[ud_0]

The problem with this test is I have nothing to compare it to, and the answer spectrum provided is not helpful because it seems concerned with things like how vivid the colors of mental images are.

If I don't actually "see" the object but I know exactly what it looks like to the point of having a clear but abstracted version of it in my head, do I still put the slider all the way to the left, or to the center, or what?

I would say that me "visualising" an object kind of feels like watching a GAN paint an image, only the image is never as explicitly shown as if it was on my retinas. Does that count?

When I close my eyes and I think of an object there is never a danger of me not realizing that my eyes are currently closed. Am I an aphantasiac because of that? Was I supposed to literally hallucinate scenes all the time?

[Jtsummers]

> When I close my eyes and I think of an object there is never a danger of me not realizing that my eyes are currently closed.

Hallucination and visualization are distinct things. People without aphantasia who talk about "seeing" things in their mind are not confusing the mental images with the scene in front of them, that would be a hallucination.

[ud_0]

I know they're distinct things, I just wonder about the way visualization is described.

From the way non-aphantasia is characterized here one could assume that the difference is just how much control people have over the content of the image, as opposed to the degree of realism.

A hallucinating person may have an experience that feels indistinguishable from reality, but they can't control what the experience entails. From this test, I gather that a non-aphantasiac person has an equally-as-realistic image in front of them, but they are completely in command of what is shown.

[SamBam]

I do think there's a difference between visualizing something clearly and not clearly, though, and this is what the test is asking.

The test asks me to visualize the face of a close friend or relative. I can quite clearly bring to mind my wife's face. I can imagine looking at each individual mole, or different facial expressions she makes.

If I were asked to visualize the face of the barista who served me coffee 20 minutes ago, I could only come up with something vague. I remember he was wearing large earrings, because they stood out to me, but his face is a blur. I mean that literally: when I imagine looking at his face, there are parts that simply won't come into focus or even into view, like they're missing -- in the same way that the dot disappears when you find your blind spot (i.e. not in a "argh, he's missing a nose!" way, but in a "it's just not there, but that's not weird" way).

So I have a pretty clear phenomenological distinction between visualizing things clearly and not.

[Jtsummers]

That's also just memory. I couldn't describe most servers I've had after a few hours if it was the only time I saw them. Try to imagine a barista. Imagine a scene in a coffee shop, it will get filled in with your actual memories of places you've been and people you've seen. Can you produce a detailed (but not accurate to reality) mental image of such a place or a barista working there that is comparable to your recall of your wife's face? (maybe not as detailed, but not as fuzzy as trying to recall a specific barista)

[SamBam]

No, but what I'm describing is that I have a phenomenological experience of both non-clear images and clear images.

It was in response to the complaint that the "Vividness of Visual Imagery" test is ambiguous, because people can't decide whether their visualization is clear or not. I'm saying that, for a person with a good ability at visualizing, the distinction is fairly clear.

And it's not just fuzzy memory, the fuzzy memory causes a non-clear picture. But I can't transfer my phenomenological experience to you, so you'll either have to accept that some people can have both clear or non-clear imagery, or not.

In answer to your question, I can certainly produce a mental image of an imagined barista. I can imagine very fine details in, say, the handlebar mustache I invent. Yes, those details will probably have come from reality, but I don't know from where, and I can visualize it very clearly if I choose to.

In answer to a question you didn't ask, when I read books I rarely have a detailed image of a character. They're kind of faceless people, roughly sketched. I actually discussed this last week with my either-year-old, and she had the exact same experience, but had never really stopped to think about it. (Like what I was saying before about the nose missing not being weird.)

[drcongo]

Same here. I didn't think I had aphantasia at all until I tried this test and then realised that me "visualising" something doesn't really bear any relation to being able to see a visual representation of that thing. Mostly it just felt like pulling up memories, and in fact when it asked me to visualise a rainbow I simply couldn't, though I could "see" one when I thought about a photo of a rainbow I took not so long ago. But again, that feels more like simply remembering.

[kayodelycaon]

Hallucinations and visualizing are completely different things. Even in my worst psychotic episode, I knew the difference between real and not-real.

The issue was I couldn't filter out the imagined from the real. I knew the source of sensory input but the source didn't matter to the rest of my brain.

People who visualize know what "channel" they are focusing on.

[tartoran]

Similar problem here. I actually notice that the imagery is a fleeting caricature trying to capture what Im attempting to observe, some kind of CGA resolution image of a lake, trees and so on. It’s also very confusing that I can actually transpose myself within my imagination where I barely notice Im blind because I can feel it all around.