Mind's Eye (etc?)

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.

I totally agree.I thought everyone thought in images and notions that accompanied them.I don't sit and talk to myself in english in my head.
(I do it out loud)I am surprised to find that most people posting here do not have a mental imagery.No, really, what the hell do you do when you read a book?
Don't you imagine (image-ine) everything?I really don't see how anyone can even comprehend anything without haveing some sort of mental image.

How can you read the Bible without picturing Charlton Heston as Moses?How can you read For Whom the Bell Tolls without picturing Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

He he Sure.But that is true. If you see the movie before you read the book, chances are the character will look like they did in the movie.Willie Wonka will always be Gene Wilder, Jonny Dep be damned!

Hello, Tony.It is rather hard to describe how I think about things. I think that I may be a kinesthetic thinker, but I'm not sure. I don't know how one tests for this. As I said, I do have very imprecise, fuzzy, unstable visual images, and perhaps this is really what I am using in some fashion to create my "images" -- perhaps I really am a visual thinker after all.But I tend to get a more vivid feel for the motion and position of objects, without really getting a good visual look at them. When I read a book, I rarely get a good visual image of the scenes -- in fact, I find long passages with detailed descriptions of the scenery and character rather boring unless it has a direct relevance to how the characters are acting and feeling.Yet, I feel that I have very strong "image" (I don't know of a better word) of the scenes, especially when there is some action going on.Movies are similar. If you ask me to describe a scene in a movie, I can give a pretty good description of what went on, but if pressed to describe what the scene looked like, it would probably take me longer, and I probably couldn't be definite.The same thing when I think about abstract mathematics. Students usual want to see pictures and diagrams, and it often takes me several tries to get a good diagram that helps the students -- it's just not how I think about the concepts. I do a lot of analysis (limits and stuff, for those who have taken calculus), and when I'm figuring things out I get this feeling that these things kind of move around, sort of like this. I really can't explain it.As to what really is going on inside my mind, you will have to talk with an expert. I really don't know what is happening, or how it all works -- I just know what it feels like.Here is something weird -- to this day, I have trouble remembering which side is left and which side is right. I don't know why, just something I have trouble with. Students think it's funny when I say "to the left" or "to the right" and point in the wrong direction. I distinctly remember when my mom first taught me left from right. I was sitting on her lap in a particular chair on the living room. For years and years, I could not remember left from right unless I imagined I was sitting in that chair. Now here's the weird part: if, for some reason, in my imagination, the chair was facing a certain direction, I would have to physically turn so that I was facing the same direction as the chair in order to remember left from right. How's that for funny?

I used to have a friend who lived out of town, so she was always asking me for directions. But by "directions", she meant "instructions" where to turn left, right, etc.I had to visualize the route and when I had to tell her to go north, for example, I'd have to stop and look at my hands and tell her "left". Another thing, when I look at a map, it always has to have north facing north. I find it easier to read a map upside down than to transpose the directions in my head.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Boy do I understand that. I can almost always orient myself. I know where north is. But if someone asks me to raise my right hand it's 50-50 which hand will come up.I have a terrible time recognizing images and that's a tough part of the current 'help' I'm giving my sister. I can go through a group of slides but when done she'll ask "Why so many pictures of so-and-so?" I'm stumped. I had no idea there were multiple pictures of the same person. Once she points them out I can sometimes see that it's correct, but honestly, for the most part I just believe her when she says two pictures are the same person.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

When I wear a watch it's always on my left wrist. I'm like 100% accurate saying "watch hand" or "non watch hand" but maybe only a little better than 50% if trying for "left" or "right". I don't know why other than the watch is a visual memory clue but left and right aren't.lfen

quote:

---

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?

---

My apologies for not being clearer.What the above means is that memory of objects seems to be divided into living and non-living categories.For example, a person with damage in a certain part of their brain might not be able to identify pictures of tools, but do just fine identifying pictures of animals.

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, yes, that happens to me all the time as I am dreaming up new recipes.

quote:

---

I can almost always orient myself. I know where north is. But if someone asks me to raise my right hand it's 50-50 which hand will come up.

---

I am exactly the opposite.I am very bad with compass directions but great with the left/right thing, and landmarks.I have found this to possibly an issue of gender.

A few years ago, on the Canadian TV show The Nature of Things, there was an episode about "How People Get Lost" (not the real title).Apparently, people navigate in two fundamentally different ways:1. By landmarks and by left/right instructions.
2. By the "survey method" - what I call "a big map in the head".Women tend to use method #1 and men tend to use method #2, though the gender distinction is not universal.Jokingly, I tell people that that is why men never ask for directions. We may not know where we are or how to get where we're going, but we know what direction it is.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

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.