[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.

[smokel]

> 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?