[virissimo]

> No self-censorship.

This is a very common belief, but I don't think it's strictly true. Sometimes people inadvertently speak what they're thinking, so an even surer way to prevent being punished for your ideas is to prevent yourself from even thinking them in the first place. It's a kind of defense-in-depth against wrongthink punishment and one I think most people understand intuitively.

[nicbou]

You can’t prevent yourself from speaking in your sleep. That’s how they get you.

[xwkd]

I’ve found this to be profoundly true. I’m embarrassed by the number of times I’ve been taught by a dream what I fail to express in words.

[sandkoan]

There might be a reason for that: https://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/the-kekul-problem.

[seba_dos1]

Fascinating article, but I'm surprised at how non-relatable it is to me in some places where it clearly was supposed to be. For example:

> We can see this in dreams. Those disturbing dreams which wake us from sleep are purely graphic. No one speaks.

Either I'm misunderstanding something, or that's not what I have (ever?) experienced. My dreams (and nightmares) are stories; people talk to me and I talk to people there. I "hear" my thoughts forming into words as usual. Sometimes I may see myself from a third person perspective, or there may be some unspecified narrator, or perspective may suddenly change from one to another... but there sure is language, there are sounds, there are thoughts and it's definitely not "purely graphic".

Other people often describe their dreams as similar "stories", so why does the article seem to assume that no one speaks there? I never heard someone describing their nightmare as just "falling" or "snakes eating their tails", but rather something like "we were at this event together and you were very mean to me and my parents that somehow appeared there as well were even worse and then I suddenly found myself driving a car and crashed".

Movies also seem to depict dreams in this way, and there are common tropes such as "this was all just a dream" or dreams where you dream of waking up and starting your day as usual, so what's up with this paragraph? Does the author only have non-verbal dreams?

Another example:

> A picture can be recalled in its entirety whereas an essay cannot.

Can anyone really recall a picture "in its entirety"? I can recall a ghastly thing that has some overall characteristics of the whole picture. No details whatsoever except some specific things that somehow caught my attention. This is absolutely not unlike an essay, which I'm also able to recall in general ideas and maybe some single phrases that caught my attention. I may learn to remember and recall a specific highly-detailed picture if I put a lot of conscious effort into it, but I can also learn to recall an essay the very same way. Why does the article assume that one is obviously not like another?

Anyone else had this kind of cognitive dissonance while reading this article? (there's a working link in a sibling comment) It seems to somewhat undermine several of the points it makes, so I'm not sure what to think about it.

[Tomte]

> Can anyone really recall a picture "in its entirety"?

It seems many (most?) people can. I cannot, either. Look up "aphantasia".

[seba_dos1]

Aphantasia doesn't seem relatable to me at all. I certainly can imagine mental pictures at will, even pretty detailed ones if I try really hard. What I certainly can't do is to recall a picture I've seen "in its entirety". I can imagine Mona Lisa and somewhat describe how it looks like, but I can't recall many things about it - like the actual background behind her head or the way her hands are placed. I can only make it up based on some clues I remembered (for example: I remember a popular novel describing Mona Lisa's background as being higher on one side and lower on the other, but which one was it?)

Now, if I spent many days studying Mona Lisa with intention to memorize it, I would probably be able to recall it "in its entirety", maybe even sketch it pretty well - but the same would apply to an essay.

Maybe the author actually has hyperphantasia instead?

[deafpolygon]

Same. Even when I dream. The images I see aren't complete images but ideas, or very staticky halos of what it might be. When I dream about, say, shopping in a mall.. I don't actually see the mall or myself or anyone at the mall, but dream the idea of the mall. None of the visual details are available to me.

Never knew other people didn't have the same thing until very recently for me. It was eye-opening.

[sandkoan]

I, too, am an aphant (which I believe affects only 3 to 10 percent of the population), but I understood this to still apply to us: the picture is merely replaced with the small kernel of a concept it represents.

[100721]

Your link didn't work for me (Chrome on Android). This one does: https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/

[fleddr]

I'm also quite paranoid about any chips planted in my brain.

[InCityDreams]

>an even surer way to prevent being punished for your ideas is to prevent yourself from even thinking them in the first place.

Genuinely intrigued: could you expand on this? I'll start by asking: is it possible to not think of something once you start thinking about it? And that realy is the best i can phrase the question at the moment.

[Delk]

At the more extreme end there's thought suppression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_suppression

I there could be milder versions as well: catching oneself getting into thoughts that lead to something you don't want to think about and consciously divert from that. I think I recognize that.

[noisy_boy]

This is purely subjective, not sure if others share the feeling: there is a sense of "pre-thought", like hairs standing on your neck in the anticipation of something. I have stopped at that point and diverted my mind to something else to avoid the full formation/visualization of a thought that was on its way and I didn't want to fully experience it.

[burnished]

Sure. I used to play a game with friends called "Rule number one is 'dont visualize', rule number two is 'dont visualize'" where we would make up awful shit and the only defense was to not think about it.

[fleddr]

It may go even further than that. Some philosophers claim that the idea of a "self" is an illusion. Your brain produces all kinds of thoughts inconsistent with your "stable self" and then "magically" adapts them into something that feels consistent. Leading you to believe that you have an identity. Some type of personality, belief system, what have you.

Your brain is feeding you lies or half-truths all the time. It's job isn't to find objective truth, it's to keep you alive.