Jump to content

Aphantasia is not a real condition


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ArtsyGirl said:

There's no inability to form invisible mental images, Invisible images is when 100% of people don't actually see mental images because they don't see it with their actual eyes. the word ''image'' and ''images'' in the brain means mental representation, but not visual representation in the mind,  so therefore, A lot of people form invisible images in their brain.

 

14 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

No, I'm saying that the phenomenon doesn't exist. How do you end a thread?

 

What phenomenon ?

You have been asked several times by several members for clarification as to what yoy mean by visible and invisible images.

I fail to understand what you mean by the reply you made, which appers to me to contradict itself.

 

You cannot end a thread here. That is the policy of this site.

Moderators will delete a thread if it is advertising or one or two other categories.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

What phenomenon ?

You have been asked several times by several members for clarification as to what you mean by visible and invisible images.

I fail to understand what you mean by the reply you made, which appears to me to contradict itself.

 

You cannot end a thread here. That is the policy of this site.

Moderators will delete a thread if it is advertising or one or two other categories.

 

 

I mean invisible images as mental representations when people don't see mental images, and I mean visible images as in visible mental images. the phenomenon I'm talking about is aphantasia and it doesn't exist, Nobody recognizes this phenomenon and it's not real, I don't want to talk about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArtsyGirl said:

I don't have aphantasia,

I don't know about that; there is no evidence. (See? When there is no evidence either way, one does not draw a definite conclusion.)You might just be in denial and protesting too much.

What I do see evidence of is the syndrome where people object to things that are in no way objectionable or of any detriment to themselves, the way you have been objecting to aphantasia. That is the condition to which I was referring. I haven't named it yet, but it's obviously a subspecies of hypercriticalism.

 

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

Nobody recognizes this phenomenon

Others right here in this very thread recognize and accept as valid this phenomenon. Your sloppy language and obstinacy aren’t helping matters. 

7 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

I don't want to talk about this.

I think you do, and what you really don’t want is to have your claims challenged, criticized, or corrected in any way. 

18 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

It's not a claim, and I'm not wrong.

This just made me laugh. Very meta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

I mean invisible images as mental representations when people don't see mental images, and I mean visible images as in visible mental images. the phenomenon I'm talking about is aphantasia and it doesn't exist, Nobody recognizes this phenomenon and it's not real, I don't want to talk about this.

So please help me by starting at the beginning and explaining what you mean by visible and invisible and what is a mental image and what does it mean to see one?

We had a very long thread about the science (physics and physiology ) of these questions  a while back.

It's really difficult to understand what you mean when the science of optics uses the terms real and imaginary quite differently when referring to images and I would venture to suggest that the science of optics has a great deal to do with images, mental or otherwise.

Please don't repeat what you have already said when you answer, that is a waste of your time and of others'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't know about that; you might be in denial and protesting too much.

What I do see evidence of is the syndrome where people object to things that are in no way objectionable or of any detriment to themselves, the way you have been objecting to aphantasia. That is the condition to which I was referring. I haven't named it yet, but it's obviously a subspecies of hypercriticalism.

 

I'm not protesting too much.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Others right here in this very thread recognize and accept as valid this phenomenon. Your sloppy language and obstinacy aren’t helping matters. 

I think you do, and what you really don’t want is to have your claims challenged, criticized, or corrected in any way. 

This just made me laugh. Very meta. 

It's not a validated phenomenon, and I don't have sloppy language and I'm not stubborn. and I'm not claiming anything. this is a unexplained phenomenon.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

So please help me by starting at the beginning and explaining what you mean by visible and invisible and what is a mental image and what does it mean to see one?

We had a very long thread about the science (physics and physiology ) of these questions  a while back.

It's really difficult to understand what you mean when the science of optics uses the terms real and imaginary quite differently when referring to images and I would venture to suggest that the science of optics has a great deal to do with images, mental or otherwise.

Please don't repeat what you have already said when you answer, that is a waste of your time and of others'.

Despite being called ''mental images'' people see it visibly in their brain or form invisible images in their brain since they don't see it with their actual eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

Despite being called ''mental images'' people see it visibly in their brain or form invisible images in their brain since they don't see it with their actual eyes. 

So by images, you are not referring to the pattern (electrical or otherwise) that results from light interacting with our brains through our sensesory organs and optic nerves ?

Can you confirm you mean the same pattern formed by some internal process  as would be formed if we actually received light from whatever the image was of ?

So for instance an artist might hold in his mind the same pattern of a landscape he would experience if he actually looked at it ?

 

Finally if that pattern is invisible how does anybody know it is there ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

So by images, you are not referring to the pattern (electrical or otherwise) that results from light interacting with our brains through our sensesory organs and optic nerves ?

Can you confirm you mean the same pattern formed by some internal process  as would be formed if we actually received light from whatever the image was of ?

So for instance an artist might hold in his mind the same pattern of a landscape he would experience if he actually looked at it ?

 

Finally if that pattern is invisible how does anybody know it is there ?

 *sensory I'm not referring to the pattern. an Artist would form a mental representation of a flower, but he doesn't form a mental image of a flower. The artist doesn't hold the same pattern in his mind as if he actually saw it, but think of it.

Edited by ArtsyGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand what these 'invisible images' are. In fact, I don't understand what the OPer means by 'visible images' either.

Is 'visible image' any visual perception?

Is a song playing in my head an 'invisible image'?

Is a visual hallucination a 'visible' or an 'invisible' image? Both? Neither?

Does the OP claim that inability to form 'visible images' does not exist?

Does the OP claim that inability to form 'invisible images' does not exist?

Are there other kinds of images?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ArtsyGirl said:

I'm not referring to the pattern. an Artist would form a mental representation of a flower, but he doesn't form a mental image of a flower.

It's your thread and I'm not playing verbal games all night.

So if you can't answer a straightforward question I'll leave you to your own devices.

 

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Finally if that pattern is invisible how does anybody know it is there ?

 

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I still don't understand what these 'invisible images' are. In fact, I don't understand what the OPer means by 'visible images' either.

Is 'visible image' any visual perception?

Is a song playing in my head an 'invisible image'?

Is a visual hallucination a 'visible' or an 'invisible' image? Both? Neither?

Does the OP claim that inability to form 'visible images' does not exist?

Does the OP claim that inability to form 'invisible images' does not exist?

Are there other kinds of images?

+1 for showing how complicated that simple question about terminology really is.

Yeah  !!  I 've cracked it.

Only Jedi Knights can see invisible images.

Now I can sign off and go to bed happy.

Good Night all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

I still don't understand what these 'invisible images' are. In fact, I don't understand what the OPer means by 'visible images' either.

Is 'visible image' any visual perception?

Is a song playing in my head an 'invisible image'?

Is a visual hallucination a 'visible' or an 'invisible' image? Both? Neither?

Does the OP claim that inability to form 'visible images' does not exist?

Does the OP claim that inability to form 'invisible images' does not exist?

Are there other kinds of images?

I was saying the inability to form invisible images doesn't exist, and no, a song playing in your head is not a invisible image. Visual hallucinations are fake perception. They aren't any other kinds of images besides visible and invisible. What I meant to say was people form invisible mental images, Most commonly since they can't form visible mental images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

I was saying the inability to form invisible images doesn't exist, and no, a song playing in your head is not a invisible image. Visual hallucinations are fake perception. They aren't any other kinds of images besides visible and invisible. What I meant to say was people form invisible mental images, Most commonly since they can't form visible mental images.

So, we focus on 'invisible images' only, for the purposes of this thread. Let's for short call them, II.

We know that a song in one's head is not an II. Also, visual hallucinations are not IIs.

Now, the question is, what is an II? Do people form JJs?

Edited by Genady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, we focus on 'invisible images' only, for the purposes of this thread. Let's for short call them, II.

We know that a song in one's head is not an II. Also, visual hallucinations are not IIs.

Now, the question is, what is an II? Do people form JJs?

What does JJs stand for? a Invisible image is a type of mental image that is invisible.

Edited by ArtsyGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Genady said:

They don't form IIs either.

Okay, To say this, While people don't form mental images isn't possible, the phenomenon is not real and A lot of people form mental representations rather than visualizing. All people's brains are different. Even if people don't form IIs, they form IMIs. (Invisible mental images)

Edited by ArtsyGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

Okay, To say this, While people don't form mental images isn't possible, the phenomenon is not real and A lot of people form mental representations rather than visualizing. All people's brains are different.

So, they can create mental representations which are not invisible images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, they can create mental representations which are not invisible images.

Mental representations are different than mental images, though since people don't see mental representations.

Edited by ArtsyGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ArtsyGirl said:

Mental representations are different than mental images, though since people don't see mental representations.

We have already mentioned one example of mental representation which is not an invisible image, namely a song in one's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ArtsyGirl said:

I don't have sloppy language and I'm not stubborn. and I'm not claiming anything.

You’re confused (or trolling). Peace out. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re confused (or trolling). Peace out. 

I'm not trolling

 

41 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Good. I did say "might be" and "I don't know". Try it sometime; it only hurts until you get some practice.

Um, okay.

 

Edited by ArtsyGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.