Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 159 KB, 1200x1626, Tedious+foamy+otter+poll+gypsydude29centerif+you+picked+1+or+2_281716_7534844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16704268 No.16704268 [Reply] [Original]

What would Hume have thought of these people? in relation to his sensation/idea conception

>> No.16704276

>>16704268
Who cares. Honestly. I need a man with money. If he reads, awesome. If he likes getting pegged, fuck it. Money money money

>> No.16704287

>>16704276
Based

>> No.16704319

>>16704268
I'm halfway convinced this is just some sort of misunderstanding, surely there cannot be people who cannot imagine images. It doesn't even seem to make sense. Maybe they are interpreting the question wrong somehow.

>> No.16704336

>>16704319
It's a tumblr meme mocking the NPC meme

>> No.16704348

>>16704319
Imagining isn’t seeing.
Ambiguity of language again

>> No.16704351
File: 6 KB, 213x160, lemme-asplain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16704351

>>16704319

I agree to some extent. There is an obvious "huh?" aspect to the question, and someone with ordinary "mental visioning" abilities might think they are being asked if they can summon a cgi apple in front of themselves. But there do seem to be some edge cases where people claim to have absolutely zero "mental visioning," and if it wasn't for a particularly careful and thoughtful philosophy professor of mine who vehemently claimed to lack all "mental visioning," I wouldn't take it seriously.

>> No.16704356

>>16704268
They had the whole field and are still getting shitted on by apples to apples HOLY FUCK

>> No.16704371

2

>> No.16704373

>>16704319

Yeah I refuse to believe that some people cant picture legitimate 3D objects inside their head
If there is they've got to be pretty bottom of the bell curve

>> No.16704444

>>16704348
Wow, a tripcode! Can I get your autograph?

>> No.16704446

>>16704371
You imagine a cartoon apple? Are you not able to conjure the real thing? It's even more unbelievable to me that variations between 1 and 5 exist.

>> No.16704484
File: 14 KB, 334x449, 02A063DE-FFC7-49B8-97D5-FFE43D65E35C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16704484

>>16704444


So if this is a test of imagination, yeah, I do see #1
Not very lit related despite name dropping Hume

>> No.16704514

>>16704348
Imagining can be seeing. I see things when I try to and sometimes when I don't want to.

>> No.16704526

>>16704268
The spectrum from impression to idea.

>> No.16704532

>>16704514
Only metaphorically. Someone says “I can see it now” referring to a house or a film yet unmade, he’s not really seeing anything. It’s a figure of speech

>> No.16704546

>>1666666

>> No.16704570

>>16704336
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

>> No.16705172

>>16704276
Hmmmmm I'm thinking based. Stay away from me though, roastie.

>> No.16705196

>>16704532
No it's not. Absolutely embarassing. You do read, right? What happens when you read visual descriptions?

>> No.16705215

>>16704319
Yeah that's my interpretation as well. same thing when people say they have no internal monologue. they most likely mean that there isn't a literal "voice" in their head, but there is a "self" that can consciously interpret its surroundings, which is all that's really meant by an internal monologue.

>> No.16705235

>>16705196
You don’t know what a book is yet?
Okay, so you think there’s two meanings to the word “see” I don’t care.

>> No.16705613

>>16705235
>so you think there’s two meanings to the word “see”
dumb bitch

>> No.16705621

>>16704276
>If he likes getting pegged, fuck it
... Does it refer to his asshole?

>> No.16705640

>>16704444
nice quADSS-=P[]3210-958034[QLJKRGFP85L2[]255J

>> No.16705671

It means that different people have different conceptions of apples based on their different experiences with them.
1 is a real apple. People who imagine this are going to be people who were taught about apples by people pointing out the actual object to them, and for whom thinking about apples is mostly in the context of a tangible apple.
2 is for people who have mainly learned about apples through cartoons/drawings. This is the form that most children's books are going to show apples in. Therefore, children are going to be the most likely to think about apples as this.
3 and 4 are nonsensical.
5 is for people who think about apples as a theoretical concept; a part of a thought experiment, for instance. Therefore, their understanding of "apples" as they normally use the term isn't really based on a definition of the real object but rather on a definition of a hypothetical object (tangible, basic, referred to by the modifier "apple"). In this context, "apple" means something similar to "x" in a mathematical context - a mere variable.
The basic problem is that we are discussing an extremely vague term ("apple") with fifty different definitions as if it is a unitary object. The only influence on which definition your mind immediately jumps to is which definition your mind usually immediately jumps to.

>> No.16705687

1, but the first thing to come to my mind was the taste

>> No.16705705

>>16704319
this. If you couldn't imagine and image, then you would literally be incapable of remembering something that you had seen before.

>> No.16705722

>>16704319
I'm aphantasic. If I close my eyes I see pitch black, and I absolutely cannot conjure any image in my head. I can still represent pictures conceptually, for example I can think of a beach and know at a thought level what it looks like (I could draw it), but I cannot see it in any shape or form.

>> No.16705735

>>16705671
No, this has nothing to do with that picture. It's about fidelity when it comes to visualization. Certain people can conjure in their mind's eye an apple, as if they were actually watching it; other can only conjure up a symbolic representation of an apple (like a child's drawing); other people can only conjure up the shape of the apple; finally, aphantasic people can conjure no picture of the apple.
>>16704336
>>16704348
>>16704373
>>16705215
Nope, aphantasia is real. Also it's not as debilitating as you guys present it (unless you're a painter, I guess), since aphantasic people can still represent pictures conceptually

>> No.16705749

>>16705735
Well then it should have been termed, "visualize an apple," not "imagine an apple." Now we have two variables (fidelity of visualization, concept of what an apple is) that are both independently affecting our visualization of the apple. This is a terrible experiment.

>> No.16705763

>>16705722
>for example I can think of a beach and know at a thought level what it looks like (I could draw it)
Then you can see it. You just don't know what "see" means.

>> No.16705837

>>16705763
No, I cannot see it because I cannot see any shape or any color. If you think that people cannot visualize shapes and colors, then you might be aphantasic too.
>>16705749
Yes, this distinction is entirely correct. The experiment still works as long as you point out that we're talking specifically about visualization

>> No.16705849

>>16705705
You can because memory is a fair bit more complicated than that, but as someone who thinks in images, that sensation is alien.

>> No.16705853 [DELETED] 

>>16704268
nobody's mind eye actually sees it in vivid color, I'm 5 but the color is diluted

>> No.16705855

>>16705837
I don't know what you mean by shape and color. I can feel the images, and they are real, but to call them shapes, colors, etc. would be strange because they only exist in the mind's eye. The apple I'm picturing is "red", sure but what does this actually mean? I don't feel like I do when I'm seeing read. There's no determinate diameter or surface area I can theoretically measure.
How do you have dreams, by the way?

>> No.16705871

>>16704268
I see 1 but the color is diluted and the image is kinda static, appearing and disappearingunless I concentrate on it? People dont actually see images in their minds eye as vibrant as real life do they?

>> No.16705886

>>16705855
Can you close your eyes, and visualize an apple as if you were literally looking at an apple with your actual eyes? If you can't you're aphantasic.
>How do you have dreams, by the way?
Most aphantasic people (me included) have no problem visualizing during dreams or when they are half-awake.

>> No.16705925

You can't imagine a scene with an apple and "see it" so clearly that you couldn't tell the difference between having your eyes opened and closed. That would be a hallucination.

>> No.16705948

>>16705925
I guess you're aphantasic then, what you call "hallucination" is an extremely common phenomenon in most people, as in, almost everyone can close their eyes and see images as if they were watching them with their eyes open.

>> No.16705949

>>16705886
The mind's eye isn't located in your vision. It makes no difference if you close your eyes or have them wide open, it's not part of your vision field. I'm a visual thinker and reader so I'm pretty sure I don't have aphantasia, but the objects are never static and only the parts of the objects I'm thinking about/resting my mind's eye on are in focus. How does your memory work? Do you only have language strings stored in your memory? Because for me it's always a series of images and sensations that I then have to interpret with language, that's why I can't remember quotes for my life but I can still describe locations, concepts and events from books.

>> No.16705960

>>16705948
I'll add most people can do it with their eyes open too. Lots of people can literally conjure up overlaying visual scenea as they read books (as in, they literally see people doing things in front of their book). This is a bit more rare though, but not that much.

>> No.16705990

>>16705949
That's just a matter of fidelity: if you see something, then you're not aphantasic. We, instead, see pitch black.

>How does your memory work? Do you only have language strings stored in your memory? Because for me it's always a series of images and sensations that I then have to interpret with language, that's why I can't remember quotes for my life but I can still describe locations, concepts and events from books
Although I cannot see images, I have an intuitive feel for them. Same for concepts: I don't have to think verbally all the time, rather I can just intuitively grasp them.
I think i could call these things "pre-linguistic concepts and images": I can grasp them before verbalizing it.
I still must admit that I think verbally an awful lot (with no difficulty whatsoever), but I think this is mostly due to the fact that I study philosophy. I suspect that my predilection for philosophy stems from its eminently conceptual nature... on the other hand I think I have no sensibility for literary arts.
Similarly, I don't think I have any sensibility for pictorial arts, but on the other hand I'm quite musical and I have a serious obsession for classical music.

>> No.16706005

>>16705735
Of course it’s debilitating. You wouldn’t even be able to visualise what you’re reading or imagine something. I can’t imaginr anyone above 90IQ has this “condition”.

>> No.16706054

>>16705990
what about sounds? Can't you hear music, bird sounds or voices in your head when imagining them? What about smells? They should be the same category as the mind's eye. Imagination is a different unity than the outer senses, you can't confuse your imagination with sensual experience. You see the apple and you see pitch black at the same time, not an apple in a black background. Everything else is called hallucination, when the imagination is confused with the senses, e. f. you can tell you're schizophrenic when the voices seem to come from outside.

>> No.16706078

>>16704276
>Who cares.
Spotted the 5.

>> No.16706104

It feels weird to respond to a non-aphantasic on one hand and an aphantasicnon the other. They both can't grasp the concept, for completely opposite reasons.
>>16706005
Imagination does not require visualization, so the point is moot.
>>16706054
Ok, then you're definitely aphantasic. Non-aphantasic people can easily "see an apple in a black background". What you're talking about is conceptual imagination, not visual imagination. Again, what you call "hallucination" is an extremely common phenomenon. I know it sounds weird, almost no one believes it at first (seriously, check it: yours is an extremely common reaction).
Audiation (the ability of percieving sounds as if they're really being produced in your head, i.e. as if an orchestra is literally playing between your real ears) is less common, but it is still present in the general population. Apparently it is trainable too (many music unis offer courses for it), but I don't know wether it works on everyone.

>> No.16706200

>>16706104
I mean that I'm imagining these objects on a different plane than the visual, whenever I'm imagining with open eyes it's like I'm going blind but not black. The images become more real than what my eyes are seeing right now, but I still know that I'm only imagining, like I can walk around another room sit at the computer and type in 4chan.com, all while I'm sitting on the toilet. It's like a movie but NOT in my visual field, but like I'm experiencing it for real, even though the movement and everything employ a bit of dream logic. Imagination works through concepts (Schemata) that are then represented by the mind, the details of the image entirely rely on the memory's and mind's ability to form concepts, there's no epistemological possibility that the image you represent is identical to a real object, they are the actualization of the concept you have of the object.

>> No.16706217

>>16704319
I have a theory it's caused by child hood trauma

>> No.16706285

>>16706104
>>16706200
another proof that not hallucinating objects onto your visual field doesn't mean having aphantasia is that you couldn't visualize while reading if the images literally obstructed your field of vision. The two have to be different entities and still work simultaniously, where on the one hand you can see the letters with your eyes and on the other hand have your entire sphere of the mind's eye filled out with a scenery from the book. You don't imagine the imagery in just a small section of your visual field like a screen. It's like a different sense, sound can block out sound, and visual objects visual objects, but sound can't influence your vision just as vision can't influence sound, but they are still synthesized into subjective experience.

>> No.16706308

all of this crap comes form the "closing eyes" part

>> No.16706466

>>16706054
not any anon you're responding to, i just think you're correct here. it is a fundamentally different faculty to imagine

>> No.16706582

Nobody's mentioned Schwitzgebel yet. If you're interested in these sorts of questions read his work.

>> No.16706609
File: 259 KB, 921x754, 1445986346297.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16706609

>if you don't have literal hallucinations as if you're BBC's Sherlock, you're an aphantasia NPC
I'm supposed to believe that you literally close your eyes and the black space is then suddenly filled with whatever you're imagining, as if it's a videogame loading screen, instead of "seeing" something with your minds eye, closed or not. You don't "hear" the music as if it's literally blasting in your ear, you "hear" it inside your brain. Same beats, same lyrics, the singer's voice, whatever. The "proper" version doesn't even make sense, as you're, in that case, "controlling" all your sense to such an extent that you create something tangible and real out of nothing.

>> No.16706637

>>16705196
Nothing.

>> No.16706650

>>16705722
My philosophy prof was like this. He could not imagine, for example, a yelllow schoolbus. Then again he was a Leibniz specialist so i dunno

>> No.16706717

>>16704268
probably just that some people i.e. bundles of sensation don't have the sensation of imagining an apple(or other things) bundles with them. It's honestly pretty irrelevant to hume.

>> No.16706741

Hume thinks that impressions are more clear and distinct than ideas. An idea is a recollection of an impression. It follows that trying to recollect an impression of an apple will produce a weaker image. How much weaker? This might depend on the person. I can picture the first one fairly easily, but others cannot. Hume might attribute this to an inability to form ideas from memory.

>> No.16706751

>>16704348
It is tho

>> No.16706757

>>16704532
No not metaphorically lmao. It's like when you rub your eyes and see those mandalas. Only you don't see random shit

>> No.16706760

>>16706609
No you literally can see, like how when you rub your eyes you see "stuff". It's exactly like that only you don't see random nonsense

>> No.16706924

>ctrl+f "Wittgenstein"
>0 results
Dissapointed

>> No.16706938

>>16704276
Why would he need to be pegged when they could just use your dick?

>> No.16707293

>>16704268
tfw baited by twitter

>> No.16707348

>>16704268
What does it mean if when I try to imagine an apple in my mind it is constantly spinning, catching fire, freezing, hands split it half and invisible mouths eat it. I simply can't hold a simple image of a static apple in my mind, or even simple slight movement

>> No.16707349

>>16706751
Not what the word means. This is where “the mind’s eye” comes from. There’s no third eye in your head. It’s your head processing what the eyes have seen. This sort of “seeing” is only thinking.
What are you, six?

>>16706757
Light on the back of your eyelids

>> No.16707368

ANTI REPRESENTATIONALIST GANG RISE UP

>> No.16707399

>>16706924
he hasn't been mentioned directly, but some of the posts in this thread read like they are straight out of Blue Book

>> No.16707592
File: 546 KB, 498x278, best emma laughing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16707592

>>16706650
>then again he was a Leibniz specialist so I dunno
Fuck I laughed

>> No.16707672

>>16707349
No it's literally seeing numbnuts
>light on the back of your eyelids
Identical to seeing in your head.

How do you think dreams work? Do you not see in your dreams?

>> No.16707937

>>16704319
>people think that "slave of yaldabaoth" is just a figure of speech

>> No.16707968

>>16707672
You can close your eyes and start lucid dreaming wherever you are?

>> No.16707984

>>16705960
If you could literally do this you could block the words of the book just by imagining a wall in front of it.

>> No.16707994

>>16705196
Brave of you to assume it reads.

>> No.16708484

Derek Parfit was a 5:

> He has few memories of his past, and he almost never thinks about it, although his memory for other things is very good. He attributes this to his inability to form mental images. Although he recognizes familiar things when he sees them, he cannot call up images of them afterward in his head: he cannot visualize even so simple an image as a flag; he cannot, when he is away, recall his wife’s face. (This condition is rare but not unheard of; it has been proposed that it is more common in people who think in abstractions.) He has always believed that this is why he never thinks about his childhood. He imagines other people, in quiet moments, playing their memories in their heads like wonderful old movies, whereas his few memories are stored as propositions, as sentences, with none of the vividness of a picture. But, when it is suggested to him that an absence of images does not really explain an absence of emotional connection to his past, he concedes that this is so.

All of the people saying 5’s are low IQ are just coping lmao

>> No.16708486

>>16704319
Not only that but there are people who can't hear words in their head or imagine smells, or tastes. These are people who essentially don't have conscious thought. Their brains are just constant reaction to stimulus. Look at Chris Watts, everyone wonders how he can be so heartless and retarded but the answer is that he literally does not think.

>> No.16708489

>>16707968
With a bit of effort, yes I can. Anyone can

>> No.16708504

>>16707968
>>16708489
For me it's more than "a bit" of effort. Takes probably an hour of hypnosis for things to become as vivid and real feeling as a dream.

>> No.16708512

>>16705735
Even painters can do well with this, only hindrance would be drawing from imagination. Most painters and artists like this tend to draw the most realistic paintings, since they can tune out what they think they see, and just draw what they see. However, their inability to "just draw" can make them depressed.

>> No.16708523

>>16708504
Fair enough. "a bit" is an understatement but thanks to meditation I can conjure up dream feelings and sights (as you said vivid and real) within 20 minutes of focused meditation

>> No.16708556

>>16704268
anyone else have closed eye visuals that are basically rapidly fluctuating multicoloured neon lines making shapes, sometimes coalescing into faces or landscapes or whatever? often the entire thing is bathed in red

>> No.16708570

>>16707349
Imagining something can be the same thing as seeing something in front of you, subjectivelly. It's like dreaming except you know it's not real and you aren't sleeping.

>> No.16708578

>>16708556
Sounds more like a stroke or being stuck in a deprivation tank.

>> No.16708590

>>16708556
yes

>> No.16708600

>>16706285
This.
I can visualize graphs in my mind (for example of f(x)=x2, though I still have to calculate the points), but I cannot literally see them when I close my eyes.

>> No.16708604

>>16708600
*f(x)=x^2

>> No.16708768
File: 6 KB, 256x192, inigo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16708768

>>16707349

Why do you feel the need to identify and differentiate yourself on an anonymous image board?

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action