adam zeman interview on radio new zealand
haha that made me laugh! that's what happens when I draw anything — a generic representation by rules — the eyes are about here for this, this kind of dragon has four toes… playing piano I can do from “memory” but it’s a detailed relation between one note and the rest in the chord, and then the next… it can be very fast but it’s not recall, more like redoing? also interested in non–narrative “non–sensory” recall — I know when something is unjust but not by rationalisation. I think aphantasia is probably simplifying things quite a bit…
I just now read the new scientist article about it — “Kosslyn thinks the drawing sensation gives us a clue as to how aphantasics deal with apparently pictorial information. He suggests that to complete these tasks I am piggybacking on neurons involved in controlling physical movements rather than using the visual brain circuitry.” whoa.
seriously, this is probably more common than people realise — I have (relatively) useful adaptation mechanisms, others probably do too. also great from a diversity point of view…
I would like to study the coping/adaptation mechanisms that people use to compensate. also what advantages it gives
so my hunch is this is to do with the rebuilding of experience as we recall it — I can understand that my recall is through infilling of visual elements through an underlying process — but I don't “store” an image I store its components. I suspect in reality we all do this but people rationalize it differently — many people believe what they recall is what they saw
the chap in the article claims not to recall what happened to him during the day — I am not like that but my recall of what happened more than a few weeks ago is so sparse as to be almost non–existent. doesn't mean it's not in there somewhere, just I don't have ready access to it like other people do
or maybe I'm not so ready to believe that what story and scene I recall is actually a good representation of what actually happened
we are not questioning the basic assumption — our language assumes recall is sensory–based rather than something else. fmri studies of brain blood flow show brain blood flow — we are assuming our interpretation of the flow is correct, that when a similar region “lights up” on recall, the recall has identity with the initial experience
psychologists know recall is not initial experience, but not many people (psychologist or other) articulate that our “description of recall” is not recall — or do they,
we are not so different to those whose cultures have “three colours”. we have more words for more colours… seems I am with the “relativists” like John Lucy: “It does not really even matter whether the researchers involved are open-minded and consciously willing to recognize relativism as a possible outcome—because the universalist conclusion is guaranteed by their methodological assumptions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate
we say “the triangle was red” not “the triangle had … with a wavelength of …” — we “reconstruct” “red”, which is not “a wavelength of…” and that’s just the colour term — what about “triangle” and “was”?
assessing complex situations — it's like being able to speed–read rather than reading by sounding each word in my mind
generally not as attached to concepts that other people use as the basis for their values, including appearance — but rather more attached to things like honesty and responsibility. could be just me though…