[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.

[smokel]

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.

[satvikpendem]

> 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?

[0] https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/02/arts/02reyburn3/m...

[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?

[smokel]

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.

[adastra22]

In both cases you're "merely" experiencing the feeling of seeing those details. That's what it means to remember something with a brain.

[smokel]

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?

[adastra22]

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.