For someone to not comprehend what is Fantasy ? What if said person only knew about what was real ?
The first term is called aphantasia:
The second term is anendophasia:
https://mindshiftwellnesscenter.com/the-silent-inner-voice-understanding-anendophasia/
You just called everybody delusional who has an internal dialogue, didn’t you?
I really can’t think of any solid counterarguments. heh
Not really, dialogue is just one of many many things you can imagine
.
Such things beyond real-time thinking take energy, hence bigger brained homosapien intellect.
Maybe you have an energy issue?
How did you even make this conclusion? I literally just introduced two concepts.
The question was if there are people who have no imagination. The answer is yes cause both aphantasia and anendophasia exist.
Having imagination and an internal monologue is considered to be the norm, so if its delusional then so is the majority of the people.
I just think it’s funny you put anendophasia as the term for “only knew about what was real”.
I wonder if any blind-from-birth folk would think sighted people are nuts, if they didn’t have a mob/hoard of sighted people all testifying to “seeing things”.
Honestly i put both of those in on the basis of the topic’s title and nothing else.
The question “What if said person only knew about what was real?” makes absolutely no sense since fantasy and imagination are rooted in your experience and reality to begin with.
I mean the brain is aware at all times what the difference is between something real and something that itself created. Unless we are talking some kind of severe drug abuse or brain damage case where that is eroded.
Now thats an interesting question but… its kind of an exception?
Like… aphantasia is not having the ability to create mental images. Being blind from birth is just… lacking the information for it?
Doesnt even really mean that they are actively incapable of using it, they are just going to use it in their own way. As long as they dont have aphantasia, many blind from birth people admittedly make mental maps for themselves to orient and memorize.
What such a map would look like for someone who has never had the ability to see… i have no idea, but the point is that the ability is still kinda there.
Slow-mode is so slow…if ya know what I mean..
An imagination is not just about forming mental images. Which you, yourself, well know.
Anyway…
If all contingent being, doing, and valuing is created/creative… is this conversation really happening?
Well it is happening regardless of what the source of it is.
But yeah it is, since you know what its like to have an internal debate, internal voice, to talk to yourself, and its entirely different from something you process through your senses.
Btw this ties nicely into the entire concept of why sexuality cannot be transferred through media.
There was this craze for the longest of time about homosexuality or pedophilia being transferrable through porn, or for that matter how cartoon or video game violence might relate to real world violence.
Not to mention those dear old CIA experiments on mind control.
The TL;DR is that the mind distinguishes between external and internal information, or so to speak: It distinguishes between itself and everything else there is.
This is why you wont interpret a movie as reality, video game violence wont normalize real life violence, and your preferences will be left untouched regardless of what dirt lands on your screen.
There are caveats involving brain damage, drugs and age windows, but as a rule of thumb you cant simply take away the brain’s sense of reality, unless you gonna physically start destroying it.
Why are you pretending not to know about all the research into social psychology? Why do you want me to talk about it?
Believe it or not, we are still not a hive mind and what comes as common sense to you, might be actually new information to others.
Which pisses me off too. All the time. But it is what it is, so… could you elaborate in enough detail so i can at least tell what you are on about? Cause im no mind reader?
Everybody who is a someone has an imagination. You can’t be a someone without it.
Anendophasia does not in any way prevent having an imagination and it certainly doesn’t lead to that. So, if someone asserted that they are confused.
Anendophasia just means you don’t think in words much or at all. You can have a very vivid imagination. You can make up entire films and see and hear sounds that are not there, come up with stories and music in your head and many other things to do with imagination. If anything those with this have a tendency to greater imagination.
Even afantasia is not an obstacle to imagination: it’s just not going to be internal visual images. But there are no blocks to coming up with fictional stories or inventing new ideas.
You are actually wrong in regards of this.
Not sure where your reasoning goes off course exactly, but you seem to imply that imagination is visual only and that anendophasia does not prevent it.
Correct. Anendophasia does not prevent visual imagination.
However there at least 8 other forms of imagination ranging from auditory to emotional.
You can imagine songs, taste, emotions etc.
So no. Anendophasia is directly tied into having no access to a specific form of imagination.
The question of the thread was is it possible for someone to not have imagination.
What i was establishing is that there are examples of people having no access to specific forms of imagination, so its entirely possible.
The question is where you are drawing the line for it.
Imagination may very well be perceived.
Now, someone without an imagination can’t follow the cogito argument
I live with someone with anendophasia and one of my childhood friends and his sister are also anedophasic. I also had a hypothesis about it and have been in touch with one of the researchers who came up with the term to see what she thought about that. I can only say that in discussions she’s not on board with your hypothesis. People with anendophasia have imaginations. I don’t think imagination is visual only, or I wouldn’t have said in afantasia you can have an imagination. It just wouldn’t have images in afantasia. So, not only am I not implying that imagination is only visual, I directly said it wasn’t.
Great and the only thing about adendophasia is that they don’t think in words. My wife still wrote the fictional text to the children’s book she also illustrated. She can still write and speak, translating her non-verbal thoughts into words.
Which one is that? And now you are saying that they are missing one form, not that they can’t have imaginations.
That is not how anendophasia is defined: as eliminating one form of imagination. They can still be highly verbal people, it’s just they don’t have internal verbal cognition. My childhood friend can sort of force himself to do say words in his mind, but he says it feels odd and he does not do it. It does have effects, but the imagination chugs along just fine. And there are some advantages to not using words for cognition. The process is openly sensory, if internal.
I live with someone with anendophasia and one of my childhood friends and his sister are also anedophasic. I also had a hypothesis about it and have been in touch with one of the researchers who came up with the term to see what she thought about that. I can only say that in discussions she’s not on board with your hypothesis. People with anendophasia have imaginations. I don’t think imagination is visual only, or I wouldn’t have said in afantasia you can have an imagination. It just wouldn’t have images in afantasia. So, not only am I not implying that imagination is only visual, I directly said it wasn’t.
Great and the only thing about adendophasia is that they don’t think in words. My wife still wrote the fictional text to the children’s book she also illustrated. She can still write and speak, translating her non-verbal thoughts into words.
Which one is that? And now you are saying that they are missing one form, not that they can’t have imaginations.
That is not how anendophasia is defined: as eliminating one form of imagination. They can still be highly verbal people, it’s just they don’t have internal verbal cognition. My childhood friend can sort of force himself to do say words in his mind, but he says it feels odd and he does not do it. It does have effects, but the imagination chugs along just fine. And there are some advantages to not using words for cognition. The process is openly sensory, if internal.
And heck, I’ll throw out my hypothesis here in case any anendophasics are around. My wife has some very, very early memories. Memories younger than the threshhold for infantile amnesia. It struck me that an anendophasic person might not have the encoding and retrieval problems good old regular people have. Once the words come in the earlier memories have been filed in formats the normal person’s brain isn’t so fluent with. They can’t ‘find’ or understand the memories. But since the anendophasic person doesn’t shift encoding memories, since they don’t think in words, perhaps this would explain my wife being able to remember very early memories.
I called my childhood friend and he could instantly recount a memory from below the threshold age. And he called his sister, curious about this, and she also had many crib memories. So, I wrote to one of the main researchers to see if I might be onto something regarding people ‘with’ anendophasia. She thought that it was an interesting hypothesis at least and decided to add questions about it to her surveys of people ‘with’ anendophasia.
So, if anyone here is anendophasic and has very early memories, please let me know.
Verbal. As you yourself said. They dont think in words.
You might want to take a moment to unpack what you mean in fine detail because at this point you are contradicting your own narrative at every turn you make.
You yourself state that they dont think in words, then ask me what type of imagination they’d have no access to, and then turn around again and state that its not even defined that way.
It is.
You dont even need to ask an AI about this. Do a simple google search.
The widely accepted number of imagination types is 8
About 6 describe senses such as visual or verbal, and there are 2 or more for describing more complex bodily functions and emotions.