Mind's Eye (etc?)

Hi moose.Well, this shows what I know; I thought that everyone could visualize images in their head. I'm genuinely surprised to hear that you can't.Speaking for myself, I am generally able to visualize scenes, objects, etc, with a fair degree of clarity. Depending on how hard I focus, I can sometimes visualize images almost as real as those I actually see. As a rule, the more familiar the image the more easily it comes.A moment ago, I tried visualizing something. When I read Parasomnium's "...some places in the woods I have been to..." I was inspired to try a woodland setting. I resisted imagining any that I've actually seen in real life and instead tried to create one of my own. I found that I was able to come up with a generally clear visual scene I could "move around" within (very much like a first-person gaming perspective, except no screen between your eyes and the environment ).I've never really analysed my visualizations this way before, but now that I do, I can report that my "vision" appears to be similar to my actual vision in the sense that the sharpest, clearest part of the image is the immediate vicinity of my direct focus and, beyond this, the image becomes increasingly less well-defined the further you get from this point.I also appear to be able to "shift my attention" to something else without actually looking at it, if you get my meaning. Just as in real life, when you are looking directly at one thing but you are concentrating on another in the periphery of your field of view. I can do that, to some extent, in my imagination. When I do, though, I find that the point I am actually looking at (i.e. my direct point of focus) loses clarity. I am still "looking" at it, but I find it hard to keep it clear while I shift my attention (but not my visual focus) to the periphery.I experimented a little with my "woodland scene" and found that I was able to use almost all senses at different points. I could hear the wind, and feel it hitting me. I could also hear the dry leaves under my feet crunching as I walked. I alternated between shoes and bare feet and was also able to feel the leaves as they crunched underfoot.I tried creating a wood cabin with a workbench outside. I went up to the bench and picked up what looked like (when I let my mind go random things tend to happen ) an old, rusty Swiss army knife. I was able to see the detail of the rust, as well as feel its texture as I ran a finger over it.Oddly enough (I don't know if this is normal or not), I actually find the sense of feel to be one of the easier ones to emulate mentally. As a child (and even today it's still a guilty pleasure), I used to imagine myself flying. It was very tactile in the sense that I would imagine not simply a first-person image of clouds and landscape whipping by, but I would "feel" the accompanying wind whooshing past me.It's a difficult sensation to explain. I don't understand how it works myself but somehow I can actually make myself mentally "feel" the sense of weightlessness. In ordinary daydreaming, unfortunately, the sense of reality tends to be stifled by the remnants of conscious thought (at least, I assume that's what it is). This is why I love lucid dreaming; there are no intrusions by the conscious mind, so the flying feels absolutely real.Anyway, I'm getting further and further off-topic so I'll stop. Great thread, moose! Very interesting to read different people's perspectives on it. I could probably write an entire essay on my one "imaginary experiment" myself, but I won't. Oh wait... I already have.

Really? I find this extremely hard to comprehend. Is this truly as absolute as it sounds or do you just mean that you find it very, very difficult? I'm not saying you're wrong (only you know your own mind), I'm honestly asking. I can't quite get my head around the functioning of a mind that absolutely cannot, in any way, ever visualize an image...period!For example, if I were to ask you to describe your parents to me, or brothers, sisters, a friend, etc, are you really saying that you don't "see" their faces in your mind? Sorry if I'm asking a dumb question. I just can't figure this one out.

I'm not sure if this is common or not but, for some odd reason, I often find visualization easier with my eyes open. Doesn't seem to make much sense but there it is.You would think that it would be easier to focus on what you're picturing without the distraction of your actual vision, yet I often find that it takes greater effort this way. When I open my eyes it's almost like removing a mental blindfold. Weird, huh?Is this true of anyone else or am I a total freak? I can do smells, to a degree. Certainly a lesser degree than images and sounds, mind you. In fact, though I can mentally "smell" things, this is probably the least-developed of my "mental senses."I have a much easier time even with taste. It's not at all uncommon for my mouth to water from an imagined "taste" which, I suppose, is interesting considering your real sense of taste is mostly smell (so I've heard), yet I find smell considerably harder to imagine.

That sounds about right to me. Our "imagination" is, after all, not an isolated system divorced from the outside world. Indeed, the exact opposite would seem to be the case. As far as I can tell, the way we conceptualize things in our mind is entirely programmed into it via our sensory experience of the world around us. I can't think of any way to perceive a concept in my mind that doesn't involve mentally emulating at least one of the five senses.I think that most people having a "visual imagination" is a natural consequence of the fact that humans are primarily visual creatures. The groups that you mentioned would seem to confirm this, to some degree.I initially suspected that if we were the same in every other way but lacked our sense of sight, the most common method of "imagining" things would be by conjuring sounds in our mind. I imagine that hearing would probably contribute the most significant portion of our sensory input after vision, so it's not surprising that the majority of those without a "visual imagination" would report an "auditory imagination."I think that the percentage with each type of imagination is probably representative of the degree to which we generally rely on each respective sense to perceive our environment. This, I think, would explain why the most common types are visual, followed by auditory.I wonder what the majority would have if we were all blind and deaf. A "tactual imagination" perhaps? I've never really given this any thought but it's interesting to speculate about.Ok, I'm starting to wander again. I'll stop before I go off-topic as I am so wont to do.

Hi Chiroptera. Heh, it's a common enough image I guess; a cabin in the woods. As I was already in the woods to begin with, it just seemed like the obvious next step.But yes, I can still bring it back and tell you where everything was located, the colours, the atmosphere, etc. Oh I'm sure it's not exactly the same image that I had before (I imagine there would be differences in many of the smaller details) but, overall, it feels very much like the same "place." Fascinating! You mean the conceptualization of the scene in your mind comes before the actual visualization of it? How does that work? How, for example, are you able to perceive such things as the locations of elements within the scene if you aren't actually seeing the scene?Are you saying that, in a sense, your mind "drafts" a scene before visualizing it? Or, in other words, creates a kind of abstract "template" from which it generates a visual image (a template which is, by itself, sufficient to determine certain general qualities of the scene without actually seeing it)?I hope these aren't stupid questions. I'm trying to understand this state in which your mind gives you such specifics as item locations without showing you an image by which to determine this.I think I'm having trouble comprehending this because, for me, there doesn't seem to be any such state. When I hear the words "cabin in the woods" ... BAM! ... an instantaneous image flashes into my mind. It may be one I've seen, or not. It may be the same one on multiple occasions, or a different one every time. But, regardless, the point is that I will always get an instant mental image of some variety of cabin in the woods. And, of course, this holds true for anything else you care to mention.So, personally, I can't comprehend being able to determine the physical configuration of an imagined scene without an actual visualization of it. I see the image in my mind first and then use that to describe its configuration.By contrast, it sounds to me almost as if you work the opposite way. That is, you (somehow) conceive its physical configuration first and then use that to conjure the visualization of it.Is this correct or am I misunderstanding you? Well, I'm pleased to hear I'm not the only one. As far as I can tell, I've always been the same way. Even in early childhood, whenever anyone would say, "Close your eyes and imagine..." I used to think, "But it's so much easier with them open." I have a number of memories of teachers telling us to do this, and trying it their way only to finally open my eyes and go on imagining with far less effort. Strange ... very strange.Well, anyway, now I know that I'm not a freak. Or if I am, at least I'm in good company.

Hi schraf. I don't think I've ever spoken directly to you before. This isn't a dig at your phrasing or anything, but what exactly do you mean by "either living or non-living things"? Doesn't this cover ... well ... pretty much everything? Kind of like the Christmas lights "for indoor and outdoor use only."Again, not intended as a dig. I'm just not sure what you actually meant here. Perhaps you meant that they lose their ability to recognize either one or the other but not both? I thought so. Thanks for the confirmation. Yes, I'd say so. I think that, ultimately, that's what our "imagination" is: A mental emulation of our physical senses. At least, that is what my imagination appears to be. I have heard that some people have more "abstract" imaginations, and perhaps they do, but I still can't think of any way to meaningfully perceive such imaginings that doesn't psychologically mimic at least one of the physical senses.And, again, I am inclined to think that the degree to which each of our mental "senses" is developed will, generally speaking, probably correlate to the development of their respective physical counterparts. I don't know of any studies showing this (though I'm sure that such studies would have been done), but it seems like a reasonable assumption, in my opinion.For instance, I would be quite surprised if someone blind from birth had anything resembling a visual imagination, or someone deaf from birth had the ability to imagine sounds. Perhaps there are such people but, if so, I am at a loss to explain how their minds developed such abilities.On the other end of the scale, it doesn't surprise me that someone, such as yourself, who works with food has a better-than-average ability to imagine tastes, aromas, etc. Likewise, I would imagine that people who work, say, in music, or as track mixers, audio editors, and the like would probably display an increased ability to imagine sounds. I do a little of this myself (just as a hobby) and I have no problem at all creating sounds or "playing" songs in my head. Yep, that's what I do, too.It's the same with tastes. The easiest way I find to mentally "create" the sensation of a particular food or drink is to imagine myself actually tasting it. Even now, I made the mistake of picturing it and, as I type this, my mouth has just started watering. Yes, seriously.In truth, I can conjure mental aromas, too; I just don't find it as easy as the other senses. It seems to take more concentration to generate the sensation of particular smells, and it's not as clear or easy to hold when I do.

For those just tuning in, I believe that what we call our "imagination" is, in essence, our perceived ability to create the illusion of sensory experiences (i.e. sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) in our minds, and I'd be curious to see how other people rate their own abilities to exercise each of their mental "senses."I am, of course, open to the possibility that there are other ways to perceive things in our minds, though I have never been able to invoke any methods, myself, that don't ultimately come back to a mental emulation of at least one of the five physical senses.So, if you have any other means by which you are able to perceive things in your mind, please feel free to include it in the list. And if you do, please explain it any way you can. I appreciate that a method of perception not utilizing any of the five physical senses may be difficult to put into words, but I am curious as to whether or not such is possible, and would be very grateful of the effort.So, to start with, here are my mental "senses" ranked in order of their ease of conception, from most easily imagined to least easily imagined.1. Sight.
2. Hearing.
3. Touch.
4. Taste.
5. Smell.
6. Other - None, so far as I can tell.So, no surprises there. I doubt that my list is any great deviation from the norm. It may not be completely accurate, of course, as it's just a quick self-assessment, but it looks about right to me.It's not an easy thing to judge, really. Just how do you determine the relative ease/difficulty of conjuring your mental "senses"? Some of them overlap in places, making their precise order tough to identify.Sight and hearing, for example, are honestly almost indistinguishable to me, in terms of their ease of realization. I mentally "see" and "hear" things all the time and find no difficulty in either. Same thing with touch and taste; both are, more or less, equally easy and their comparative positions, as I've listed them, are virtually interchangeable. The only one whose position was pretty obvious to me was smell.Not to suggest, of course, that my list is wrong. It's just a matter of details. Roughly speaking, it's accurate, with smell the least well-developed, touch/taste somewhere in the middle, and sight/hearing the most dominant and well-developed.Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm interested to see how others rate their own senses, as well as whether or not the mental realm does indeed contain any "sixth sense" of thoughts.Also, I hope that moose doesn't mind me diverting this ever so slightly from visual imagination specifically to imagination in general.

Hey Chiroptera. So you tend to "feel" your thoughts rather than "see" them. Is this what you're saying? Is there anything you can liken this to so that I might understand, or is it simply too difficult to put into words?I can imagine some scenarios which may be slightly similar, but I'm uncertain if they really reflect your meaning. For example, I can imagine being placed in a room with a blindfold on, and being able to get some limited sense of the locations of objects, walls, etc without actually touching them.I can imagine being able to exploit subtle clues like ambient sound (kind of like bats), for instance, but I really can't imagine being able to get a particularly clear picture of my surroundings this way and, in any case, this example is more hearing than anything else despite, perhaps, being associated more with getting a "feeling" of your surroundings. I've never been big on novels, generally preferring to read reference material - particularly scientific literature (I'm a nerd ). But from the stories I have read I can report that, as I read, they tend to play out like a movie in my mind. I don't know if this is the experience that most people have but it seems to be mine. Interesting. When I recall a scene from a movie I generally remember what happened by visually (and audibly) "replaying" it in my mind. Yes, I can totally sympathize with your students (hmm...that didn't sound right - no offense intended ). I tend to understand things much more easily if I can get some kind of visual image in my head. I have a difficult time with things that can only be described mathematically.In fact, in a post elsewhere on the forum I recently said the following. I really envy your ability to understand abstract math in its unadulterated form. I'm sure it must give you a rare insight of concepts in fields like theoretical physics which are simply beyond my comprehension due to the limitations of a predominantly visual imagination. Argh! I wish I could get inside that head of yours! It sounds like precisely the kind of conceptual process I need to realize some of my most sought-after knowledge.I know that, at some point, I mention this in nearly every topic I post in (hopefully the admins don't consider this a Hell-worthy sin ), but if you have any experience with multi-dimensional concepts please feel free to check out this thread. You may have just the kind of unique perspective I need to achieve a greater understanding of this. No, that's fine. It's not so much the actual electrochemical activity in the brain that I'm concerned with, at least in the context of this thread. The physical processes in the brain do interest me, too, but all I'm looking at here is what you just said; what it feels like. Huh...curious. I can't say that's ever given me any trouble.Are you right or left handed? Or perhaps you're ambidextrous? If you do have a preferred hand, though, try using that. Pick something which is instantly recognizable to you regardless of your physical orientation.For example, do you have a clear preference regarding which hand you write with? If so, just make a note of that. Then whenever you need to recall "right" or "left" all you need to remember is "I write with my [whatever] hand."This assumes, of course, that you have no problem recalling physically which hand you write with. That is, if asked which is your writing hand, even if you can't immediately recall "right" or "left," are you instinctively able to hold up the correct hand? If so then I imagine that the above should work for you.

Nah, that's not necessary. As I said, I was just uncertain what you meant. It was no biggie. Ah! I'm with you now. In fact, I seem to recall having heard about this before. Thanks for the clarification.Is it only recognition of images of living vs. non-living things or those things themselves? Would the person in your example, for instance, display the same asymmetric pattern of recognition when confronted with actual tools and animals? Indeed. I've heard that the mind doesn't know the difference between the real and the vividly imagined. That would explain why it induces the same physical reactions to both.

Just a bump for my mental "senses" list. Anybody want to add theirs? I'm curious to see how others rate their own.I know the substance of my posts tends to get lost in their (my) verbose style, so here's a brief summary of the exercise.Rank each of your senses in order of their ease of mental replication. That is, how easy/difficult you find it to create their respective sensations in your mind. Also, if you are able to perceive your thoughts by any other methods please feel free to add them to the list, and explain them in any way you can.Once again, here are mine, listed in order from most easily imagined to least easily imagined.1. Sight.
2. Hearing.
3. Touch.
4. Taste.
5. Smell.
6. Other - None, so far as I can tell.The pertinent post is message #33 for any who wish to read it.