|
|
|
|
|
by bonoboTP
265 days ago
|
|
> Most other people would say, for example, there was a big brown table with metallic legs in the middle of the room, and the person that came in had a blue T-shirt. I would only take that seriously from thoughful, detail-oriented, intelligent people who have demonstrated critical introspection abilities before. Otherwise I'd assume they are making it up post-hoc. People often swear up and down in witness testimonies about what they saw and it just turns out to be complete post-hoc fabrication of their mind, even if it seems true to them. Similarly I think they post-hoc think it was a big brown table but this is like a language model completing the sentence. It's been shown how in split brain patients the language center of the brain can make up totally unsupported justifications for actions that "explain" its experience, fully unrelated to what actually happened. |
|
You are right, in that this test might not live up to the highest of standards. But then there are variations in the details. For example one of my friends who happened to be a soccer player said more details about the ball. Other people described familiar objects such as their own kitchen table. You can also tell if someone is starting to think about the answers vs. when they are recalling from memory.
Overall, this method is often (IMO) a better indicator than the typical "apple test" as the context is more natural. Anecdotally the difference between the aphantasia group (incl. those who didn't know this condition existed) and the average response is just too large to ignore.