Aphantasia study

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks for illustrating my very point..by making a post that was itself ...nothing more than a "redundant" copy of the very point I made.

You are ignoring my main point and are focusing on a tangential point.

He seemed to believe that "redundant equals useless".

My main point was "redundant equals duplication/triplication". The resulting "uselessness" from that duplication was not my main point.

I am aware that they deliberately put "redundant" systems into space ships and submarines as back ups in case the main systems fails (they cant send the repair man out there). The spare tire in your car trunk is "redundant". But its not really "useless". Except that most of the time it IS 'useless'.



The OP meant that the course "would not work" (if everyone were like him). Which would be true. But that has nothing to do with "redundancy".

He did not mean "everyone would already have the skill being taught in the course if everyone were like me so there would be no reason to conduct the course ...ergo...the course would be 'redundant'". If that statement were what he meant, and if that statement were true, then THAT would be a correct usage of the word "redundant".

Ironically... this relaxation course actually IS a little bit "redundant" precisely because most of us are NOT like the OP and CAN do visualization. "Redundant" in the way you in IT use it. Most of us COULD in theory do those exercise on our own without the tapes. But … it IS nice that the course exists as a safety back up ( in case you have a personal crises and need relaxation excercises).



That's exactly why his post is annoying. The course IS a kind of redundant back up system like what you are describing for IT.

Losing your job because "it was rendered redundant" means "now they don't need a human to do the task because they now have a machine that can do it". Which is what I meant: that your job is now a duplicate copy of something else that exists.

^ This is an extremely autistic conversation.

Prolly right.

In BRITISH English the word probably has drifted in meaning to mean just "surplus" or "useless". So maybe I shouldn't ….get so worked up about a Brit using the word that way.

The human appendix is seen as being “vestigial,” which could mean that it was rendered “redundant” via evolution.

The appendix is a “vestige” for when humans were ape-like herbivores 5 or so million years ago.

In the same way your post was annoying with the double use of 'but' . We all have things that grind our gears.

Nice try. But those two things are not the same thing. .

A careless typo that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence is not as bad as misusing a word in such a way that it derails the whole meaning of a paragraph.

Then again it shows a deficit of comprehension skills if a person's usage of a wrong word derails the other person's ability to get the main gist of a post .

I suppose, to pursue the diversion a little further, one could debate about the use of "wrong" instead of "wrongly" as an adverb! It grated on my sensibilities when I read that, but when I checked a bit I found that the usage of "wrong" as an adverb is considered acceptable, at least in less formal writing, these days. It does bring home to me that I really do have a bit of a soft spot for good old-fashioned strict rules of grammar, to be obeyed at all times!

On the topic of the thread, I did receive the e-mail notification about the Imagery Lab test, but unfortunately since my computers all run Linux, and my phone is Android, it appears there is no way for me to take the test.

The derailing of the thread shows that Aphantasia and a possible connection to ASD is inconsequential in most people's eyes .

Didn't mean to make him feel bad.

Like I said.. the OP is a Brit. So I forgive him. Its not his fault that his whole nation...has distorted the use of the word "redundant".

Murdering their own language...forgive them lord for they know not what they do!

But back to the original topic.



I know that some autitistics have aphantasia. But some do not. And some autistics are quite wrapped up in inner fantasy. As I understand it aphantasia is not a diagnostic trait of autism even if some autistics have it.

I had to look up aphantasia and I never knew that the "mind's eye" was supposed to actually see something. It is and has always just been black for me. I would pretend to visualize things during say, a guided meditation, but it was really just imagining I was a the beach, or whatever.

So I asked me NT husband if, when he thinks of his mother does he actually see her, like a picture (trying to express it in a way I can understand) and he said "No, I can actually see her. It is not a picture."

This has hit me in the same way it did when I realized I was autistic. I have spent my whole life not seeing things that other people can see. It illuminates why I can't do things so many others can and why some learning would be more difficult for me. So many frustrations and efforts expended and there was no point in all that because I just don't have a mind's eye.

There is anecdotal evidence of a connection between aphantasia and autism . The belief being that aphantasia occurs more frequently among people on the spectrum . This needs to be proven or disproven by using an adequate sample size of people on and not on the spectrum.

As for the verbal glitch. These things happen . I think this is a classic case of someone fixating on the details rather than the whole part of what was being said . That's par for the course for people like us .

I do apologise if I contributed to the derailing. It's just that grammar is a bit of a special interest of mine, and sometimes I find it hard to remain silent...

About the test posted by the Image Lab, I really wish I could take it; maybe I shall ask a friend to let me use their Windows or Mac computer, so that I could take it.

More generally, about aphantasia, for me one of the problems I have had is understanding precisely what people mean when they speak of seeing a mental image. Eventually, after I researched into it a bit (triggered by you in fact, after you posted about it a couple of years ago), I concluded that I just don't have mental images at all. I do have some vague knowledge of "what things look like," but I think I have now understood that that is not what people mean when they speak of "seeing mental images."

I have not looked into the analogous questions of what people mean by imagining the senses of touch, taste, smell or sound in their minds. I guess again I lack any way of comprehending what it would mean to experience a touch, a taste, a smell or a sound entirely in my imagination. Does that mean I have aphantasia in those senses also? Are there people who can actually taste a taste, or smell a smell, just by thinking about it? That would be very interesting, but completely unimaginable to me.

Any connection between aphantasia and ASD would be very intriguing. On the other hand, I suppose there are a substantial number of people with ASD who have a very visual way of thinking, which would presumably mean that they, at least, do not have aphantasia.

I'm of the " Who formed the committee for good grammar?" school of thought. It would have been better to be told by PM of the error rather than having the thread derailed . That would have been the intelligent and sensible thing to do.

As for the aphantasia and smell,sound,taste and touch; I too struggle to see how people could imagine those things .

This is purely anecdotal given the small sample size of 50, but a poll about aphantasia on a Facebook NVLD group I go on had 16/50 people saying "Yes, I think I have aphantasia" . The % of the general public believed to have aphantasia is around 2-2.5%.

I agree let's stick to the subject.

I think I have it, but adapted to the point where I can just remember vague details such as color or very extreme