It's real and I have it. I was astonished when I discovered other people see pictures in their head. It doesn't restrict my creative thinking but I am a spatial thinker.
When I solve an imaginary logic problem such as advancing the hands on a clock I can't see the before and after states but I can infer their positions by the directions they must point and then read the new time from that.
Wait, do people see images of a clock in their mind? Like you, I know spatially where the hands should point so I assume this is what “seeing” is. Do people see a clock… like a legit visual when they close their eyes?
There’s nothing visual. There’s word association: painting, woman, brown hair, Louvre, Da Vinci and so on. Also potentially emotional response too, I’ve never seen it so I don’t have anything like that.
The best example of this, and why I’m absolutely certain it’s real and there’s not just a miscommunication, is the joke “don’t think of a pink elephant”. Until I learned of aphantasia I always thought it was super dumb because you say the words pink elephant so of course you’re thinking of a pink elephant. But seemingly for a lot of people “thinking of a pink elephant” means “conjuring an image of a pink elephant”. Or something awful that people don’t want to imagine. I’ve never understood “I wish I could unsee that”.
I think you believe that "normal" people have some magic hi-res virtual movie projector that superimposes crystal clear visions inside their heads. No, it's all just memories and concepts. Their response to thinking about the Mona Lisa is the same as yours. You know which way she faces, don't you?
Both my wife and one of my co-workers experience hi-res images superimposed over their actual vision when prompted (and occasionally involuntarily). This opposite end of the spectrum is hyperphantasia[0]. There are accounts in this thread of people having trouble reading books because they're too caught up in the visuals the story creates in their head (something that same co-worker has also mentioned happening).
I just responded to you elsewhere assuming that you're operating from a baseline experience of depending on visualization, but this comment has made me think you might actually also lack it, and that your assertion that aphantasia must be debilitating is from an assumption that the lack we're describing is something beyond your experience. Since it's all a matter of your internal experience, though, it's impossible for me to know.
Indeed, I just wrote a sibling comment before I saw yours about the same phenomenon, hyperphantasia. I don't think that the parent is right that it's just "memories and concepts," it actually is vivid imagery for most people who don't have aphantasia. It does seem like the parent has some sort of aphantasia, just not as severe as seeing nothing, it seems to be more of a spectrum rather than a binary.
> I think you believe that "normal" people have some magic hi-res virtual movie projector that superimposes crystal clear visions inside their heads. No, it's all just memories and concepts.
Some people do, hyperphantasia. I can do this, perfectly visualize the details of the Mona Lisa and examine it from any angle in my mind's eye. If I am in a semi-lucid state while nearing sleep, I can do it even more intensely, as the other day I was visualizing waves bouncing around in a maze and I could see every single bounce.
However, you're right that most people cannot do it so vividly, but it is not the case to say that it's simply memories and concepts, it actually is images and video inside their heads.
> How can you be sure that you actually see the details, and that you are not merely experiencing the feeling of seeing those details?
Can you describe the difference to me based on your experience? I don't quite understand what it would be, because in my mind's eye, I can literally see the entirety of the Mona Lisa. It does not feel like a "feeling," like happiness or angriness, those are what I'd classify as feelings.
> Have you tried drawing the Mona Lisa from various angles? To what level of detail can you comfortably reproduce it?
I don't draw so it would be limited by my drawing ability, but I can reproduce it pretty well if I tried hard enough, as I can visualize it completely in my mind.
It's probably impossible to tell the difference (which would explain the lack of understanding of opposing groups in this thread), unless one tests their ability to actually see the details instead of merely believing that one sees the details.
If drawing is not your thing, consider whether you can count the number of creases in her sleeves, or what length the shadow under her nose is, and where the light source is coming from.
Note that I'm not interested in memory aspects here. If one can't differentiate minute details, yet still see them highly realistically, then what exactly is it one sees? Probably not the same as the real thing or a photographic image.
A follow-up question would be whether the envisioned details are stable enough to draw or reason from, or whether the image keeps changing in one's head. In the latter case, the process of phantasising may be more akin to what diffusion models do.
> If drawing is not your thing, consider whether you can count the number of creases in her sleeves, or what length the shadow under her nose is, and where the light source is coming from.
I see what you mean, yes, it's not eidetic or photographic memory when I see it in my mind, I can't see all the small details like that, but I can see it as if I took a picture, not an extremely high resolution one that shows every brush stroke, but more akin to something like this photo's level of detail (I can visualize the people in the crowd as well) [0]. I might even say that I cannot see the details because I actually have no knowledge of them (exactly how many folds or creases there are), than being unable to visualize them entirely. For example, I can see the Mona Lisa with 4, 5, 6, folds in her sleeves, all different images in my mind. Some people however can see every crease exactly as it is but that's much rarer, it's photographic memory, and it's not really what I'd call a normal person's (without aphantasia) experience. It is likely even trainable with more exposure to the actual underlying artifact such as observing the painting in-depth and remembering via visual snapshots what it looks like.
There are others with aphantasia, perhaps milder forms of it, who cannot "see" the Mona Lisa as a photograph, they just see a blur or something more akin to curves and lines that they must focus on, sometimes without color. These people would have less stable images in my mind, but generally my images are pretty stable. I'm curious to hear about what you can see in your mind's eye. Based on what you were saying, it seems to me like you're more on the belief or feeling side, or is it that you can completely see an image in your mind that's stable?
Most certainly. In the first case one can actually use data to base decisions on. In the latter, one is merely hallucinating something which has less information value.
Allow me to try again: in the first case you actually see the details in your mind, and you can reason with them, by separating out single details, focus on them, and reproduce them in a meaningful way. This would allow an artist to form a highly detailed image in their head, and then reproduce it on paper. I think this is very rare, if possible at all. (Of course this is possible with simple imagery, but we are discussing photorealistic copies of the Mona Lisa here.)
In the latter case, one assumes to see details, but in fact one does not, and one cannot focus on details, nor reason with them.
I'm painting a black-and-white distinction here, but I suppose that in reality it is even more complex.
Does this make sense, or do you still insist that there is no meaningful difference between these two interpretations? In that case, could you point out where you think my reasoning goes wrong?
All real people (not machines with lossless recall) are actually the second case, even if they think otherwise. The brain is never a lossless memory replay device, even if it feels like it to some people.
But my original point was more that the feeling of seeing something is all there is, whether you interpret those feelings as visual or otherwise. There isn’t a homunculus in your head with a little film projector.
> All real people (not machines with lossless recall) are actually the second case, even if they think otherwise.
I tend to agree, but I suppose that the level of lossiness varies from person to person, and depends on training and concentration.
> the feeling of seeing something is all there is, whether you interpret those feelings as visual or otherwise
Interesting! Would you say that the same mechanism applies to the feeling of hearing or tasting things? Or are those fundamentally different from visual experiences?
And what about observing the real world, is that the same experience as replaying something in one's head, but using a different input source?
Nope I didn’t realize she was facing a particular direction. I’d consider that a lack of knowledge. But if I did again it would just be words.
I don’t believe that people have a high res magical image. I believe there’s something that feels like visual stimulation which is used as a reference for information. I don’t have anything that seems remotely visual.
Forget the Mona Lisa, maybe you've never seen it even in a book. Do you know what the shape of your country (like from a map) looks like? Of course you do, and it's not because you went around and did your own border survey, it's because you've seen the shape on maps thousands of times, and you can picture it in your head.
I've seen the Mono Lisa in Paris, twice. And no I have absolutely no idea which way she faces as I never bothered to commit that factual bit of knowledge to memory.
"To use passkeys, you just use a fingerprint, face scan or pin to unlock your device, and they are 40% faster than passwords — and rely on a type of cryptography that makes them more secure. "
The point is more so that the pin unlocks a key on your local device and that key is much stronger than the password the typical user would select. Plus it is site specific in a way that your typical user does not do with passwords.
So it's making a system weaker against offline attacks if someone steals your hardware in exchange for making it stronger against phishing. This is probably the correct tradeoff for most people.
A PIN associated with a specific device that been cryptographically linked to your account. So while a seven digit PIN is easier to guess than a password, the physical device is much harder to steal over the internet. It’s defacto 2FA authentication.
Brute forcing offline kinda only works if you have a stolen hash or artifact like that. For a service like Google, they definitely have rate limits on password attempts.
I'm not saying I prefer either one here, just that password authentication doesn't automatically mean you can brute force offline.
I have done this too. How did you get the bot to use your MJ credits? I found that the bot still uses the credits of each person who invokes the command.
I'll take it back. I tested and you're right: it was using the caller's account, not the person who owns the server. So it doesn't share your MJ credits in any way.
There must be a way of creating a Discord bot wrapper which holds your credentials, but on a quick search I wasn't able to find anything.
What a big bummer. That would be the ideal environment.
Automatically grant every patent application but equally allow every granted patent to be challenged at no cost causing the patent rights to be suspended. The patent owner then has 5 years to prove the claims in court at their own cost.
It means that the conversation isn't producing much of value despite lots of activity, like an inefficient lightbulb that wastes energy by emitting heat instead of light.
