I have just read a New Scientist article about “aphantasics”, that is people who cannot generate a clear mental images of things they know well.

The interesting thing is, I don’t know if I am in that category or not. If I try to create a mental image of a scene or a person that I know well, I do not get anything like the experience in my head that I get when I actually see that scene or person, nonetheless I do have some sort of underlying experience of what the scene or person looks like, that is difficult to quantify or describe.

Does that make me an aphantastic, or is that just normal, or is there a wide spectrum of experience with no clear dividing line?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scientist article about “aphantasics”, that is people who cannot generate a clear mental images of things they know well.

The interesting thing is, I don’t know if I am in that category or not. If I try to create a mental image of a scene or a person that I know well, I do not get anything like the experience in my head that I get when I actually see that scene or person, nonetheless I do have some sort of underlying experience of what the scene or person looks like, that is difficult to quantify or describe.

Does that make me an aphantastic, or is that just normal, or is there a wide spectrum of experience with no clear dividing line?

Sounds like it.
I take it this is different from imagination thought.
Imagination is the key to mans success I believe.
We imagine things then we make them so.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does that make me an aphantastic, or is that just normal, or is there a wide spectrum of experience with no clear dividing line?

Sounds like it.

Which one does it sound like?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does that make me an aphantastic, or is that just normal, or is there a wide spectrum of experience with no clear dividing line?

Sounds like it.

Which one does it sound like?

Dunno really, I’d need to study you more.
What star sign are you?

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Sounds like it.

Which one does it sound like?

Dunno really, I’d need to study you more.
What star sign are you?

Born under a bad sign,
If it wasn’t for real bad luck,
I wouldn’t have no luck at all.

(Not really true, but the words came to mind (but I wouldn’t say I heard them))

Iike you I can’t form crystal clear images of people or places in my mind at will, but I do, at times, have very vivid dreams that include these sorts of details…

diddly-squat said:

Iike you I can’t form crystal clear images of people or places in my mind at will, but I do, at times, have very vivid dreams that include these sorts of details…

Yes, dreams I see images clearly.

At least I recall seeing images clearly (when I recall dreams, which isn’t often), but I can’t recreate the images I had when I was dreaming.

Anyone here who does have clear mental images?

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

Iike you I can’t form crystal clear images of people or places in my mind at will, but I do, at times, have very vivid dreams that include these sorts of details…

Yes, dreams I see images clearly.

At least I recall seeing images clearly (when I recall dreams, which isn’t often), but I can’t recreate the images I had when I was dreaming.

same same

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does that make me an aphantastic, or is that just normal, or is there a wide spectrum of experience with no clear dividing line?

Sounds like it.

Which one does it sound like?

Sounds like you should get your noggin looked at.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Sounds like it.

Which one does it sound like?

Sounds like you should get your noggin looked at.

Why, will that do me any good?

Should d-s as well?

Maybe it’s just an engineer thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Which one does it sound like?

Sounds like you should get your noggin looked at.

Why, will that do me any good?

Should d-s as well?

Maybe it’s just an engineer thing.

Somehow, I doubt that. I would have assumed that most engineers are better than average at visualising things.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Sounds like you should get your noggin looked at.

Why, will that do me any good?

Should d-s as well?

Maybe it’s just an engineer thing.

Somehow, I doubt that. I would have assumed that most engineers are better than average at visualising things.

I can visualize things fine enough in that I can ‘see’ how forms would look if rotated and the like, I just don’t form photo realistic images in my head…

Mine’s alright, it’s not great.

I was the first born and a difficult exit so cleared a path for me brother and sister, something i’ve never felt any appreciation regards.

Moving on from cranial deformation and the special gifts granted me as I entered the world, there was the early lessons to do with gravity and my comparatively soft head hitting concrete floors (falling out of the highchair), running into things, oh and there was those lead slugs i’d carry around in me mouth later in life (just one source of lead), and here I am.

Mostly i’m generous and call it personality.

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why, will that do me any good?

Should d-s as well?

Maybe it’s just an engineer thing.

Somehow, I doubt that. I would have assumed that most engineers are better than average at visualising things.

I can visualize things fine enough in that I can ‘see’ how forms would look if rotated and the like, I just don’t form photo realistic images in my head…

Same here.

And the popularity of sketching to understand how something works suggests to me that many people find a real image much more accessible than an imagined image created in their head.

Not being able to plug my brain into your mental imagery, it’s not really possible to compare it with mine.

Bubblecar said:

Not being able to plug my brain into your mental imagery, it’s not really possible to compare it with mine.

I don’t want a comparison. I’m interested in how other people describe their own experience.

So far 100% of respondents have described something that seems pretty similar to mine (but may of course be totally different).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Not being able to plug my brain into your mental imagery, it’s not really possible to compare it with mine.

I don’t want a comparison. I’m interested in how other people describe their own experience.

So far 100% of respondents have described something that seems pretty similar to mine (but may of course be totally different).

My visual thoughts are clear and photorealistic.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Not being able to plug my brain into your mental imagery, it’s not really possible to compare it with mine.

I don’t want a comparison. I’m interested in how other people describe their own experience.

So far 100% of respondents have described something that seems pretty similar to mine (but may of course be totally different).

My visual thoughts are clear and photorealistic.

OK, so now 50% similar to me, and 50% totally different.

Do you find any benefit in sketching to understand complex ideas, or is that just superfluous for you?

My mental imagery can be very detailed and realistic, or very detailed and unrealistic, or skimpy and diagrammatic, depending on what I choose to imagine and how much I concentrate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t want a comparison. I’m interested in how other people describe their own experience.

So far 100% of respondents have described something that seems pretty similar to mine (but may of course be totally different).

My visual thoughts are clear and photorealistic.

OK, so now 50% similar to me, and 50% totally different.

Do you find any benefit in sketching to understand complex ideas, or is that just superfluous for you?

I’d say sketching, or CADing, will sometimes be of use to me in that regard, at least as a check.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So far 100% of respondents have described something that seems pretty similar to mine (but may of course be totally different).

dv said:

My visual thoughts are clear and photorealistic.

Are they as vivid as dreams?

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

My visual thoughts are clear and photorealistic.

Are they as vivid as dreams?

I would say that the vividity of dreams varies considerably, as do the vividity of visual thoughts, but I would think on average the thoughts are more vivid than the dreams. Many dreams are quite sketchy.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

My visual thoughts are clear and photorealistic.

Are they as vivid as dreams?

Mine used to be, but not anymore. When I was 15, I had a piano exam. I wasn’t allowed to look at my notes when I was in the exam, so I sat in the waiting room and looked at my notes page. When I was in the exam and asked questions by the examiner, I read the answers off the sheet, which was now a vivid image in my mind, crystal clear.

I was the only person in my group to score 100%.

Of course these subjective descriptions probably aren’t very good evidence, quite possibly we are all describing the same thing.

dv said:

Of course these subjective descriptions probably aren’t very good evidence, quite possibly we are all describing the same thing.

Maybe, but it’s hard to see how JTQ’s music exam trick could be replicated inside my head.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Of course these subjective descriptions probably aren’t very good evidence, quite possibly we are all describing the same thing.

Maybe, but it’s hard to see how JTQ’s music exam trick could be replicated inside my head.

That was 21 years ago. Unless I have a lot of sleep, followed by plenty of caffeine and in the right state of mind (stress-free), I wouldn’t be able to do it again either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Of course these subjective descriptions probably aren’t very good evidence, quite possibly we are all describing the same thing.

Maybe, but it’s hard to see how JTQ’s music exam trick could be replicated inside my head.

I used to be able to remember an entire page of notes for exams etc It was a combination of remembering the order of the notes visually and what came next in the information sequence. This was almost completely a visual trick as I am awful at remembering verbal information like song-words or poetry.

I would imagine an artist drawing/painting real life would have excellent recall, as they have looked closely at the way things work in order to reproduce them and have trained themselves in this regard. I can recall in some detail things that are of interest to me, possibly because I am more familiar with them, although things noticed in passing or are of little interest my memory is almost a blank. However viewing a photograph is much easier to recall, again because I have studied it more and for longer periods.

PermeateFree said:

I would imagine an artist drawing/painting real life would have excellent recall, as they have looked closely at the way things work in order to reproduce them and have trained themselves in this regard. I can recall in some detail things that are of interest to me, possibly because I am more familiar with them, although things noticed in passing or are of little interest my memory is almost a blank. However viewing a photograph is much easier to recall, again because I have studied it more and for longer periods.

Savant draws city skyline from memory

JTQ said:

PermeateFree said:

I would imagine an artist drawing/painting real life would have excellent recall, as they have looked closely at the way things work in order to reproduce them and have trained themselves in this regard. I can recall in some detail things that are of interest to me, possibly because I am more familiar with them, although things noticed in passing or are of little interest my memory is almost a blank. However viewing a photograph is much easier to recall, again because I have studied it more and for longer periods.

Savant draws city skyline from memory

I tried to do that then I remembered I’m an idiot

The Rev Dodgson said:

Anyone here who does have clear mental images?

I suspect that this phenomena would indicate a correlation and balance between specific sensory depth, language application and self-censoring. I have always had good eyesight and I developed a fairly broad vocabulary. My particular scenic recall meant I became aware at an early age that I ‘never forget a face’. My mental imagery is generally vivid.

To give this perspective I have found that I almost never remember a name unless I have conscientiously used it at some point and even this can fail if there has been sufficient time since I used it. I do my best to at least mentally repeat a persons name when I meet them if not use it straight away. This I have tracked to not having been taught cognitive listening skills during youth. This was facilitated by those whose care I was dependant on not valuing my opinion or feedback on a subject and speaking in a dictatorial manner requiring rote learning of their expectations. While on the subject I thank those here who have contributed to my efforts to develop functional listening skills during my tenancy.

By ‘sensory depth’ I refer to the mind’s awareness of each sense and capacity to interpret the perceived impulses and impressions. A mental image is made of information. The nature of that information is reliant first on the individual’s innate genetic strengths and weaknesses and then on the learning environment those genes are provided as they mature. An area which will provide perspective might be ‘poison of choice’ in any particular individual. Perception altering substances effect the senses and a persons imbibing preference will invariably be significantly defined by which sense/s dominate their conclusions about their environment.

To return more specifically to the OP, every individual at maturity has developed at least one sense that governs their method of information retention. Those who have been encouraged to think out problems may more than likely have difficulty providing detail to a mental image. This is because they have relied on words rather than images to govern their self direction. Those who have had to learn on the run will inevitably have sharper mental imagery skills.

individuals blind from birth must conjur imagery, from feel no doubt(including felt/sensed body shape, and geometry of it), but the structures of mind for dealing with the likes probably have a bit bit of headstart off the bat, few million years of evolution and all living on the earth.

The Rev Dodgson said:

l

(Not really true, but the words came to mind (but I wouldn’t say I heard them))

But how did you visualise the words, Rev?

stan101 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

l

(Not really true, but the words came to mind (but I wouldn’t say I heard them))

But how did you visualise the words, Rev?

Good question.

I’m not sure that I visualised it at all (although I probably audiolised it), but now you ask, I’m getting a vague image of a West Bruce and Laing album (even though it’s a Cream song) and a Jack Bruce video clip I watched recently. But these are very vague images, hardly worthy of the name image at all.

I’m not sure any of us visualise in the form of pictures. I mean you can say ‘I can visualise my child’, but it’s really just an understanding that you would be able to recognize them when you see them.

I can visualise scenes described in written word, but it’s really just a catalogue of prior experiences, not a picture as such.

Arts said:

I’m not sure any of us visualise in the form of pictures. I mean you can say ‘I can visualise my child’, but it’s really just an understanding that you would be able to recognize them when you see them.

I can visualise scenes described in written word, but it’s really just a catalogue of prior experiences, not a picture as such.

OK, so that’s how I see (that word again) it as well, but the NS article was written as though not being able to create a clear visual image at will was unusual (1-2% of the population I think they said).

it’s the vibe.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I’m not sure any of us visualise in the form of pictures. I mean you can say ‘I can visualise my child’, but it’s really just an understanding that you would be able to recognize them when you see them.

I can visualise scenes described in written word, but it’s really just a catalogue of prior experiences, not a picture as such.

OK, so that’s how I see (that word again) it as well, but the NS article was written as though not being able to create a clear visual image at will was unusual (1-2% of the population I think they said).

I could draw a fair picture of anyone I had spent any time around.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I’m not sure any of us visualise in the form of pictures. I mean you can say ‘I can visualise my child’, but it’s really just an understanding that you would be able to recognize them when you see them.

I can visualise scenes described in written word, but it’s really just a catalogue of prior experiences, not a picture as such.

OK, so that’s how I see (that word again) it as well, but the NS article was written as though not being able to create a clear visual image at will was unusual (1-2% of the population I think they said).

I could draw a fair picture of anyone I had spent any time around.

from memory that is.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I’m not sure any of us visualise in the form of pictures. I mean you can say ‘I can visualise my child’, but it’s really just an understanding that you would be able to recognize them when you see them.

I can visualise scenes described in written word, but it’s really just a catalogue of prior experiences, not a picture as such.

OK, so that’s how I see (that word again) it as well, but the NS article was written as though not being able to create a clear visual image at will was unusual (1-2% of the population I think they said).

I could draw a fair picture of anyone I had spent any time around.

But being able to draw a picture of someone is different to having a visual image of them when they aren’t there.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so that’s how I see (that word again) it as well, but the NS article was written as though not being able to create a clear visual image at will was unusual (1-2% of the population I think they said).

I could draw a fair picture of anyone I had spent any time around.

But being able to draw a picture of someone is different to having a visual image of them when they aren’t there.

I have good recall of photo images I have spent a long time looking at

My image conjuring likes to keep moving and changing zoom and view angle, flits to different things too very quickly.
The scale thing can go from a galactic to world view to the microscopic in a flash(seemingly).

I just went for a trip down to me front gate, viewed a few things at different angles, zoomed in on this and that, went down the road reserve scrub, took a trip out into space, now i’m going around the dams.

Anyway I can’t be flying around like superman off his antipsychotics.

Imagination and Reality Look Different in the Brain

It turns out that that reality and imagination flow in different directions in the brain, researchers say. The visual information from real events that the eyes see flows “up” from the brain’s occipital lobe to the parietal lobe, but imagined images flow “down” from the parietal to the occipital.

http://www.livescience.com/49244-imagination-reality-brain-flow-direction.html

>The visual information from real events that the eyes see flows “up” from the brain’s occipital lobe to the parietal lobe, but imagined images flow “down” from the parietal to the occipital.

yeah’d be bidirectional

Bear in mind though:

The researchers could not determine, however, whether imagination originates in the parietal lobe. It may instead flow through the parietal lobe from the frontal lobe, the brain region most associated with human intelligence. This is a topic for further investigation, the researchers said.

Bubblecar said:

Bear in mind though:

The researchers could not determine, however, whether imagination originates in the parietal lobe. It may instead flow through the parietal lobe from the frontal lobe, the brain region most associated with human intelligence. This is a topic for further investigation, the researchers said.

more research needed…

Bubblecar said:

Imagination and Reality Look Different in the Brain

It turns out that that reality and imagination flow in different directions in the brain, researchers say. The visual information from real events that the eyes see flows “up” from the brain’s occipital lobe to the parietal lobe, but imagined images flow “down” from the parietal to the occipital.

http://www.livescience.com/49244-imagination-reality-brain-flow-direction.html

Interesting. I suspect however that their complex statistical analysis is over-simplifying a complex process.

It would be interesting to see if people who report different experiences of imagined images show a different response in this analysis though.

i’d expect you’re imagining more than you think you are, rev, the moment-to-moment practical necessities of life require quite a bit of detail (most of which is conjured/made up/constructed/reconstructed).

To further my earlier observations I would mention that people often seem to forget the mechanisms of balance as the sixth sense. Balance is defined by cochleal aspects and coordinated through proprioception. This may indicate where arbitrary impermanence of a mental image might originate. To functionally coordinate balance the mind must detail and assess both positive and negative predictables to arrive at a conclusion and course of action.

Postpocelipse said:

To further my earlier observations I would mention that people often seem to forget the mechanisms of balance as the sixth sense. Balance is defined by cochleal aspects and coordinated through proprioception. This may indicate where arbitrary impermanence of a mental image might originate. To functionally coordinate balance the mind must detail and assess both positive and negative predictables to arrive at a conclusion and course of action.

Further assessment might conclude balance as the coordinating sense as even a conversation might offer the possibility of remaining upright or finding oneself on the ground.

transition said:

i’d expect you’re imagining more than you think you are, rev, the moment-to-moment practical necessities of life require quite a bit of detail (most of which is conjured/made up/constructed/reconstructed).

But I’m not talking about what I imagine. I’m talking about what I see.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

To further my earlier observations I would mention that people often seem to forget the mechanisms of balance as the sixth sense. Balance is defined by cochleal aspects and coordinated through proprioception. This may indicate where arbitrary impermanence of a mental image might originate. To functionally coordinate balance the mind must detail and assess both positive and negative predictables to arrive at a conclusion and course of action.

Further assessment might conclude balance as the coordinating sense as even a conversation might offer the possibility of remaining upright or finding oneself on the ground.

In terms of mental imaging it may be that default over-ride of mental imaging is attached to centre of balance for fail-safe purposes. This may indicate the complexity of maintaining a mental image.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

To further my earlier observations I would mention that people often seem to forget the mechanisms of balance as the sixth sense. Balance is defined by cochleal aspects and coordinated through proprioception. This may indicate where arbitrary impermanence of a mental image might originate. To functionally coordinate balance the mind must detail and assess both positive and negative predictables to arrive at a conclusion and course of action.

Further assessment might conclude balance as the coordinating sense as even a conversation might offer the possibility of remaining upright or finding oneself on the ground.

In terms of mental imaging it may be that default over-ride of mental imaging is attached to centre of balance for fail-safe purposes. This may indicate the complexity of maintaining a mental image.

I doubt it, since the response is the same when sitting or lying flat on my back, as when standing, but at the moment I’m more interested in how other people describe their experience, rather than what the underlying mechanism might be.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Further assessment might conclude balance as the coordinating sense as even a conversation might offer the possibility of remaining upright or finding oneself on the ground.

In terms of mental imaging it may be that default over-ride of mental imaging is attached to centre of balance for fail-safe purposes. This may indicate the complexity of maintaining a mental image.

I doubt it, since the response is the same when sitting or lying flat on my back, as when standing, but at the moment I’m more interested in how other people describe their experience, rather than what the underlying mechanism might be.

From the mental perspective balance is never concluded in any position

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

In terms of mental imaging it may be that default over-ride of mental imaging is attached to centre of balance for fail-safe purposes. This may indicate the complexity of maintaining a mental image.

I doubt it, since the response is the same when sitting or lying flat on my back, as when standing, but at the moment I’m more interested in how other people describe their experience, rather than what the underlying mechanism might be.

From the mental perspective balance is never concluded in any position

A better test of it would be to minimise environmental awareness such as in a sensory deprivation tank to determine subsequent imaging clarity.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

In terms of mental imaging it may be that default over-ride of mental imaging is attached to centre of balance for fail-safe purposes. This may indicate the complexity of maintaining a mental image.

I doubt it, since the response is the same when sitting or lying flat on my back, as when standing, but at the moment I’m more interested in how other people describe their experience, rather than what the underlying mechanism might be.

From the mental perspective balance is never concluded in any position

I’m not sure what that means, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t tell me what your experience of mental images is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I doubt it, since the response is the same when sitting or lying flat on my back, as when standing, but at the moment I’m more interested in how other people describe their experience, rather than what the underlying mechanism might be.

From the mental perspective balance is never concluded in any position

I’m not sure what that means, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t tell me what your experience of mental images is.

What I have suggested is that while there is any priority in the mind to maintain balance and comfort mental imaging permanence is forfeit so that mental imaging is best experienced without environmental distraction. Without significant familiarity with this circumstance a person could only provide a clear description of the process of image over-ride in the mind.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

From the mental perspective balance is never concluded in any position

I’m not sure what that means, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t tell me what your experience of mental images is.

What I have suggested is that while there is any priority in the mind to maintain balance and comfort mental imaging permanence is forfeit so that mental imaging is best experienced without environmental distraction. Without significant familiarity with this circumstance a person could only provide a clear description of the process of image over-ride in the mind.

I hoped to start by defining what over-rides an image so that can be differentiated from the image formation process, as somewhere to start a clear description.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m not sure what that means, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t tell me what your experience of mental images is.

What I have suggested is that while there is any priority in the mind to maintain balance and comfort mental imaging permanence is forfeit so that mental imaging is best experienced without environmental distraction. Without significant familiarity with this circumstance a person could only provide a clear description of the process of image over-ride in the mind.

I hoped to start by defining what over-rides an image so that can be differentiated from the image formation process, as somewhere to start a clear description.

But I’m interested in what you actually experience under normal circumstances, rather than a hypothesised mechanism to explain this experience.

Memory is notoriously unreliable as time passes.

My older visual memories are (I assume like most) a bit like looking at a degraded frame here or there from a movie reel. When I try to mentally zoom in on faces from many years ago for instance I find that there is not much detail there.

Rev, I suspect that you are as thoroughly ‘normal’ as me.

Ian said:

Rev, I suspect that you are as thoroughly ‘normal’ as me.

There’s no call for insults.

:-)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

What I have suggested is that while there is any priority in the mind to maintain balance and comfort mental imaging permanence is forfeit so that mental imaging is best experienced without environmental distraction. Without significant familiarity with this circumstance a person could only provide a clear description of the process of image over-ride in the mind.

I hoped to start by defining what over-rides an image so that can be differentiated from the image formation process, as somewhere to start a clear description.

But I’m interested in what you actually experience under normal circumstances, rather than a hypothesised mechanism to explain this experience.

I am not simply hypothesising a mechanism. The mind’s auto-imaging facility processes in the pico-second vicinity.. The auto-image function has priority over the secondary imaging facility. I am pointing out that experience of minimal vividity imaging is dominated by distraction toward vital imaging defaults. The initial experience of creating and maintaining a mental image is that of over-riding the primary distraction. Once formed an image can be either still or mobile and one can change details at will.

Postpocelipse said:

I am not simply hypothesising a mechanism. The mind’s auto-imaging facility processes in the pico-second vicinity.. The auto-image function has priority over the secondary imaging facility. I am pointing out that experience of minimal vividity imaging is dominated by distraction toward vital imaging defaults. The initial experience of creating and maintaining a mental image is that of over-riding the primary distraction. Once formed an image can be either still or mobile and one can change details at will.

Other than the last sentence, what you said there is a hypothesis of a mechanism. What do you think it is?

I presume the last sentence is based on your own experience, which you seem to be projecting onto everybody else.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

I am not simply hypothesising a mechanism. The mind’s auto-imaging facility processes in the pico-second vicinity.. The auto-image function has priority over the secondary imaging facility. I am pointing out that experience of minimal vividity imaging is dominated by distraction toward vital imaging defaults. The initial experience of creating and maintaining a mental image is that of over-riding the primary distraction. Once formed an image can be either still or mobile and one can change details at will.

Other than the last sentence, what you said there is a hypothesis of a mechanism. What do you think it is?

I presume the last sentence is based on your own experience, which you seem to be projecting onto everybody else.

I am going through the process of defining my experience of mental imaging which I apologise for not being ready-prepared.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

I am not simply hypothesising a mechanism. The mind’s auto-imaging facility processes in the pico-second vicinity.. The auto-image function has priority over the secondary imaging facility. I am pointing out that experience of minimal vividity imaging is dominated by distraction toward vital imaging defaults. The initial experience of creating and maintaining a mental image is that of over-riding the primary distraction. Once formed an image can be either still or mobile and one can change details at will.

Other than the last sentence, what you said there is a hypothesis of a mechanism. What do you think it is?

I presume the last sentence is based on your own experience, which you seem to be projecting onto everybody else.

I am going through the process of defining my experience of mental imaging which I apologise for not being ready-prepared.

OK, I will mentally insert the word “my” where appropriate in your text then.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Other than the last sentence, what you said there is a hypothesis of a mechanism. What do you think it is?

I presume the last sentence is based on your own experience, which you seem to be projecting onto everybody else.

I am going through the process of defining my experience of mental imaging which I apologise for not being ready-prepared.

OK, I will mentally insert the word “my” where appropriate in your text then.

I have assumed genetic invariables are universal..

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

I am going through the process of defining my experience of mental imaging which I apologise for not being ready-prepared.

OK, I will mentally insert the word “my” where appropriate in your text then.

I have assumed genetic invariables are universal..

Since everybody has different genes (other than identical twins), that’s a strange assumption.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I will mentally insert the word “my” where appropriate in your text then.

I have assumed genetic invariables are universal..

Since everybody has different genes (other than identical twins), that’s a strange assumption.

Perhaps the distinction is in the limits of available genes and possibly RNA restrictions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I will mentally insert the word “my” where appropriate in your text then.

I have assumed genetic invariables are universal..

Since everybody has different genes (other than identical twins), that’s a strange assumption.

One might conclude that at least part of a rhinoceros’s poor vision can be attributed to the position of it’s eyes in it’s skull. Our 3-dimensional imaging format would not be available to a rhinoceros in most likelihood. It is these constants I was referring to.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

I have assumed genetic invariables are universal..

Since everybody has different genes (other than identical twins), that’s a strange assumption.

One might conclude that at least part of a rhinoceros’s poor vision can be attributed to the position of it’s eyes in it’s skull. Our 3-dimensional imaging format would not be available to a rhinoceros in most likelihood. It is these constants I was referring to.

But no-one has the least clue on how genes affect the way we generate and process mental images, if any.

We don’t even have any reliable data on the range of difference in these mental processes, as far as I can see.

>But no-one has the least clue on how genes affect the way we generate and process mental images, if any.

there the highly variable neural unfoldin’ in the womb too
gift us with special attributes ‘em do, poetry for example
I wonderin’ what dear mum did do that day to make it so
perhaps she ate healthy’n good night’s sleep untroubled
and here ol’ am the genius is clear a nice rhyme for you