You're viewing a single thread.
1 has gotta be the norm, right? Like, whenever I see a movie adaptation of a novel I've always heard from people who're mad because the film doesn't line up with their mental image
It's a really poorly communicated image. Less detailed visualization isn't literally a washed out version of the thing, it's more that the details only exist if you're actively thinking about them, rather than your brain subconsciously imagining all the details immediately.
Yea I don't really "see" an apple, it's more that I can pick out one infinitesimally portion of it at any moment. So if I think about the leaf I can construct the leaf, but not the rest, and it is constantly changing as I move to other parts of the apple.
I wouldn't really say I see anything, it's more abstract than that and hard to convey.
I think I'm the same way. Like if I imagine an ornate doorknob from an old temple I can see it in a general view, and I can focus on the details one little bit at a time, but I can't picture the entire thing at once with detail. It's also not like I'm seeing it, it's fluid and honestly somewhat difficult to focus on.
Oh, okay that makes way more sense and does sound a lot more how most brains would work. Fascinating stuff
I was gonna say, when I imagine an apple, I don't think of it simply as an image, but a representation of the concept.
Like, if I were to actually describe the "vision", it's more like a 2 or a 3, but the *concept* in the mind is a 1. I'm aware of all the detail conceptually even if the actual holistic visual image doesn't include it.
Like, moments of imagining the apple would be glimpses of its detail, but "zooming out" wouldn't include that detail, because now you're forest not trees.
Same, I did the same for banana and orange, I don't need an picture to conjure the image in my head.
I'm a 1 but I feel like I gotta see a prototype of the object first. I'm better at recall than conjuring (but I assume most people would be?)