logoalt Hacker News

pohlyesterday at 8:21 PM3 repliesview on HN

I'm still not sure the real difference isn't just where people draw the line in generalizing what it means to "see" and "hear" things.

My dreams are more vivid than when I imagine an apple, but I still call it "seeing something in my head"—even when I know that it isn't exactly like "seeing"—and the sensation is different enough that I wouldn't blame someone if they chose to avoid calling it "seeing" something.

How can we be sure that we're not just labeling the experience differently?


Replies

vidarhyesterday at 10:45 PM

When I "see something in my head" while dreaming, it is like seeing: There is a clear visual image. I don't see the black behind my eyelids. I can tell colours. I can tell shapes.

When I "imagine" something while I awake, it is not remotely like seeing. There is no image overlaid on the "real world" whether obscuring the black behind my eyelids or anything else when they are open. I can't tell shapes, or colours. If my eyes are closed, I just see the inside of my eyelids, nothing more.

My one experience of seeing something while awake during meditation was like being inside a movie. Everything was as clear as if I had been walking around in that setting for real.

I don't know what it will take to make you sure, but for me, I have experienced three entirely different "modes" of imagining things, ranging from no visuals, to shifting and unclear visual, to crystal clear images, and the distinction is stark and obvious - there's no ambiguity in it.

show 1 reply
D-Machinetoday at 3:57 AM

Your theory is fairly conclusively disproven, most damningly by acquired aphantasia.

See also my post below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49707079

jerftoday at 2:31 AM

I've also wondered whether this entire conversation is just all of us collectively talking past each other for the entire conversation and we all in fact have quite similar experiences. The recent use of brain imaging to examine this question is sort of interesting, in that perhaps it could concretely and relatively objectively answer that question. Though my interest is somewhat diminished by the questions that have been raised around the entire premise of brain imaging as a solution to this problem, e.g., https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1602413113 (2016), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32483374/ (2020), https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/140/8/e53/4032512 (2017).

I invite you to feed your own friendly AI these references then ask it to analyze the recent papers trying to study aphantasia and come to your own conclusions about whether they're actually doing all that much. My own suggested that while there are some improvements since the papers I cited that it is still difficult to say that they've solved the problems in those studies.

Still, directionally, while inferring from "brain activations" to qualia is a difficult path, if there was enough data to show big and consistent correlations that would tend to satisfy me that maybe there is some sort of real difference and we're not just talking past each other. It's not such a shocking claim that I need truly shocking evidence to believe it, just some support.

show 2 replies