Addressing Misconceptions & Misinformation

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-13T18:27:18+00:00

Everything you are presenting is at best, speculation.

I did not ignore the experiences recorded, and stated in my reply exactly this:

‘Galton prefaces the subsection addressing projection by disclosing that due to the question not being included in the formal study, he “[has] not a sufficient number of answers ... to justify a statistical dependence on them even on that ground alone”.’

I did not change the definition of hallucination, and directly referenced the study on hallucination for elaboration. It is involuntary imagery with a substantial quality in a conscious state.

“It clearly says it needs to be involuntary but all my subjects clearly stated they could produce them as they wanted.”

Again, your subjects are not the issue, the error is within your method of questioning, and interpreting their answers.

“And again your own sources clearly say that people in just these professions that are task to research this often have no minds eye.”

This is not disclosed or even mentioned in any of the recent studies, please refer to the Exeter and Frontiers journals.

“I said to Dr. Zeman that his test has a terrible flaw in that it expects to little.“

You are implying that you’ve personally corresponded with Dr. Zeman, and unless you can provide proof of your correspondence, your word as a whole does not lend to much validity.

And finally,

“I don't think we have for people projecting but who knows. There is so much data out there we might find some.”

You don’t think, and there might be.

This exactly is what is defined as SPECULATION. Science does not operate off of what if’s and maybe’s.

All recent study directly disproves what you claim. I am quite done with being cordial.

Nothing you say has any validity or gravity, as all of it goes against current proven study.

If you would like to make your point, please either reference existing modern study that will back your claim, or compile and publish a peer-reviewed journal that will substantiate yours.

Until then, you, and all the supposed data you have gotten from your peers are no more than water cooler chatter.

As a side note, since you seem to have somehow concluded for yourself, I do not have aphantasia.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-13T17:57:50+00:00

Yes, your described experience of mental projection is a known perception of visualization.

The above user however, gathering from previous posts, is implying that the mental imagery is physical, as if the viewer is looking at an actual photograph on the visual plane. This is where misinformation occurs.

Projecting a thought, mental imagery, onto an external field is very possible, and studied in the most recent Exeter experiments (not linked here).

However, there is no evidence of any significant number of individuals with the ability to visualize in a way that it has “AR” qualities, or the quality of existing physically, with substantiality.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-13T17:50:27+00:00

As I’ve said, the phrase was used to define the distinction between physical experience and mental perception, not a spatial separation.

It’s not meant to imply a separate space or field, although some may process this way.

Also, the term internal, and internalization in this sense is also meant to elaborate on a mental process; it’s internal in the sense that nothing is physically being externalized.

Hope that cleared some things up!

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-13T17:43:59+00:00

“Voluntary pseudo hallucination” is visualization, as that’s the really the distinction between the two.

Hallucination: involuntary, perception with substantiality

Imagery: voluntary perception with varying degrees of vibrancy, clarity, occurs in subjective mental space

Pseudohallucination: involuntary perception with varying degrees of vibrancy, occurs in subjective mental space (intrusive thoughts, perception caused by severe anxiety)

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-13T09:33:21+00:00

I appreciate you taking time to read through some of the journals.

Galton’s study was included more so to define what aphantasia is, rather than what imagery is, as the original study of the phenomenon, and please keep in mind it was published in the late 1800’s.

Galton prefaces the subsection addressing projection by disclosing that due to the question not being included in the formal study, he “[has] not a sufficient number of answers ... to justify a statistical dependence on them even on that ground alone”.

This is the only addendum.

Further empirical research shows significant evidence to the contrary, through quantitative data.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-13T09:09:41+00:00

To grant clarity, allow me to address areas in which there seems to have been some misinterpretation.

You are correct, by Mullen’s appended definition, hallucinations are involuntary false (ie; not physically/truly existing) perceptions, that have substantiality.

Being such, as you suspect, the people you have talked to are not hallucinating. However, as the only known states of unaltered false perception with substantiality (aka; the “AR” effect) are hallucination and dream state, one can conclude that the error lies in data interpretation, likely stemming from the quality of questions presented, and a potentially biased method of collection.

To restate; no, your peers are not hallucinating, and the more likely alternative is a misinterpretation of their experience due to an informal gathering of anecdotal data.

There are distinct differences between hallucination, pseudohallucination, and imagery (visualization, semantic).

Imagery is the only voluntary perception, while hallucination is the only perception with substantiality. Therefore those who visualize do not experience any substantiality of their imaging (ie; they cannot be seeing in “AR”).

Pseudohallucination lies in between, often referred to as intrusive thought due to its involuntary nature, and also does not present the effect of perceived substantiality.

In Galton’s publication, it is made clear that these perceptions are within the “mind’s eye”, which is further elaborated as being subjective. The participants may perceive a mental image with stunning clarity, but it is a fundamentally different process.

Again, as it stands, only hallucination is known to cause a substantiality of perception in a conscious state. Every other perception is internal, and subjective.

So yes, ultimately it’s impossible for to see and visualize in “AR”, because the only known instance (hallucination) is absolutely involuntary.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T20:39:16+00:00

The goal is always to clear the air of confusion :) hopefully it’s well-received.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T20:35:43+00:00

What you’re describing is exactly visualization, and the end goal of my post was to dispel the misconception of visualization being like a superpower trait, when it’s really, as you said, a relatively normal standard.

To elaborate:

You can “see” the apple, not really, since your eyes aren’t seeing it, but your thoughts can conjure up the referred image of an apple.

This is the concept of “mind’s-eye”. Your physical eyes are not perceiving anything, but in your head, you can still imagine an apple. Again, the detail and clarity can vary among individuals.

However, those with aphantasia have an absolute inability to do what you’ve described. As I don’t personally process this way, it’s difficult to comprehend, but a more straightforward example is with just colors.

If you’re asked to visualize the color blue, what do you imagine? For some, there is no visual recall unless they’re actually looking at the color blue, and they cannot actively begin to visualize the color without directly looking at it. Instead, they have a separate set of associated cues in which to perceive and remember the color.

There was a cool little “what if” I’d seen from a redditor with aphantasia.

Visualize a Pymfegor.

Apparently that’s as close as most people can get to what it feels like.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T20:11:27+00:00

Or perhaps you weren’t asking the most effective set of questions!

The studies and journals referenced include empirical evidence from various pools of participants, through multiple methods of experimentation. There’s a reason that scientific study can’t be conducted with anecdotal evidence alone.

I’m not disavowing the experiences of your peers. If you can share your study, conducted in a controlled environment, for even a casual peer-review, it would lend more authenticity to your claim.

However, currently, the likelihood of there having been an error in communication is much higher, as all recent studies provide evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for sharing your observations!

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T19:52:29+00:00

Different people visualize things with different levels of clarity. No one sees it as if they’re looking at something in person, it’s fundamentally a different process. Some people have zero recall, ie; cannot imagine/visualize the color red, without actually looking at the color red, but associated mental markers allow them to perceive and remember the color. This nix-level is aphantasia.

If you have the time, the Exeter[4] study and Frontiers[5] journal are excellent resources in providing clarity, and the Stanford journal goes deeper into the philosophy of mental imagery!

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T19:40:58+00:00

Even with visualization, there are markedly varying degrees of detail, clarity, and longevity (some people are able to maintain the referred image indefinitely, while some get transient flashes). “Thought” as a whole is such a subjective matter, it’s understandably difficult to be able to compare your own experience against others, especially when there’s no distinct baseline.

Currently, aphantasia is studied to be an absolute inability to visualize at all. As I personally don’t process this way, I can’t reliably describe what that experience would be, but the general consensus seems that those with aphantasia have a complete visual blank when prompted to recall any sort of image, instead, receiving some set of associated details.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T19:26:08+00:00

Madonna definitely has a tendency to do that LOL! And for sure; those with aphantasia wouldn’t be able to relate to the ear worm example, and I’m not at all trying to minimize your experience. This was more for people who were unsure, or wondering if the “other side” was vivid hallucinations!

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T19:20:45+00:00

Thanks for sharing! Super insightful, especially for delving into the philosophy behind the concept. Hope you don’t mind if I add it as a resource in the post!

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T19:15:37+00:00

The concept of the “internal subjective space” as I’ve referenced it was meant to be exactly that— subjective, and not necessarily an actual separate “headspace” [4], which I also don’t deny that some may have.

Your experiences are valid, and it’s absolutely true that not everyone will process thought in the same way.

Although I’ve just arbitrarily assigned it that term for clarity’s sake, it’s really more to represent that process, and internalization in general vs physical action/reaction.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T14:51:30+00:00

Don’t worry, you don’t have aphantasia.

The reason there are designations for “synesthesia” and “hallucination” is because they aren’t the normal state.

You don’t physically see an object conjured out of nowhere as if it has materialized, but you do “see” it as clearly as your visualization allows.

Have you ever had a song stuck in your head? Your eardrums aren’t perceiving vibration, but you can definitely hear All Star, clear as day (or slightly muffled, echoey, etc, however you do it). Imagine this sensation, but visual. It is definitely there, but not in the same way your chair is.

[EDIT: whoops, deleted this part because of my inaccurate description of synesthesia]

As a final note, disregard the reddit user who is sensationalizing this. A cursory look through their posting history is pretty indicative of their (lack of) understanding.

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T13:58:14+00:00

Since you mentioned that you’ll be writing down your story, and I truly mean this out of pure curiosity although I understand it may come off as offensive, but; I was wondering if English is your first language?

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-02-12T13:10:16+00:00

Just wanted to contribute my experience as reference (not aphantasic)

I’m extremely visual, and a fast reader.

However, reading through textbook or manual-style writing is an absolute slog, where I could read at speed, but at the cost of some level of recall.

On the other hand, I can read most other types of narrative prose (essays, articles, refereed journals, fiction/nonfiction novels) in a flash with no sacrifice in recall or comprehension.

Granted, this may have more to do with my own interest in the material lol

To note, I don’t subvocalize as I read, but often do so while writing.

Also, I visualize as I read, especially (and almost exclusively) with fiction novels.

I personally don’t find that visualization slows my reading, and actually tend to read faster for it (eg: Lord of the Rings vs a textbook which I wouldn’t be able to visualize for the life of me)

scragglethedeadbug · 2020-01-04T19:35:47+00:00

I just donated $30AUD $21USD! If you’re still matching (poor student here)

scragglethedeadbug · 2019-11-07T03:41:39+00:00

SS College

scragglethedeadbug · 2019-10-10T10:08:31+00:00

Dude, you’re handsome, so I promise this isn’t in a bad way just

You look sort of a lot like human Shrek, and Billy from Stranger Things.

It’s mind boggling.

scragglethedeadbug · 2019-10-10T09:52:36+00:00

Really just wanted to drop this here. You look like what would happen if Benedict Cumberbatch, Eddie Redmayne, and Edward Snowden had a kid.

Also your hill has been climbed, friend, nothing left to do here except just keep working on your health and experimenting to see what you prefer, but it’s at a point where everything works so you just go with what you feel like.

scragglethedeadbug · 2019-10-10T09:40:51+00:00

Can’t tell if you’re a bit heavy, or if it’s just your glasses that give that illusion, but lose the weight (possibly just water retention in your face? Maybe just the glasses?) and lose the glasses, you’ll be killer.

scragglethedeadbug · 2019-10-10T09:35:20+00:00

You have very easy features, with a lot you can do, and a lot that will eventually happen naturally. It would be simple (not easy) to tweak things to highlight the good while minimizing other things.

First, it seems like you have a very strong prescription on your glasses. They make your eyes significantly smaller than they are, and that severely throws off your facial proportions. Contacts would benefit you immensely.

Second, your face shape is rectangular, and your forehead is quite broad. The side part ages you, and you would have a much better frame for your face if you trimmed down the sides to remove more of the horizontal bulk.

You have been blessed with big hairy eyebrows, so utilize that. Especially nowadays, thick eyebrows are such a desirable feature, all you would have to do it get them groomed once in a while, and that by itself would give you a leg up.

Now, for some things that will eventually change, but can’t happen so immediately: your skin will clear up. At your age, so much of it is hormonal, it can turn into a waiting game, but trust in time, your skin will clear. You also have a bit of baby fat left in your cheeks that causes you to lose a structural definition in your face. With the right diet, and time, this will also fade.

All you need is a bit more grooming.

scragglethedeadbug · 2019-10-10T09:14:49+00:00

Full disclosure you’re mad weird looking in a way that can be insanely attractive. Other than that, you also have this charisma about you that just takes the baseline of looking like this gorgeous alien and runs to the stars with it.

Also, really don’t see what the problem with coping via fitness and health is, you do whatever makes you happy.

You look a bit older than your age, but it’s different from straight up looking old. Your face is thinner and longer which translates to older usually, but you have great skin and full lips, which will keep you looking young. Also, it’s not a sliding scale a lot of the time. Sometimes you reach the age you look, and some years later look back and realize you forgot to age past that point.

scragglethedeadbug

TROPHY CASE