to say "with what?" The mind you're borrowing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com