Aphantasia

[Svrtnsse]

I just learned that there's something called aphantasia: Aphantasia: Software engineer Blake Ross writes ‘mind-blowing’ post about being unable to imagine things | Science | News | The Independent

I originally read the post that the article above links to, and I'd recommend reading that too. I'm not sure if the direct link requires you to be logged in to facebook though so I didn't post that first (but it's here: Aphantasia: How It Feels To Be Blind In Your Mind)

I recall someone here saying they're not able to picture images in their mind, but I can't remember who it was.

 

[Ireth]

I found that post on my feed today too. Fascinating stuff.

 

[DMThaane]

Absolutely fascinating, and not at all related to an aversion to dancing hippos wearing tutus (alternative joke: absolutely fascinating, a headline using 'mind-blowing' for an appropriate article). As someone who always has a tune going through their head it just sounds astonishing to think of this never happening. To never just start humming the British Grenadiers or a track from Doom while walking through a supermarket. The research seems to be at early stages at the moment but it will be interesting to see how studies into this condition pan out.

Reminds me, in an odd way, of Synesthesia which causes a weird cognitive overlap that causes things like numbers to seem inherently coloured. And, of course, as an autistic I occasionally wonder what it would be like to think with a normal brain. Odd to think how differently people see and process the world around them even at very basic levels.

Also the second link doesn't require you to be logged in. I don't have a Facebook account and I was able to read it just fine.

 

[Sheilawisz]

So that condition is actually a real thing?

I have no idea why you call it fascinating, because to me it sounds like the most awful and disgusting thing that could happen to somebody. The inability to visualize images in your mind, wow... Just when I thought that I had heard about all of the worst conditions that a human being can suffer, that no-imagination thing shows up to terrify me even more!

How do they even live with that?

To me the ability to see images in my mind, and characters, and entire scenes is invaluable, losing that would be unspeakable and I do not want to even think about it... I would go crazy, shoot myself in the head and get it over with.

What is it that you find fascinating about that thing?

 

[Tom]

Reminds me, in an odd way, of Synesthesia which causes a weird cognitive overlap that causes things like numbers to seem inherently coloured. And, of course, as an autistic I occasionally wonder what it would be like to think with a normal brain. Odd to think how differently people see and process the world around them even at very basic levels.

I have synesthesia! Until I knew I had it, I didn't realize that not everyone experienced the world the same way as me. For instance, I didn't understand how other people could listen to deafening music without experiencing multicolored strobe lights in their mind's eye and a stabbing pain between their eyes (sound-color and sound-touch).

I often wonder what the world is like for people without synesthesia, or without ADD. I can't imagine experiencing life any other way, and I can imagine that people with aphantasia can't conceive of a different way of processing things either. The human brain is a strange and fascinating thing.

With that said, aphantasia does sound depressing. I've always been a visual thinker, to the point where large chunks of my everyday thoughts are made up of images. I constantly have a song stuck in my head and I can mentally recreate sounds, even a specific person's voice. I mentally plan art pieces in minute detail, hold my to-do list and a map of everywhere I need to go every day in my mind's eye, even use images as a mental shorthand to remember things easier. I think in images. It blows my mind that there are people who literally cannot create a mental image.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I have synesthesia! Until I knew I had it, I didn't realize that not everyone experienced the world the same way as me. For instance, I didn't understand how other people could listen to deafening music without experiencing multicolored strobe lights in their mind's eye and a stabbing pain between their eyes (sound-color and sound-touch).

I think this is probably an important point. If you're born with it, you just don't have a reference to compare with. I spoke to a friend of mine last night who claims she's unable to visualise things. Her impression had always been that the ability to see things in your mind was one of those things that some people had and some people didn't, kind of like being good or bad at sports, or maths - stuff like that.
She almost seemed offended when it came to light that it might be a "condition".

What's fascinating about this to me is that it's an almost completely different way of relating to the world. Like, how does it even work? Also, how has it been "unknown" for so long? The condition was given a name only last year.

Apparently it's possible for the mind's eye to go blind, and that's got to be a horrible experience. I get the impression it's pretty rare though, and hopefully it is. If it's something you've lived with all your life and don't know anything else, then it's different. It's just the way the world is.

I think I can imagine what it might be like to lose my mind's eye, and it's not pleasant. Actually, can I? Even when trying to think about it I'm "picturing" it happening - which is kind of ironic. I'm pretty certain I'd be horrified if it happened to me though.

But, how about the other way around? What if the blindness could be removes?
Spontaneously it sounds great, but would it really be? All of a sudden you can no longer close your eyes and shut out the world. You've got pictures and images assaulting you even in the dark. Maybe it'd be wonderful, or maybe it would be horrible.

It's fascinating that there are people who experience the world in a way that is so completely "alien" to me that I have a hard time imagining it. And yet they're able to function just fine and enjoy their lives as much as I do.

 

[skip.knox]

See, and I thought it was the disease where you hate everything to do with Fantasia.

 

[Sheilawisz]

I am kind of a unusual type of person too, different brain-wiring and not ordinary at all.

After reading this thread, I came to the conclusion that it's very unfair that something like Aphantasia, Synesthesia and other ways of experiencing the world are viewed as intriguing and even fascinating while what I am is never described like that. In contrast, most people out there often use harsh and cold words to describe my kind.

I wish that we were viewed as fascinating creatures too, simply a different way of experiencing the world and viewing life...

I never wonder what life would be like being an ordinary person, because I have a pretty good idea of it (good enough to write stories about ordinary people, and portray them well)... I like being what I am even though I am not proud of it, I would never trade it for the normal stuff and I am convinced that it's not a disorder, it's just the way we are.

Also I think that the human brain is just a broken mess, there is nothing fascinating about it.

I do feel kind of a strange fascination about color blindness, though. Fully Dichromatic people in particular see a very different and rather disturbing image of the world, completely different to what us Trichromats see, and for some reason our societies pretty much ignore them and the difficulties that they face like they did not even exist.

Their view of the world is very intriguing to me and I would like to experience it for a few days, but I am sure that if I suddenly became Dichromatic without a chance of reversing it then it would most likely destroy me.

Aphantasia sounds worse, though... Like a billion times worse.

 

[Tom]

To be fair, I've seen tons of articles out there that describe synesthesia as a disorder, and I've always resented that. Many of these articles use words like "broken" or "disordered", and paint viewing the world with crossed senses as literally the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone. Which, in my opinion, is complete neurotypical bulls***.

I think that the human mind is a mess--undoubtedly after millions of years of evolution it certainly isn't perfect--but it's a beautiful mess.

 

[Geo]

To be fair, I've seen tons of articles out there that describe synesthesia as a disorder, and I've always resented that.

There is a series from the Discovery Channel: The Real Superhumans and the Quest for the Future Fantastic

In this series Synesthesia is presented as a super power, so you may like it a bit better than the other articles you have read.

 

[DMThaane]

I'm fascinated by all human conditions, including that of being 'normal' which technically doesn't actually exist, normal simply being defined as a theoretical average of the human race. I hardly limit myself to abnormalities or disorders and my true obsession is actually how humans form personal identity. As for why it interests me, why shouldn't it? Everyone has a brain, everyone has a mind, and if you're going to dive into a puzzle it may as well be a complex one. These aren't necessarily the real reasons but they seem as good as any.

And as for how we're are considered by society, look on the bright side. At least most conditions (probably) don't have a massive celebrity-driven social campaign driven around the subtext that your very existence is literally worse than a hideous disease. Also there's the rather active 'cure debate', which is hardly unique to autism. I can understand the dilemma when it comes to the severe autistics but when I realise how many people I know wouldn't exist without autism I find the idea of an autism-free world rather distasteful. These aren't just switches to be flicked on or off, these conditions have shaped our experiences, often since birth. I literally couldn't exist without autism, not as anything recognisably me, and I happen to rather like my existence and think there should be more of it.

Mind you, as long as we are curing things can we start with people liking Fifty Shades of Grey or defending the Mass Effect 3 ending? You know, for the good of society and all that. I'm sure they'd agree it was for the best, post-reconditioning.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Hello everyone!

Geo, I also watched that special at Discovery Channel in which Synesthesia is described as a superpower, and a desirable condition in the fields of Transhumanism and all that. I am sure that you would like it a lot, Tom... Personally I do not like the idea of having Synesthesia, it seems too strange to me.

Thaane: I disagree with your fascination about all human conditions, because there are many physical and mental conditions out there that are truly terrible and cause a great deal of suffering to their victims. Even if we do not consider things like Schizophrenia, Depression and Anxiety alone can destroy people and I doubt there is anything fascinating about them.

Panic attacks are probably the worst thing that I have ever felt in my life, and after researching a lot about mental problems I came to the conclusion that the human brain is a hell of a mess. Some brains are healthy and brilliant, but many others suffer from one problem or another and in general we are very troubled creatures.

I do not get along very well with you Autistic people, but I do understand that a cure for autism would destroy what you are. It would replace you with different people, and as far as I have researched, very few Autistic people would seek to receive such a cure even in case it was available.

I also think that a "cure" for what I am would destroy who I really am, and replace me with... something else... The idea is very disgusting, so I would also reject such a treatment in case it existed.

My kind evolved as part of the species, we are not a disorder.

 

[Russ]

Some interesting side topics from the original.

Personally I have no problem with the term "disorder", it has a meaning, an important use and is not demeaning or pejorative.

There is a large "cure debate" in the autism and a few other communities. Fortunately it is rather restricted and academic, and is having no real impact on medicine or science.

 

[Tom]

There is a series from the Discovery Channel: The Real Superhumans and the Quest for the Future Fantastic

In this series Synesthesia is presented as a super power, so you may like it a bit better than the other articles you have read.

See, I don't particularly like that approach either. I'm not superhuman. My brain is wired a bit differently than normal, but that doesn't give me superpowers. Just as synesthetes may be more likely to be creative types such as musicians and artists, we're also more likely to suffer from sensory overload and other sensory processing issues.

Hello everyone!

Geo, I also watched that special at Discovery Channel in which Synesthesia is described as a superpower, and a desirable condition in the fields of Transhumanism and all that. I am sure that you would like it a lot, Tom... Personally I do not like the idea of having Synesthesia, it seems too strange to me.

I dislike transhumanism. It irritates me to see transhumanists lauding synesthesia as "the next step in the evolution of mankind" or whatever the hell they call it. While I do believe synesthesia can be a remarkable door to creativity, I don't think it makes me all that "superhuman". I am a synesthete, but it's not like I'm a genius or a savant or something.

Synesthesia's not all that strange, Sheila. Most synesthetes have had it since birth, or else had it appear at puberty, so we're used to it. For me it mostly stays in the background of my mental landscape; most of the time, in fact, I hardly notice it. It's only when it's stimulated by something specific, like loud music or other disruptive noises, that it becomes noticeable. It also influences the way I recall memories, but that's just the way I think, so it's normal for me.

I can see synesthesia as a life-shattering condition only if you gain it later in life. For most synesthetes, we've been this way since we can remember, so it's "normal" for us. People who gain it through a brain injury have to get used to it, and I can imagine that process would be pretty difficult.

 

[DMThaane]

As a moderate transhumanist, I find many people who use the label utterly weird. They're one step away from buying a book about indigo children and running off to dance naked under some fluorescent lights but they think if they can dress it up in enough intellectualism it becomes somehow different.

Thaane: I disagree with your fascination about all human conditions, because there are many physical and mental conditions out there that are truly terrible and cause a great deal of suffering to their victims. Even if we do not consider things like Schizophrenia, Depression and Anxiety alone can destroy people and I doubt there is anything fascinating about them.

I see no conflict between fascination and revulsion or disgust. I find something uniquely fascinating about parasites, for instance, but I also find them uniquely revolting to my sensibilities. Revulsion often serves to fuel my interest, making me wonder what lies in places where most people turn away. As long no harm is inflicted on others these fascinations have a great potential for good, driving understanding of a topic. As a sufferer of both depression and anxiety I think these topics could use a few more people fascinated by them. I may have actually received some help instead of being largely left to my own devices.

Take Aphantasia, as since it is the central topic. The very idea of having it is abhorrent to me and I could only describe the condition as 'suffering'. That said, their experience is not my experience and attempting to understand what causes this could offer a unique path of inquiry and help us unlock other secrets of the human brain. A worthy endeavour by almost any measure.

Some interesting side topics from the original.

Personally I have no problem with the term "disorder", it has a meaning, an important use and is not demeaning or pejorative.

I actually agree with you. I use condition for the sake of clarity in a more colloquial discussion but I don't have a problem with terminology like 'disorder' or even 'disabled'. I find calling people 'normal' when they clinically are not to be more harmful, as it can lead to their unique needs being dismissed. I know of parents who don't want to tell their children that they're autistic for fear of making them feel different, never mind that they'll feel different anyway and they just won't know why.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Thaane, I see what you mean now.

Having a deep interest on not so pleasant subjects can indeed produce good results and learning, I agree with that. I have similar interests as well (chemical weapons and dangerous pathogens, to name a few), and even such dark things must be studied so we can better understand them and what they mean.

The difference is that I understand Fascination not only as a deep interest, but also as something that makes a person feel good and happy. I would say that I am fascinated by wine, the Moon and the Garden Warfare game, but I would describe my interest on chemical weapons and how they work as just a dark interest.

Tom: Indeed, I agree that having certain condition since birth or since a very young age makes it just a part of who you are.

I also dislike the Transhumanism thing, by the way. In my opinion, the species should continue to evolve through natural means and trying to guide or modify our evolution could result in very bad stuff.

I did not know that Synesthesia can result from a brain injury... I'll research more into this.

 

[FifthView]

This is the first I'd ever encountered the word or idea of aphantasia.

I find it to be interesting mostly because it doesn't seem to be extremely disadvantageous, if Blake Ross is any indication. Sure, some pursuits might be more difficult and unenjoyable, but that's always the case. I could list any number of pursuits I've suffered through despite not having aphantasia.

But the idea's interesting to me for another reason. It makes me reconsidered the role that visual imagination plays.

I may be an odd sort, because although I am quite capable of imagining very realistic scenarios, the images themselves normally play such a minor role in the fantasy I've built in my imagination. Concepts, relationships between things, interactions between things tend to be the force behind those fantasies. Often, I can have full-length conversations between imaginary persons, full of personality and vigor, while those persons remain largely indistinct physically. This is a problem for me when writing, because the physical representation of things usually doesn't have anywhere near the same weight as other aspects. I go through my life like this also; for instance, I don't hang photos of family, friends, and I don't hang paintings, but have bare walls.

I know many people do place much more weight on imagery than I do, and on their visual imagination. I suspect they, if writers of fiction, have an easier time writing than I do. I suspect that on the farther end of that extreme, many visual artists have a more vivid visual imagination than I do, with more distinction of particulars within the image than I have.

So, there's this continuum of relationships between person and visual imagination, where the visual aspects gain more or less significance, more or less vibrancy and vigor–I assume.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Regarding the word fascination...
I do feel that fascination is something that brings a bit of joy and satisfaction. However, I don't think that this comes from that which I'm fascinated with, but rather from the fascination itself. It comes from letting the mind explore new ideas and avenues of thought. It comes from the discovery rather than from that which is discovered.
That's why it's possible to be fascinated by horrible and terrible things.
Does that make sense?

 

[FifthView]

That's why it's possible to be fascinated by horrible and terrible things.
Does that make sense?

fascinate (v.) 1590s, "bewitch, enchant," from Middle French fasciner (14c.), from Latin fascinatus, past participle of fascinare "bewitch, enchant, fascinate," from fascinus "a charm, enchantment, spell, witchcraft," which is of uncertain origin. Earliest used of witches and of serpents, who were said to be able to cast a spell by a look that rendered one unable to move or resist. Sense of "delight, attract and hold the attention of" is first recorded 1815.​

Apparently, the original meaning specifically was in relation to horrible and terrible things. The latter meaning came much later. (I'm amused to wonder whether the Age of Enlightenment was a necessary precursor to the change in meanings.)

 

[Svrtnsse]

Maybe I got it wrong then - or I'm just overthinking it as usual.