[iand]

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.

[Throw_Away_1049]

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?

[satvikpendem]

Yep, and I can even make the clock tick

[adastra22]

Apparently, yes.

[listenallyall]

Asked to think of the Mona Lisa, there's just... nothing?

[trescenzi]

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”.

[listenallyall]

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?

[SaidinWoT]

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.

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

[satvikpendem]

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.

[satvikpendem]

> 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.

[smokel]

How can you be sure that you actually see the details, and that you are not merely experiencing the feeling of seeing those details?

Have you tried drawing the Mona Lisa from various angles? To what level of detail can you comfortably reproduce it?

[satvikpendem]

> 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.

[adastra22]

> How can you be sure that you actually see the details, and that you are not merely experiencing the feeling of seeing those details?

Is there a meaningful distinction?

[trescenzi]

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.

[listenallyall]

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.

[adastra22]

Not everyone can.

[adastra22]

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.