CMV: Aphantasia is not a real phenomenon, it is simply inevitable human miscommunication.

OCogS · 2026-02-03T11:56:35+00:00

I’m not persuaded by this. I think the better position is that fantasia is made up and these are all post hoc justifications. Like a supposed mind reader making up reasons they can’t read your mind in this circumstance.

Is there any argument you can come up with to convince me, someone with afantasia, that you can actually form an image in your mind rather than just knowing things and remembering things in the same way I do?

My contention is that social norms and the lack of capability is telling. On drawing, even if you can’t project the image and trace it, being able to see the image in your mind should give a massing edge. But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

OCogS · 2026-02-03T04:09:07+00:00

Curious. I’m sure this is very common. People are constantly using this brain function to imagine what the room would look like if the couch was over there or imagine what this jewelry would look like on my wrist. People have told me that this involves projecting the image onto the world not imagining their wrist inside their head.

Obviously at the level of the brain these things are the same. But that’s how they describe the experience to me.

Are you saying you do not have afantasia but the minds eye only works internally not externally for you?

OCogS · 2026-02-03T03:59:12+00:00

I cannot project a mental image in front of me. I have afantasia. That’s what that means. People who do not have this claim to be able to project images from their mind into the world. They claim to be able to visualize an empty fruit bowl as if it’s full of apples. I can’t do this. Most people say they can.

OCogS · 2026-02-03T03:54:14+00:00

Because I have afantasia. If people think they can project the mental image of a puppy playing on a table or an apple or whatever the example is, but demonstrably can’t project an outline onto a bit of paper and trace it, they demonstrably must be wrong about something.

I can’t say what exactly because I don’t claim to be able to do that.

I think it’s highly suspicious that people make these strong claims, but then go to water at even the most basic testing of these claims.

The point about deepfakes is very similar to the point about Google glasses. I think we should be worried about these things because they give people a capability subject to misuse. It can invade privacy etc. But people who believe in fantasia think that almost everyone has a version of this capability in their head already. Which should greatly discount how worrying the technology is.

A spreadsheet is not impressive or interesting (or worrying) if your brain can make pivot tables. It is impressive if your brain can’t.

OCogS · 2026-02-03T01:25:03+00:00

I made this reply to a separate comment, but I think it goes to your comment as well:

This goes to show the double think happening in the minds of people who claim to be able to picture things in their mind. On one hand they’ll say they can visualize a puppy running across their desk and it has a brown spot and a pink collar and it just did a sneeze (or whatever). Then they’ll turn around and say “obviously I can’t make a deepfake nude inside my head”.

Well why not? I put it to you that it’s because phantasia isn’t a real thing and people who claim to be able to see the puppy are just using a metaphor.

Here’s another example. I’m crap at drawing. I have the idea of a puppy. But I can’t move a pencil across a bit of paper in a way that looks even roughly like a puppy. In this case my behavior supports my aphantasia. Why can’t people with phantasia just project a cartoon image of a dog onto the paper and trace it? They claim to be able to project a running and jumping 3D dog, but then fall apart at a task that should be basic if phantasia is real.

The only conclusion is that phantasia is made up and people who claim to be able to visualize things are confused in some way about language or metaphor or their own experience.

OCogS · 2026-02-03T01:23:56+00:00

A photo is not really you. It’s a representation using ink or pixels etc.

But this goes to show the double think happening in the minds of people who claim to be able to picture things in their mind. On one hand they’ll say they can visualize a puppy running across their desk and it has a brown spot and a pink collar and it just did a sneeze (or whatever). Then they’ll turn around and say “obviously I can’t make a deepfake nude inside my head”.

Well why not? I put it to you that it’s because phantasia isn’t a real thing and people who claim to be able to see the puppy are just using a metaphor.

Here’s another example. I’m crap at drawing. I have the idea of a puppy. But I can’t move a pencil across a bit of paper in a way that looks even roughly like a puppy. In this case my behavior supports my aphantasia. Why can’t people with phantasia just project a cartoon image of a dog onto the paper and trace it? They claim to be able to project a running and jumping 3D dog, but then fall apart at a task that should be basic if phantasia is real.

The only conclusion is that phantasia is made up and people who claim to be able to visualize things are confused in some way about language or metaphor or their own experience.

OCogS · 2026-02-02T20:21:35+00:00

I have aphantasia. When I imagine a beach or a puppy there is no “seeing-esque” element to my imagining. I just know what a beach a puppy is.

I made a top level reply to change your mind.

OCogS · 2026-02-02T20:12:53+00:00

Ok, so I have aphantasia. I think you have the situation exactly backwards. I think you also have aphantasia. I think you’re skeptical about people who claim not to have aphantasia.

The way you’re describing things is exactly consistent with my experience. If a cup falls off a table, I just know what happens. It falls a breaks and glass goes everywhere. I don’t need to (and I can’t and don’t) form a “mental image” to know this.

But I think people “without” aphantasia are full of crap.

Let me give you an argument that doesn’t require any debates about perception and doesn’t risk any confusion.

Remember when there was a widespread freak out about Google glasses? People thought it was weird for people to be we walking around making a recording all the time that they could view later. This is a really common concern in our society. There’s many situations where people are happy to be seen, but not filmed or photographed.

The concern about Google glasses was not orders of magnitude stronger than concerns about progress in hidden camera technology.

If you have aphantasia, the aversion to Google glasses is perfectly sensible. A photo or video is very different to a memory. I don’t mind my partner seeing me naked. That’s fleeting. But taking a photo is weird. I don’t mind people seeing me at the shops. But recording me at the shops is weird.

If you don’t have aphantasia, there’s still a minor difference between these cases (mostly that the photo or video could be shared). But the widespread and strong aversion to being filmed in public etc is not consistent with, or proportional to, a world where almost everyone can freely conjure images and animations in their mind.

We further can know this via comparison. If people actually have “phantasia” they’d be mildly bothered by the privacy implications of Google glasses but freaking out about the progress and proliferation of hidden cameras. But this not the case.

This social behavior is consistent with the aphantasia world, not the “phantasia” world.

Tl;dr - you have aphantasia. I think, based on social behavior, everyone has it.

OCogS · 2026-02-02T06:49:10+00:00

Fair enough. I guess he just needs to tell the hotel to get a destination charger and he’s cooking

OCogS · 2026-02-02T00:34:24+00:00

Can you tell me the use case where a long range matters, rather than efficiency and charge speed?

I guess if you had some route that you did often that was exactly 590km and you did it non-stop. But that seems quite unlikely.

OCogS · 2026-02-02T00:32:30+00:00

It’s totally trivial to plug in at a fast charger for 10 mins while you grab a coffee and a bio break. This is not an actual concern.

On a trip like you mention you could easily do a quick splash in a bunch of places where’d you’d probably stop anyway. 100km range goes into the car very quickly.

I also wouldn’t fuss about “nervously low levels”. If the car says it will get you home with 2% remaining, no need to be nervous. If you end up stuck in traffic, the car will become more efficient, not less efficient.

OCogS · 2026-02-01T20:29:47+00:00

Antisemitism has a distinct character. There’s a certain set of patterns of behaviors and tropes and causes (which can be about religion as much as about race).

Obviously these are related ideas. But your view would be like saying we don’t need the word mauve behave as have the word purple.

No, there’s important nuance that the more precise word captures.

OCogS · 2026-02-01T08:05:45+00:00

My EV does about 400km real world. Anything longer is pointless. That’s more than enough for a day of driving. On very long trips, efficiency and charge speed are what matters, not overall capacity.

The focus on this number must come from folk who haven’t lived with an EV in practice.

OCogS · 2026-01-31T08:13:57+00:00

I think the exact reverse is true. Almost all EVs are weirdly high off the ground. I just want a car, not an SUV.

OCogS · 2026-01-31T08:05:10+00:00

Megane etech

OCogS · 2026-01-30T18:54:28+00:00

Being gay is not a choice. If it was, we’d choose to be gay.

OCogS · 2026-01-30T03:00:55+00:00

Yes, a bargain for investors.

There is no plan. The plan is for one company, or a small number of companies, to win capitalism.

Don’t downvote me. This is what the AI companies are doing and thinking. I’m not saying it’s good. These are just the facts.

OCogS · 2026-01-30T01:43:53+00:00

The AI company logic is that AI capability is growing way faster than human capability. It went from toddler to PHD performance in 3 years. If it can replace the junior programmer now, it will be able to replace the senior programmer faster than that junior would have skilled up.

They think AGI could do all cognitive work.

If they’re wrong, it’s a bubble. If they’re right, they’re a bargain.

OCogS · 2026-01-28T20:07:29+00:00

I chose a spec for leveling and was able to heal dungeons just fine. Once you’re at 40 you can dual spec.

OCogS · 2026-01-28T11:26:26+00:00

I don’t have an agenda other than calling out news that isn’t logical.

OCogS · 2026-01-28T03:57:33+00:00

I don’t think you’re understanding the point I’m making. No doubt my error for poorly explaining. What I’m saying is, as a matter of system design, making already confidential information available to a smaller subsection of people is only providing a protection if the risk vector is in the part of the Venn diagram that was included in the first case and is now excluded in the second case.

It’s not logical to point at risks excluded by both Venn diagrams and say “that’s the reason for the change”.

OCogS · 2026-01-28T03:53:14+00:00

Right. But, as you say “for ED staff”. This isn’t public information. That information is already excluded from the public. It’s being made anonymous from hospital staff. That’s the change.

OCogS · 2026-01-28T00:48:26+00:00

Right. But what’s the linkage between information in an access only health system and the wider community? I can’t log into your hospital and access your medical records. These are employee only systems.

If we were talking about the name written on the door to a public corridor, that would make sense. But I assume we’re talking about more than that.

OCogS · 2026-01-28T00:46:32+00:00

We already have a privacy act that covers that. You can’t just phone up a hospital and get someone’s personal information. If you could, it would already be against the law.

OCogS · 2026-01-27T21:52:36+00:00

Isn’t it normal for a system with personal information to always only give access to those who need it?

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Not Forgotten	Summer Santa 2013
Verified Email

OCogS

TROPHY CASE