[eitland]

Maybe you have aphantasia as well. I had without knowing it.

Some observations:

Someone told me to close my eyes and think about "an apple at a table".

Then I was told to open my eyes and tell what color the apple was.

The question didn't make sense to me:

I only thought about about the concept of "an apple on a table". When my eyes are closed it is black. Absolutely black. Blacker than a Norwegian winter night with cloud cover and no moon. There is nothing.

Until then I thought all this talk about seing things was just a metaphor for what I had also done.

But when I talk to others they will often immediately say it was green or red. Because they saw it.

Two extra observations:

Sometimes just before I fall asleep I can sometimes think images of stuff that doesn't exist: think 3d modeling with simple shapes.

And just after waking up I can sometimes manage to see relatively detailed images of actual physical things.

Both these only last for a few seconds to a few minutes.

Does this help?

[bonoboTP]

I also have this mostly when I'm half asleep and have had some very 4K sharp lucid dreams as well, including seeing leaves on a tree up close and feeling the texture.

Under normal circumstances, my imagination is also colorless and is more about spatial layout and shapes. Like an untextured 3D model.

[cnity]

It's hard to describe. I think there's more nuance here. When you ask "What colour was the apple?" then I can "fill in" the colour and imagine a "red" one. But it's more like the details are filled in "on demand" or "lazilly" rather than "ahead of time". And like I said, it's not the same thing as actual visual hallucination.

It is helpful to have someone engage, for sure. I have a question for you: if you look at a 3d object that you can only see one side of, can you make inferences about the other side of the object? Can you rotate it in your head? Could you quickly be able to tell whether an object will fit in a particular hole, without actually trying it?

[eitland]

> if you look at a 3d object that you can only see one side of, can you make inferences about the other side of the object? Can you rotate it in your head? Could you quickly be able to tell whether an object will fit in a particular hole, without actually trying it?

Obviously I cannot know for sure what the other side looks like without seeing it, but I can make a reasonable guess and yes, I can mentally turn around objects in my head to see if they fit.

I also enjoy woodworking and repairs and other activities that force me to think 3D, but I believe it would be much easier if I could think in images.

[card_zero]

Are you trying to help them believe?

[eitland]

Yes. Or maybe rather understand. For me it was a lightbulb moment just like my realisation of exactly how bad my colourblindness was: what is next to impossible for me to see (red drawings on woods in maps) was chosen by someone who thought it stood out.

I'm at least pointing out that I now know personally that there are multiple levels of visualisation, from me just "feeling" what it would mean to rotate a 3d object (it works, I can absolutely determine if it will fit but it is absolutely not visual) up to some close friends of mine that see vivid pictures of faces and can combine them with eyes closed.

For me who cannot see images except what I physically see it certainly is interesting to hear people describe remembering peoples phone numbers as text that they can see (I remember the feeling of myself saying it, not the sound) or memorising my name by mentally putting the image of ne next to their image of their brother who has the same name as me (!)

It really is funny, because I can draw. For example the famous "draw a bike" thing seems weird to me because I can't see myself making any of the mistakes from any of the drawings. Not because I can see a bike, but because I know it.

[cnity]

I really wish I could occupy your brain for a few minutes to see just how much of this is language. There's an amazing effect in this conversation where I remain convinced that basically everything I've heard could come down to definitional differences, and yet it really could come down to a radically different subjective experience between us, and I have no real way of knowing.

[eitland]

With me I know:

I know if I close my eyes now there is nothing visible.

I also know if I have a good night's sleep and wake up late on Saturday I might be able to see images of things I am working on in the garden or elsewhere.

So I know seing nothing is my default and I know that seing something vividly can be possible.

[card_zero]

Being able to draw better than people who can "visualize" better throws doubt on what type of thing "visualizing" really is.

[khazhoux]

I can draw better than most people, but have nearly zero internal visualization. I learned to draw by direct observation, committing the patterns to memory, and repetition.

As a result, I have excellent (if I do say so myself) drawings from life, some shockingly good portraits in oil, and also I can reproduce a few cartoon characters (which I’ve practiced extensively) almost perfectly. BUT, ask me to draw my mom from memory, and I can’t do it, like at all. I have, really, no idea what my own mom looks like.

[eitland]

I'm referring to this experiment / art thing:

https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...

[vidarh]

I don't think that makes sense. Most people struggle to draw even with something to copy right in front of them. Seeing something is insufficient to draw well. It's also not necessary in order to draw well.

[eitland]

I don't say I draw nice drawings. I am referring to this art/experiment:

https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...

I don't draw impossible bikes. Because I know what bikes are. That is what I mean. Not that I can make nice or even photographically correct images of them.