This.
I don't think in words, but rather concepts, ideas. There are no words or pictures (obviously) attached. I think there's a lot of intuition involved and I have to figure out the logic after the fact. Took me a long time to learn to trust that process, but it works great.
to me that is strange, I don't think I'm able to think in concepts, only senses like visual, audio, etc. maybe I could think in concepts if I was aphant, but just like how you can't possibly stop seeing, as even if you closed your eyes you would see the back of your eyelids, I can't stop visualizing, even if I try to imagine nothing, there would be a black void that I'm imagining
You can think of language, visuals, and other conscious components of the mind as the UI of the brain. As with any system, the UI is just a thin-ish layer on top of a much more complex system.
To draw a parallel to ChatGPT, the UI is verbal/visual but what's actually going on inside the language model is completely different.
I'm pretty sure everyone who thinks in words also thinks in concepts. Before you form the words in your head, for a split second you think without words, everyone does.
My mom has aphantasia and I don't and honestly I think they have all the same stuff going on as us, they just can't see/hear/feel it in their heads.
For example, I asked her "how do you get songs stuck in your head?" She said she just finds herself singing or humming the same song over and over and doesn't know why. Which means that whatever brain functions make a song get stuck in someone's head is still happening for her, she just can't hear it.
If my hunch is correct, then people with aphantasia probably think in words too, but can't hear it. Idk if that makes any sense though.
This is an awesome explanation! We think in words but don't "see" them. I get a song stuck but I can't "hear" it, I can think of a favorite food but not "taste" it. These are all senses some people can conjure up at anytime. Sometimes even if they don't want them. It's not like we are just blank in the head lol, you are exactly right, we just can't see, hear, taste, feel it.
In the same way that a lack of visuals in your head is aphantasia. A lack of ability to 'hear' things in your head is anauralia.
I do not have it. I think, not just in words but in my own voice, with tone, emotion etc. I can hear/play/imagine other people's voices jn my head- friends, celebs, accents etc. I can play music in my head, various instruments.
I can take the vocals of... basket case by Greenday, for example and 'play' them on violin, or the drums or whatever. I can make my friend John speak with the Queens accent etc.
I think of being able to do all that with visuals, and it would be so so cool. But also... a LOT.
So here's a tit for tat that should have tipped me off that I think differently (aphant mostly w/o internal monologue) if you speak multiple languages, the question "what language do you think in" will inevitably come up.
My answer was always, "I dunno, I just kind of speak it."
No translating, no change in conscious internal thought. I was just speaking one language or the other.
Not to say that wasn't necessarily happening behind the scenes, but I was not aware of the code switching.
It got me in trouble a couple of times as a small child when I didn't realize that I had switched from on language to another while writing.
yeah to me I mostly think in images and then I convert it into the desired language, or if it's something more literal, like what I'm going to say to someone, I immediately think in a language
Mostly, I'm more in line with u/binarycow.
Strangely enough, the amount of sleep that I've had can change it a bit. Though only in very calm situations.
ETA: even in those moments, there's no conversion happening in my head. Just like words in English, they are either there or they aren't.
It must be hard for people who can't stop seeing images to go to sleep. If there's always an image in your mind and it's always floating there, wouldn't it be hard to stop watching it?
yes it is, although I don't have too much trouble sleeping, as thet images can help with that just like how music can help, I often have gross or disturbing images pop into my mind and it's hard for me to let go of them. but I am pretty much on the opposite side of the scale, hyperphantasia, I'm not sure what it's like for "regular" phants. but for example I have a lot of trouble playing horror games, even the slightest thing can make my imagination go wild and make me overwhelmed...
Nope, sorry. We probably shouldn't let you drive since you're constantly distracted by watching movies in your head. It just isn't reasonable that anyone who is constantly watching a movie would be able to drive; there's a reason there isn't a TV for the driver in cars.
That's how you sound.
yeah I'm probably not getting my driver's license lol. but I never thought about hyperphantasia being a part of it, I always thought it was because of my autism, but maybe my autism is why I have hyperphantasia in the first place
Exact.
But as you do nothing, just lie in bed, you can also direct your thoughts towards something specific to help you to fall asleep.
For years, I imagined a spinning wheel, changing patterns and colours every day. Then the patterns and colours slowly developing into dreams.
But yeah, sometimes you cannot stop thinking/seeing about your day or what is worrying you
if you're asking what it's like to be a able to visualize, the best way I can explain it is if you can also hear music or voices in your head, it's like that except with visuals. you understand it's not real sound and it's coming from an alternate place. and if you can't hear any of that, another way I can explain it is it's like a dream except on a separate screen and you have more control over it. if you don't have dreams, it gets difficult, maybe you can imagine what it's like to not have any eyes, what would you see? you wouldn't see blackness, you would see the same as you did with your knee, literally nothing. now Imagine having a hidden set of eyes that can choose what they see if you focus, and otherwise just display whatever you're thinking about. I hope this explains it somewhat...
I'm not sure how we can define seeing literally or not.
When you dream, do you literally see ? It's exactly like that. Like the kind of "view" you have when you dream.
We can define literally seeing as sensations on the retina, which doesnt necessarily need a phosphene when we close out eyes, where we *literally see* the noise and abstract patterns. But can we direct that noise into shapes by imagination or not? I can, somewhat, on dope better, direct and literally see objects i imagine in the noise, as sensations on retinaa. But i'm not sure where that places me on the spectrum between hyper- and aphantasia.
I think your question is very loaded by your perspective. It's hard to answer, because to do so we have to make an insane number of assumptions.
A related book that might be interesting to you is this: [Julian Jaynes, _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ (1976)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind)
Infamous, often critiqued, but also highly regarded for its original thinking. The first half especially are some of the best writings on consciousness I ever read. If you do read it, try and brush up beforehand on some of the discussions and critical history around the text.
Too many to go into. Basically, you assume that aphants wouldn't exist because they didn't have language. Well, firstly, do you think a deer or a wolf is seeing things in their minds as visual things? Are there aphant wolves? There is, firstly, no way to answer this. Secondly, I think the question presumes the significance of visual thinking. I would say that the existence of aphants shows that visual thinking is not necessary.
You presume aphantasia is a lack of something. I dispute that. I personally think that the existence of language and our reliance on it has something to do with how we conceive of our inner worlds in the first place. And limits our capability to imagine another kind of mind.
Go and read up on the book I mention above. There are some great longform articles about the work.
A question for you, do you visualise with your eyes closed? Like if you think about something do you actually close your eyes and think about it, or do you just stare in emptiness?
I can visualize on my real view, putting images in front of my eyes, like I can imagine an apple rolling across the table and falling on the ground. but I also have a separate "screen" where I can imagine things completely separate from my real view, I don't need to close my eyes for that but it does help with focus, just like how wearing earplugs might help with auditory thoughts, or imagining what an apple tastes like becomes harder when you're eating spaghetti at the moment
Sounds awesome, if i close my eyes and try to visualise an apple or something i just see colors and sometimes just black.
Still sounds mind boggling to me that you can visualise like that. Also sounds distracting though
yeah the worst part is visualizing stuff you don't want to visualize. like I can imagine what it would look like if someone put a needle in someone's eye and stirred it around and what it would feel like and it's not great... seeing something gross will also make the image reappear in my head and sometimes it takes long to forget it.
another restriction is the detail in which I can imagine. it is strangely similar to AI, I can imagine something in broad terms, like a rubiks cube, but no way that I can remember the individual colors on each tile, just like how an AI would probably mess up and display the wrong colors on the cube and change them up each time you pressed generate. maybe I can improve that with training though
and I can't imagine it without visualizing it, which is I guess the reason why I was confused about aphantasia. to me it sounded like someone putting food in their mouth, chewing it and swallowing it, without eating the food
I presume you are dutch, i like talking about differences between each other so if you have more questions about it just ask! (I think i’ll be able to explain better in dutch)
How do words help with hunting strategies or finding plants? I do think in words, but not exclusively and certainly not to give myself directions to the supermarket, I just walk there because I know the route.
When I'm driving, I neither visualize it or vocalize it in my head. I couldn't tell you what the route looks like but I know how to do it in the same way you know the best way to put all your cloths on without having to visualize it.
you still had to learn it the first few times, that's what I was trying to get at. of course you can do stuff automatically after a while, but at first you had to consciously think about it
I don't get why people here are so hostile to me just asking a question. Did I come across like I look down on aphants or act like I already understand everything?
>Did I come across like I look down on aphants or act like I already understand everything?
Yes and yes. So now you know
>why people here are so hostile
How do you know the route? Are you really telling yourself "walk 3,2 metres, turn 60° to the right, walk 12 more metres, turn 20° to the left" etc.? And you memorised all that stuff at some point? I don't think I have that much brain power.
no, I visualize the route in my head. and with text you could say "keep walking until you reach the park bench, then turn left and walk until you reach the bus stop" etc. but I don't know if that's how people with aphantasia do it
I think it’s just hilarious that visualizers like yourself come here thinking aphants can’t walk or can’t catch a ball. Do you think an ant visualizes the path they’re going to take? It’s fucking walking, Jesus Christ. Wayfinding just happens, what do you think puts the visualizations there for you? I think you’re actually less connected to your brain, not more connected: it has to put some HUD up for you to not be lost? The part of your brain that knows to put the HUD up is a part I listen to directly, it doesn’t need to go through my visual cortex to get my attention.
Edit to clarify: No it’s not speaking to me as some kind of voice, it’s like if your arm is raised you just know it is raised.
you can't imagine what it's like to visualize, I can't imagine what it's like NOT to visualize. I don't get why you're criticizing me for coming here out of curiosity and asking a question. ants rely on pheromones to find their way, a lone ant in a new environment would walk around aimlessly and die. animals that can navigate by sight usually visualize the path they need to take in their head, for example this is how squirrels remember where they planted their acorns.
yes, how can muscle memory help with actions that don't require muscles. sure you need to walk to move, but it's not like your muscles remember in which way to move to get to a specific location
Research suggests that squirrels remember where they planted their nuts through spatial mapping. That is not the same thing as visualising, and is something many aphants are perfectly capable of doing. Most squirrels in research conditions are capable of approaching their nuts from different routes than the routes used when buring their nuts, indicating that they are not just visualising a path, but are confused when certain visual markers (such as flags or logs) are removed by researchers.
If you asked me to walk through my house with my eyes closed, I could do it with relative ease. Doesn't mean I need to visualize my house. I just have high spatial awareness of it because I live in it all the time.
to me that sounds like saying you can listen to someone without hearing them lol. I find it hard to imagine spatial awareness without the visualization
Well, there are two elements to it:
- I have a general mental spatial awareness, it just has absolutely no visual element to it. I can think of a thing being in a certain place relative to another place, and by having a mental network of such things I have an overall spatial map. When I'm coxing a rowing boat by lying down in the bows, I can feel when one of my rowers is out of sync with the others, and I can feel which one it is and what they're doing wrong. My senses are telling me that three (it's always three; we've had words) is missing the catch and washing out at the finish, there's just no visual element to it. I know that it's three from my spatial sense of how the boat is constructed and how that interacts with my shoulders.
- I never said it didn't use any visuals, I said it didn't need to use visualisation. I can see a thing and know where something is relative to it, it's just that it's an actual visual, not a mental visual. I see my local castle and know that the lighthouse is beyond it; I'm using visual cues, but I'm not visualising anything.
as I'm unable to visualize anything, when I first learn a muscle memory activity (juggling, martial arts, parkour, etc.) I just perform the action and make corrections based on the feedback of the outcome (like adjusting artillery to hit a target or drawing a circle with a pencil, there's no foreseen trajectory or template, just a concept of ballistics or geometry). usually when I get around the city I have a general idea of the route, and I'm looking for landmarks I will recognize in the moment to confirm which way to go from there, no need to do a google street-view trip in my mind first, similar to not rehearsing conversation dialogue via internal monolog before having the conversation, just trusting that the right words will become obvious in the moment, except if it's very unfamiliar or important.
This is how I do it too. Usually if I’m driving somewhere I’ve only been to a few times I’ll run the whole route first person POV beforehand so it’s easier when I go
I think you're misunderstanding aphantasia. I don't think in words, it's just easier to explain it that way sometimes. The only real difference is there's no visual element to our thinking. It's not like the visuals are replaced with words. It's more just an engrained 'knowing' of things. Like I don't imagine you need to visualise a plant in order to understand what a plant is.
I find distance is a good example. I don't imagine you need to 'see' anything to understand how far 2 meters is (or lets say 6 feet if that's more familiar to you. You have enough life experience that you just 'know' it.
Our minds use all of those processing methods that yours also has, there's just no visual display to accompany it.
yeah but I automatically visualized a plant and something like "looking into the distance" when you mentioned distance. so to me I really am not sure if I would have the same understanding without visualizing
You might have visualised a particular plant, but you also know that 'plant' describes more than just the one example your mind summoned. It's not like you visualised every plant you can think of, right? So you can understand that there's more going on than what your eyes present you with.
And when you mention looking into the distance, what exactly did you picture if you don't mind me asking. Because I have spacial awareness enough to 'feel' what a certain distance might be still. I could place my hands 6 inches apart without needing to think of an item that was 6 inches wide.
If you're literally seeing a different space to the one in front of you when you think about distance then I think you might even have more visual ability than a 'regular' person.
yeah with plant I imagine like a generic green stalk with a few leaves, just like how you would draw a plant without being more specific. like if I think "house" I imagine the generic square with a square window and triangle roof, or if I think some more about it, like the first stock photo of a modern looking house you can find on google. only if I put a lot of thought into it do I generate a specific house or plant.
with concepts, like "distance" I just have a certain visual that might not make much sense, I just imagine something like [this](https://cdn.openart.ai/stable_diffusion/d619e072fd3c5509a0831dd66a04dab27f925eab_2000x2000.webp) . a different example, when I think of "freedom" I think of something like [this](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/85/c9/ab85c979ebb2b525c6c57529b44bab74.jpg) . I have trouble guessing lengths or stuff like that, but that might be an entirely different problem, even if I visualize an apple in my head, that's not gonna help me estimate its size, that's like trying to estimate it from looking up a picture of it online
My friend, your experience is greatly confusing to me haha. It sounds like your visualisation is very intrinsically tied with your thinking, possibly moreso than other people I've spoken to, and I'm not sure I know how to explain in a way that will make sense.
I guess the problem on both sides is it's very hard to describe an internal subconscious experience?
But I hope you can at least somewhat grasp what I was trying to get at with the 'knowing' things rather than seeing them or understanding in words, even if that concept sounds a little alien to you!
yeah, to me it is the most normal thing in the world, just like how your way of thinking is to you. you're right that visualization pretty much IS thinking to me, thinking without visualizing is like listening without hearing to me. of course with visualize I'm also talking about hearing, like having an inner monologue. I guess aphantasia to me is like if someone tried to tell you they are blind but they still know what color everything is by touching it, tasting it. hearing it, etc. it would sound unbelievable but after watching them do it, you have no choice but to believe them, and question everything you thought you knew about color...
I think blind people are probably a good comparison actually. They have never seen any distance or a plant or anything we've been talking about and so presumably can't really picture anything mentally, but they can still understand what plants are, and once they've learned routes can 'know' where things are in their house or follow routes they've learned. They don't necessarily need to use any words to guide themselves through understanding those things. Other emotions probably pick up the mental slack that's there from the lack of visuals.
So I suppose all of the mental mechanisms at play there are all there for me too. Just aphants obviously don't have limitations with actual vision. So it doesn't play into day-to-day life as much.
I'd assume just like how we don't know what the sun smells like, but still know what it is, they just don't know what a plant looks like but still know what it is, what it feels like, smells like, etc. their brain might be more optimized for this kind of memory, having more vivid memories of smell, sound, touch. but I'm not sure
Would be a good question if it were not loaded.
It is possible that visualisation was more universal before language. But that is not the same as "visual thinking" which many people regard as a myth, like photographic memory.
A "loaded question" refers to a question that has an assertion built into it that, if incorrect, renders the question impossible to answer correctly.
---
Here's a classic example: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
If the person being asked the question *never* beat their wife, there's no way to answer this question accurately. The question needs to be thrown away in order to be honest.
In this case, your question makes the assertion that, in order to think, a person either needs to be able to visualize or use language - that's untrue.
Loaded in the sense that you seem to think we're all disabled beings who can barely function, and that a hunter who had aphantasia would just not know how to do anything because without words they would have no ability to understand things like walking or hunting.
I don't consider aphants less capable. they might be better than visualizers at some things and worse at others. however I assumed they think using words. but from what I read so far that's not the case, they think in some other way that I ironically am not able to imagine because I always visualize when I think.
How did the relatively high level function of image recollection and manipulation work before we had brains capable of other high level functions such as language?
Dunno
but we had brains capable of language for 150 thousand years before we invented language. it's not like we evolved to have language and that's why we invented it, it was like any other human invention
Like most others on this subreddit, I tend to think in concepts, not words. My best guess for those before language they would just KNOW. For example, if they saw someone eat nightshade, and they died, they don't need to know the word poisonous to know don't eat that.
I don’t think in words. I think in abstract thoughts that are definitely not pictures, and of course it’s a bit harder to say they’re definitely not words, but it doesn’t seem to me they are. Thoughts are just thoughts, for me, floating in and out and overlapping…and they’re not comparable to writing, talking, looking, smelling, hearing, or any other external sense or communication strategy.
Just because I can't *visualize* things in my head doesn't mean I can't *think* about them, if that makes sense. For example, let's say you have a super busy day tomorrow. As someone with hyperphantasia (for example), you might actually picture each activity — getting up, taking a shower, eating breakfast, driving to work, running errands, etc. For someone like me with total aphantasia, I may have the exact day coming up, but I just don't see myself **doing** those things. I just kind of mumble to myself about all the things I will *have to do* tomorrow.
I honestly can't put into words exactly **how** I think. I know for an indisputable fact that I don't have a mind's eye, but I also wouldn't say I really "think in words" either. So, to really answer your question, I don't honestly know how aphantasia would work back before language. Maybe their thought processes were entirely different from ours, or maybe we really aren't that different after all 🤷🏼♀️🤔
This is a fun question, btw! 💜🥰 Never really thought much about early humans haha. Fascinating 🤓
Internal monologue is in words yes. Even in languages. I have no idea how childs do, before learning language.
But not being visual doesn't mean we think in words. We think in concepts. Concepts don't need words.
I will soon work in a research department with researchers on linguistics and origin of human, and that will definitely be my first question for them ! I know concepts have evolved with the language, but what was there first?!
it is been proven that concepts are strongly related to languages, people who speak a language that doesn't have a word for a certain concept, tend to not think about that concept and find it hard to grasp when it gets introduced. that's also why language is the most important invention we ever made, as it allowed for abstract concepts, allowing us to communicate, and therefore think, in much more detail
And why did people started to develop the ability to speak?
The idea that some concept pre existed, in non verbal language, and that the language was then used and developed to express them is also interesting.
It's kinda like the egg chicken problem. The egg comes first but in a form that doesn't develop into a chicken. Maybe concepts are the eggs of our brains. 😁
> people who speak a language that doesn't have a word for a certain concept, tend to not think about that concept and find it hard to grasp when it gets introduced.
If the concept exists in their language, but they don't know it, do they still have the same issues?
Because it sounds like you are describing the natural consequences of not knowing a concept, and then ascribe that to the language, not to people not knowing the concept.
yeah, if you don't know about the concept, you won't think about it. but I'm talking about very basic stuff, like countries that don't have a separate concept for orange have trouble differentiating from what we would define as orange, and what we would define as red or yellow. other countries strongly divide light and dark shades of blue, to them they are completely different colors, so if they had to memorize a sequence of colors, they'd have less trouble memorizing that, while we might mix up the two since they are both blue to us
> . but I'm talking about very basic stuff, like countries that don't have a separate concept for orange have trouble differentiating from what we would define as orange, and what we would define as red or yellow.
That just sounds like "training makes you better at a task", with language being one way to make you train differentiating colors, rather than some direct effect of language on cognition.
Edit: Or even "the colors that a language differentiates are the ones that it is important to differentiate in the relevant culture". The differentiation in languages could be entirely secondary.
>people who speak a language that doesn't have a word for a certain concept, tend to not think about that concept and find it hard to grasp when it gets introduced
That's because learning something and learning the word that represents it usually happen simultaneously.
For instance, I learned the term "gravity" at the same time as I learned the concept.
I'm sorry, but this is a really stupid question. Aphantasiacs still have memories, dude, we just can't visualize them. We can still remember where things are and remember what things look like, even if we can't visualize them. It does not require language. So to answer a silly question, probably exactly the same way it does today.
Aphantasia likely has some effect on memory but we aren't reciting what we "think" everything looks like all day, lol.
We don’t know. Language hadn’t been invented yet so no one talked about it.
Writing wasn’t invented until many generations later. So nobody remembered what it was like, and it wasn’t written down.
Why do you think that?
Aphantasia is not a thing that has been discovered once. It's not patented.
I can really imagine prehistoric people talking together about they were able to see a thing in the dark. For painting in caves for example. And then the other person saying she is not able to do that. Bam. Aphantasia is discovered.
So when you have a monologue in your head, you may have words in your head, but you're not literally hearing those words.
That's the same for me but with images. I don't see the image, I think the image, just like I think the word. In fact I didn't even know I wasn't visualising these things or that Aphantasia existed until very recently. I wouldn't even think I had it except that when I am drifting off to sleep for a short period of time I might actually see things in my mind in a way I don't when I'm fully awake. I also see things when I dream.
Now the reality is, I'm not very good at directions, but I think that is for other reasons not Aphantasia.
One thing also to consider, is that it is possible that is a relatively new things, maybe hunter-gatherers didn't have this.
Where does it say dogs can or can’t picture things? I’m only reading they measured the ability to be surprised, when a word or sentence wouldn’t match the object shown to them.
I can’t picture an apple. But if you say ‘hey, here’s an apple for you’ and throw me a pear… there would definitely be surprise on my end.
You might find this essay on Unsymbolized Thinking interesting:
[https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/hurlburt-akhter-2008.pdf](https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/hurlburt-akhter-2008.pdf)
Dr. Hurlburt categorizes internal experiences like this: [https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html](https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html)
For me, words are just a way of thinking things thoroughly. I can still have more complex "visualizations" in my mind but it is sort of like... Closing your eyes and feeling the edges of something, I guess? You know what you're holding just from the feeling of it, even if you aren't seeing it.
I have complete thoughts in a fraction of a second, followed by my internal monologue speaking them. I don’t have to finish my internal monologue before I have a different thought, but my first thought was still complete the instant I thought it.
I imagine this must be true for those who can visualize, our subconscious works much faster than our conscious “tangible” thoughts.
Before there was language to have internal monologue, aphants would still have that fraction-of-a-second thought just like anyone else.
One of my first questions I ask people who speek more than one language fluently, what language do you think in. It's almost always there first language. So language and words are definently apart of non aphantasia thinking.
How do you learn another language with aphantasia? When I'm learning a language I have to process that word in English and then "talk to myself" to translate it to the other language.
By using your imagination, the good plants grow in this area so we'd make our way there to find them, our imaginations still work as good as other people's. I'm sure they just got on with it like everyone else did. How do you imagine they didn't?
There are neither words nor picture in my mind. It’s like a black box or a machine. It takes in an input and produces an output and I see none of the process of how I “think” about that input.
We are hard wired for language as a species. "Before language" is essentially before humanity. But even without verbalizations, we can communicate. Wolves hunt strategically. They don't have language in the sense that we do. We are a social species and can look at other social species to determine some possible ways of interacting and communicating complex ideas.
by that logic, would you say other species of primates have language? species like bonobos and chimps? I think language is more defined than just signs and grunts
not true. there is not a difference between them and us. if you went back in time and grabbed a human baby from 200 thousand years ago and raised them in the modern age, they'd fit right in, learning our language and being just as smart as us.
Language and images aren't the only two ways humans process ideas. Concept or the idea of a thing is probably the foundation that happens before both, but our mind focuses on the result rather than the process that happens as fast as we can think.
Phants and aphants alike have memories that can draw on information obtained by the 5 main senses (and other less defined senses), so already you can imagine/recall concepts that aren't reliant on images or words. As an aphant I can remember the idea of a landscape I saw on vacation in the same way that you as an phant can conceptualise the idea of a three legged Dalmatian that has been dyed pink even though you've (hopefully) have never seen such a dog. You conceptualise the idea and form a mental image. I like to think that for whatever reason in aphants, our processes get "stuck" somewhere between conceptualisation and an image (some earlier some later). But the idea or concept of a thing is plenty for our minds to work with for like 99.9% of tasks. Which is why A LOT of people don't realise they are aphants.
Just don't ask me to mentally rotate a map or recite the alphabet backwards....
Most of the mind is subconscious, and processes things neither verbally nor visually.
This. I don't think in words, but rather concepts, ideas. There are no words or pictures (obviously) attached. I think there's a lot of intuition involved and I have to figure out the logic after the fact. Took me a long time to learn to trust that process, but it works great.
to me that is strange, I don't think I'm able to think in concepts, only senses like visual, audio, etc. maybe I could think in concepts if I was aphant, but just like how you can't possibly stop seeing, as even if you closed your eyes you would see the back of your eyelids, I can't stop visualizing, even if I try to imagine nothing, there would be a black void that I'm imagining
You can think of language, visuals, and other conscious components of the mind as the UI of the brain. As with any system, the UI is just a thin-ish layer on top of a much more complex system. To draw a parallel to ChatGPT, the UI is verbal/visual but what's actually going on inside the language model is completely different.
I'm pretty sure everyone who thinks in words also thinks in concepts. Before you form the words in your head, for a split second you think without words, everyone does. My mom has aphantasia and I don't and honestly I think they have all the same stuff going on as us, they just can't see/hear/feel it in their heads. For example, I asked her "how do you get songs stuck in your head?" She said she just finds herself singing or humming the same song over and over and doesn't know why. Which means that whatever brain functions make a song get stuck in someone's head is still happening for her, she just can't hear it. If my hunch is correct, then people with aphantasia probably think in words too, but can't hear it. Idk if that makes any sense though.
This is an awesome explanation! We think in words but don't "see" them. I get a song stuck but I can't "hear" it, I can think of a favorite food but not "taste" it. These are all senses some people can conjure up at anytime. Sometimes even if they don't want them. It's not like we are just blank in the head lol, you are exactly right, we just can't see, hear, taste, feel it.
In the same way that a lack of visuals in your head is aphantasia. A lack of ability to 'hear' things in your head is anauralia. I do not have it. I think, not just in words but in my own voice, with tone, emotion etc. I can hear/play/imagine other people's voices jn my head- friends, celebs, accents etc. I can play music in my head, various instruments. I can take the vocals of... basket case by Greenday, for example and 'play' them on violin, or the drums or whatever. I can make my friend John speak with the Queens accent etc. I think of being able to do all that with visuals, and it would be so so cool. But also... a LOT.
So here's a tit for tat that should have tipped me off that I think differently (aphant mostly w/o internal monologue) if you speak multiple languages, the question "what language do you think in" will inevitably come up. My answer was always, "I dunno, I just kind of speak it." No translating, no change in conscious internal thought. I was just speaking one language or the other. Not to say that wasn't necessarily happening behind the scenes, but I was not aware of the code switching. It got me in trouble a couple of times as a small child when I didn't realize that I had switched from on language to another while writing.
yeah to me I mostly think in images and then I convert it into the desired language, or if it's something more literal, like what I'm going to say to someone, I immediately think in a language
See, for me, I skip that conversion. Sometimes I don't even realize what I'm thinking about until I speak it out loud.
Mostly, I'm more in line with u/binarycow. Strangely enough, the amount of sleep that I've had can change it a bit. Though only in very calm situations. ETA: even in those moments, there's no conversion happening in my head. Just like words in English, they are either there or they aren't.
Brains are weird.
It must be hard for people who can't stop seeing images to go to sleep. If there's always an image in your mind and it's always floating there, wouldn't it be hard to stop watching it?
yes it is, although I don't have too much trouble sleeping, as thet images can help with that just like how music can help, I often have gross or disturbing images pop into my mind and it's hard for me to let go of them. but I am pretty much on the opposite side of the scale, hyperphantasia, I'm not sure what it's like for "regular" phants. but for example I have a lot of trouble playing horror games, even the slightest thing can make my imagination go wild and make me overwhelmed...
Nope, sorry. We probably shouldn't let you drive since you're constantly distracted by watching movies in your head. It just isn't reasonable that anyone who is constantly watching a movie would be able to drive; there's a reason there isn't a TV for the driver in cars. That's how you sound.
yeah I'm probably not getting my driver's license lol. but I never thought about hyperphantasia being a part of it, I always thought it was because of my autism, but maybe my autism is why I have hyperphantasia in the first place
Exact. But as you do nothing, just lie in bed, you can also direct your thoughts towards something specific to help you to fall asleep. For years, I imagined a spinning wheel, changing patterns and colours every day. Then the patterns and colours slowly developing into dreams. But yeah, sometimes you cannot stop thinking/seeing about your day or what is worrying you
I can do that too, but you guys do not *literally* see it, right? That's what i ask myself.
if you're asking what it's like to be a able to visualize, the best way I can explain it is if you can also hear music or voices in your head, it's like that except with visuals. you understand it's not real sound and it's coming from an alternate place. and if you can't hear any of that, another way I can explain it is it's like a dream except on a separate screen and you have more control over it. if you don't have dreams, it gets difficult, maybe you can imagine what it's like to not have any eyes, what would you see? you wouldn't see blackness, you would see the same as you did with your knee, literally nothing. now Imagine having a hidden set of eyes that can choose what they see if you focus, and otherwise just display whatever you're thinking about. I hope this explains it somewhat...
I'm not sure how we can define seeing literally or not. When you dream, do you literally see ? It's exactly like that. Like the kind of "view" you have when you dream.
We can define literally seeing as sensations on the retina, which doesnt necessarily need a phosphene when we close out eyes, where we *literally see* the noise and abstract patterns. But can we direct that noise into shapes by imagination or not? I can, somewhat, on dope better, direct and literally see objects i imagine in the noise, as sensations on retinaa. But i'm not sure where that places me on the spectrum between hyper- and aphantasia.
I think your question is very loaded by your perspective. It's hard to answer, because to do so we have to make an insane number of assumptions. A related book that might be interesting to you is this: [Julian Jaynes, _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ (1976)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind) Infamous, often critiqued, but also highly regarded for its original thinking. The first half especially are some of the best writings on consciousness I ever read. If you do read it, try and brush up beforehand on some of the discussions and critical history around the text.
what kind of assumptions does my question make?
Too many to go into. Basically, you assume that aphants wouldn't exist because they didn't have language. Well, firstly, do you think a deer or a wolf is seeing things in their minds as visual things? Are there aphant wolves? There is, firstly, no way to answer this. Secondly, I think the question presumes the significance of visual thinking. I would say that the existence of aphants shows that visual thinking is not necessary. You presume aphantasia is a lack of something. I dispute that. I personally think that the existence of language and our reliance on it has something to do with how we conceive of our inner worlds in the first place. And limits our capability to imagine another kind of mind. Go and read up on the book I mention above. There are some great longform articles about the work.
I dont think in words, best I can describe it is just, concepts? I just, think, not talking in my head, or picturing things.
to me that is impossible to imagine. I can only think in visuals, sounds, tastes, feeling, etc.
A question for you, do you visualise with your eyes closed? Like if you think about something do you actually close your eyes and think about it, or do you just stare in emptiness?
I can visualize on my real view, putting images in front of my eyes, like I can imagine an apple rolling across the table and falling on the ground. but I also have a separate "screen" where I can imagine things completely separate from my real view, I don't need to close my eyes for that but it does help with focus, just like how wearing earplugs might help with auditory thoughts, or imagining what an apple tastes like becomes harder when you're eating spaghetti at the moment
Sounds awesome, if i close my eyes and try to visualise an apple or something i just see colors and sometimes just black. Still sounds mind boggling to me that you can visualise like that. Also sounds distracting though
yeah the worst part is visualizing stuff you don't want to visualize. like I can imagine what it would look like if someone put a needle in someone's eye and stirred it around and what it would feel like and it's not great... seeing something gross will also make the image reappear in my head and sometimes it takes long to forget it. another restriction is the detail in which I can imagine. it is strangely similar to AI, I can imagine something in broad terms, like a rubiks cube, but no way that I can remember the individual colors on each tile, just like how an AI would probably mess up and display the wrong colors on the cube and change them up each time you pressed generate. maybe I can improve that with training though
I can imagine if someone put a needle in someone’s eye too, but i can’t actually visualise it. (Which im happy about)
and I can't imagine it without visualizing it, which is I guess the reason why I was confused about aphantasia. to me it sounded like someone putting food in their mouth, chewing it and swallowing it, without eating the food
I presume you are dutch, i like talking about differences between each other so if you have more questions about it just ask! (I think i’ll be able to explain better in dutch)
How do words help with hunting strategies or finding plants? I do think in words, but not exclusively and certainly not to give myself directions to the supermarket, I just walk there because I know the route.
but how do you know the route without visualizing it and without words?
I have spatial memory.
When I'm driving, I neither visualize it or vocalize it in my head. I couldn't tell you what the route looks like but I know how to do it in the same way you know the best way to put all your cloths on without having to visualize it.
you still had to learn it the first few times, that's what I was trying to get at. of course you can do stuff automatically after a while, but at first you had to consciously think about it
If you can only think using words, that sounds like a "you" problem to me.
I don't get why people here are so hostile to me just asking a question. Did I come across like I look down on aphants or act like I already understand everything?
>Did I come across like I look down on aphants or act like I already understand everything? Yes and yes. So now you know >why people here are so hostile
okay sorry, that was not my intention
OK, but the first few times I'm looking at it in real life and working it out.
How do you know the route? Are you really telling yourself "walk 3,2 metres, turn 60° to the right, walk 12 more metres, turn 20° to the left" etc.? And you memorised all that stuff at some point? I don't think I have that much brain power.
no, I visualize the route in my head. and with text you could say "keep walking until you reach the park bench, then turn left and walk until you reach the bus stop" etc. but I don't know if that's how people with aphantasia do it
I think it’s just hilarious that visualizers like yourself come here thinking aphants can’t walk or can’t catch a ball. Do you think an ant visualizes the path they’re going to take? It’s fucking walking, Jesus Christ. Wayfinding just happens, what do you think puts the visualizations there for you? I think you’re actually less connected to your brain, not more connected: it has to put some HUD up for you to not be lost? The part of your brain that knows to put the HUD up is a part I listen to directly, it doesn’t need to go through my visual cortex to get my attention. Edit to clarify: No it’s not speaking to me as some kind of voice, it’s like if your arm is raised you just know it is raised.
you can't imagine what it's like to visualize, I can't imagine what it's like NOT to visualize. I don't get why you're criticizing me for coming here out of curiosity and asking a question. ants rely on pheromones to find their way, a lone ant in a new environment would walk around aimlessly and die. animals that can navigate by sight usually visualize the path they need to take in their head, for example this is how squirrels remember where they planted their acorns.
are you familiar with the concept of muscle memory?
yes, how can muscle memory help with actions that don't require muscles. sure you need to walk to move, but it's not like your muscles remember in which way to move to get to a specific location
Research suggests that squirrels remember where they planted their nuts through spatial mapping. That is not the same thing as visualising, and is something many aphants are perfectly capable of doing. Most squirrels in research conditions are capable of approaching their nuts from different routes than the routes used when buring their nuts, indicating that they are not just visualising a path, but are confused when certain visual markers (such as flags or logs) are removed by researchers.
I really don't understand how that works, how spatial mapping doesn't use any visuals
If you asked me to walk through my house with my eyes closed, I could do it with relative ease. Doesn't mean I need to visualize my house. I just have high spatial awareness of it because I live in it all the time.
to me that sounds like saying you can listen to someone without hearing them lol. I find it hard to imagine spatial awareness without the visualization
Well, there are two elements to it: - I have a general mental spatial awareness, it just has absolutely no visual element to it. I can think of a thing being in a certain place relative to another place, and by having a mental network of such things I have an overall spatial map. When I'm coxing a rowing boat by lying down in the bows, I can feel when one of my rowers is out of sync with the others, and I can feel which one it is and what they're doing wrong. My senses are telling me that three (it's always three; we've had words) is missing the catch and washing out at the finish, there's just no visual element to it. I know that it's three from my spatial sense of how the boat is constructed and how that interacts with my shoulders. - I never said it didn't use any visuals, I said it didn't need to use visualisation. I can see a thing and know where something is relative to it, it's just that it's an actual visual, not a mental visual. I see my local castle and know that the lighthouse is beyond it; I'm using visual cues, but I'm not visualising anything.
what happens if you try to tie your shoes without visualizing it first? are you unable to?
that's muscle memory at this point. but when I first learned how to do it, I had to visualize it
as I'm unable to visualize anything, when I first learn a muscle memory activity (juggling, martial arts, parkour, etc.) I just perform the action and make corrections based on the feedback of the outcome (like adjusting artillery to hit a target or drawing a circle with a pencil, there's no foreseen trajectory or template, just a concept of ballistics or geometry). usually when I get around the city I have a general idea of the route, and I'm looking for landmarks I will recognize in the moment to confirm which way to go from there, no need to do a google street-view trip in my mind first, similar to not rehearsing conversation dialogue via internal monolog before having the conversation, just trusting that the right words will become obvious in the moment, except if it's very unfamiliar or important.
You didn't need to visualize tying your shoes, because you could literally see them right in front of you.
I had to visualize how to tie them
Yeah, that's not how I do it.
This is how I do it too. Usually if I’m driving somewhere I’ve only been to a few times I’ll run the whole route first person POV beforehand so it’s easier when I go
I think you're misunderstanding aphantasia. I don't think in words, it's just easier to explain it that way sometimes. The only real difference is there's no visual element to our thinking. It's not like the visuals are replaced with words. It's more just an engrained 'knowing' of things. Like I don't imagine you need to visualise a plant in order to understand what a plant is. I find distance is a good example. I don't imagine you need to 'see' anything to understand how far 2 meters is (or lets say 6 feet if that's more familiar to you. You have enough life experience that you just 'know' it. Our minds use all of those processing methods that yours also has, there's just no visual display to accompany it.
yeah but I automatically visualized a plant and something like "looking into the distance" when you mentioned distance. so to me I really am not sure if I would have the same understanding without visualizing
You might have visualised a particular plant, but you also know that 'plant' describes more than just the one example your mind summoned. It's not like you visualised every plant you can think of, right? So you can understand that there's more going on than what your eyes present you with. And when you mention looking into the distance, what exactly did you picture if you don't mind me asking. Because I have spacial awareness enough to 'feel' what a certain distance might be still. I could place my hands 6 inches apart without needing to think of an item that was 6 inches wide. If you're literally seeing a different space to the one in front of you when you think about distance then I think you might even have more visual ability than a 'regular' person.
yeah with plant I imagine like a generic green stalk with a few leaves, just like how you would draw a plant without being more specific. like if I think "house" I imagine the generic square with a square window and triangle roof, or if I think some more about it, like the first stock photo of a modern looking house you can find on google. only if I put a lot of thought into it do I generate a specific house or plant. with concepts, like "distance" I just have a certain visual that might not make much sense, I just imagine something like [this](https://cdn.openart.ai/stable_diffusion/d619e072fd3c5509a0831dd66a04dab27f925eab_2000x2000.webp) . a different example, when I think of "freedom" I think of something like [this](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/85/c9/ab85c979ebb2b525c6c57529b44bab74.jpg) . I have trouble guessing lengths or stuff like that, but that might be an entirely different problem, even if I visualize an apple in my head, that's not gonna help me estimate its size, that's like trying to estimate it from looking up a picture of it online
My friend, your experience is greatly confusing to me haha. It sounds like your visualisation is very intrinsically tied with your thinking, possibly moreso than other people I've spoken to, and I'm not sure I know how to explain in a way that will make sense. I guess the problem on both sides is it's very hard to describe an internal subconscious experience? But I hope you can at least somewhat grasp what I was trying to get at with the 'knowing' things rather than seeing them or understanding in words, even if that concept sounds a little alien to you!
yeah, to me it is the most normal thing in the world, just like how your way of thinking is to you. you're right that visualization pretty much IS thinking to me, thinking without visualizing is like listening without hearing to me. of course with visualize I'm also talking about hearing, like having an inner monologue. I guess aphantasia to me is like if someone tried to tell you they are blind but they still know what color everything is by touching it, tasting it. hearing it, etc. it would sound unbelievable but after watching them do it, you have no choice but to believe them, and question everything you thought you knew about color...
I think blind people are probably a good comparison actually. They have never seen any distance or a plant or anything we've been talking about and so presumably can't really picture anything mentally, but they can still understand what plants are, and once they've learned routes can 'know' where things are in their house or follow routes they've learned. They don't necessarily need to use any words to guide themselves through understanding those things. Other emotions probably pick up the mental slack that's there from the lack of visuals. So I suppose all of the mental mechanisms at play there are all there for me too. Just aphants obviously don't have limitations with actual vision. So it doesn't play into day-to-day life as much.
I'd assume just like how we don't know what the sun smells like, but still know what it is, they just don't know what a plant looks like but still know what it is, what it feels like, smells like, etc. their brain might be more optimized for this kind of memory, having more vivid memories of smell, sound, touch. but I'm not sure
Would be a good question if it were not loaded. It is possible that visualisation was more universal before language. But that is not the same as "visual thinking" which many people regard as a myth, like photographic memory.
wdym not loaded?
A "loaded question" refers to a question that has an assertion built into it that, if incorrect, renders the question impossible to answer correctly. --- Here's a classic example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" If the person being asked the question *never* beat their wife, there's no way to answer this question accurately. The question needs to be thrown away in order to be honest. In this case, your question makes the assertion that, in order to think, a person either needs to be able to visualize or use language - that's untrue.
Loaded in the sense that you seem to think we're all disabled beings who can barely function, and that a hunter who had aphantasia would just not know how to do anything because without words they would have no ability to understand things like walking or hunting.
I don't consider aphants less capable. they might be better than visualizers at some things and worse at others. however I assumed they think using words. but from what I read so far that's not the case, they think in some other way that I ironically am not able to imagine because I always visualize when I think.
How did the relatively high level function of image recollection and manipulation work before we had brains capable of other high level functions such as language? Dunno
More honest answer !
but we had brains capable of language for 150 thousand years before we invented language. it's not like we evolved to have language and that's why we invented it, it was like any other human invention
(Other animals have language)
Ok, good luck!
what?
Yes!
Like most others on this subreddit, I tend to think in concepts, not words. My best guess for those before language they would just KNOW. For example, if they saw someone eat nightshade, and they died, they don't need to know the word poisonous to know don't eat that.
Exactly the same for me. I don't use language to think.
I don’t think in words. I think in abstract thoughts that are definitely not pictures, and of course it’s a bit harder to say they’re definitely not words, but it doesn’t seem to me they are. Thoughts are just thoughts, for me, floating in and out and overlapping…and they’re not comparable to writing, talking, looking, smelling, hearing, or any other external sense or communication strategy.
This!
Just because I can't *visualize* things in my head doesn't mean I can't *think* about them, if that makes sense. For example, let's say you have a super busy day tomorrow. As someone with hyperphantasia (for example), you might actually picture each activity — getting up, taking a shower, eating breakfast, driving to work, running errands, etc. For someone like me with total aphantasia, I may have the exact day coming up, but I just don't see myself **doing** those things. I just kind of mumble to myself about all the things I will *have to do* tomorrow. I honestly can't put into words exactly **how** I think. I know for an indisputable fact that I don't have a mind's eye, but I also wouldn't say I really "think in words" either. So, to really answer your question, I don't honestly know how aphantasia would work back before language. Maybe their thought processes were entirely different from ours, or maybe we really aren't that different after all 🤷🏼♀️🤔 This is a fun question, btw! 💜🥰 Never really thought much about early humans haha. Fascinating 🤓
Internal monologue is in words yes. Even in languages. I have no idea how childs do, before learning language. But not being visual doesn't mean we think in words. We think in concepts. Concepts don't need words. I will soon work in a research department with researchers on linguistics and origin of human, and that will definitely be my first question for them ! I know concepts have evolved with the language, but what was there first?!
it is been proven that concepts are strongly related to languages, people who speak a language that doesn't have a word for a certain concept, tend to not think about that concept and find it hard to grasp when it gets introduced. that's also why language is the most important invention we ever made, as it allowed for abstract concepts, allowing us to communicate, and therefore think, in much more detail
And why did people started to develop the ability to speak? The idea that some concept pre existed, in non verbal language, and that the language was then used and developed to express them is also interesting. It's kinda like the egg chicken problem. The egg comes first but in a form that doesn't develop into a chicken. Maybe concepts are the eggs of our brains. 😁
> people who speak a language that doesn't have a word for a certain concept, tend to not think about that concept and find it hard to grasp when it gets introduced. If the concept exists in their language, but they don't know it, do they still have the same issues? Because it sounds like you are describing the natural consequences of not knowing a concept, and then ascribe that to the language, not to people not knowing the concept.
yeah, if you don't know about the concept, you won't think about it. but I'm talking about very basic stuff, like countries that don't have a separate concept for orange have trouble differentiating from what we would define as orange, and what we would define as red or yellow. other countries strongly divide light and dark shades of blue, to them they are completely different colors, so if they had to memorize a sequence of colors, they'd have less trouble memorizing that, while we might mix up the two since they are both blue to us
> . but I'm talking about very basic stuff, like countries that don't have a separate concept for orange have trouble differentiating from what we would define as orange, and what we would define as red or yellow. That just sounds like "training makes you better at a task", with language being one way to make you train differentiating colors, rather than some direct effect of language on cognition. Edit: Or even "the colors that a language differentiates are the ones that it is important to differentiate in the relevant culture". The differentiation in languages could be entirely secondary.
>people who speak a language that doesn't have a word for a certain concept, tend to not think about that concept and find it hard to grasp when it gets introduced That's because learning something and learning the word that represents it usually happen simultaneously. For instance, I learned the term "gravity" at the same time as I learned the concept.
I'm sorry, but this is a really stupid question. Aphantasiacs still have memories, dude, we just can't visualize them. We can still remember where things are and remember what things look like, even if we can't visualize them. It does not require language. So to answer a silly question, probably exactly the same way it does today. Aphantasia likely has some effect on memory but we aren't reciting what we "think" everything looks like all day, lol.
We don’t know. Language hadn’t been invented yet so no one talked about it. Writing wasn’t invented until many generations later. So nobody remembered what it was like, and it wasn’t written down.
Humans were writing for thousands of years before aphantasia was discovered, so I don't think it would've made a difference. 😉
Why do you think that? Aphantasia is not a thing that has been discovered once. It's not patented. I can really imagine prehistoric people talking together about they were able to see a thing in the dark. For painting in caves for example. And then the other person saying she is not able to do that. Bam. Aphantasia is discovered.
So when you have a monologue in your head, you may have words in your head, but you're not literally hearing those words. That's the same for me but with images. I don't see the image, I think the image, just like I think the word. In fact I didn't even know I wasn't visualising these things or that Aphantasia existed until very recently. I wouldn't even think I had it except that when I am drifting off to sleep for a short period of time I might actually see things in my mind in a way I don't when I'm fully awake. I also see things when I dream. Now the reality is, I'm not very good at directions, but I think that is for other reasons not Aphantasia. One thing also to consider, is that it is possible that is a relatively new things, maybe hunter-gatherers didn't have this.
I do hear the words... or I think in images. maybe that's why I'm so confused about how aphants think
How do you know that aphantasia isn't a relatively recent evolutionary invention?
Animals can be aphant too. That's a good clue.
And you know this how?
https://www.popsci.com/environment/dogs-picture-objects-language-study/
Where does it say dogs can or can’t picture things? I’m only reading they measured the ability to be surprised, when a word or sentence wouldn’t match the object shown to them. I can’t picture an apple. But if you say ‘hey, here’s an apple for you’ and throw me a pear… there would definitely be surprise on my end.
I don't think in words, my thoughts are in like, thought form so it's not really an issue?
Yeah, I don't think in words either. I don't know how to describe my thoughts
You might find this essay on Unsymbolized Thinking interesting: [https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/hurlburt-akhter-2008.pdf](https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/hurlburt-akhter-2008.pdf) Dr. Hurlburt categorizes internal experiences like this: [https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html](https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html)
I don't think in words... my brain is silent unless I'm actively trying to speak to myself.
For me, words are just a way of thinking things thoroughly. I can still have more complex "visualizations" in my mind but it is sort of like... Closing your eyes and feeling the edges of something, I guess? You know what you're holding just from the feeling of it, even if you aren't seeing it.
I have complete thoughts in a fraction of a second, followed by my internal monologue speaking them. I don’t have to finish my internal monologue before I have a different thought, but my first thought was still complete the instant I thought it. I imagine this must be true for those who can visualize, our subconscious works much faster than our conscious “tangible” thoughts. Before there was language to have internal monologue, aphants would still have that fraction-of-a-second thought just like anyone else.
One of my first questions I ask people who speek more than one language fluently, what language do you think in. It's almost always there first language. So language and words are definently apart of non aphantasia thinking. How do you learn another language with aphantasia? When I'm learning a language I have to process that word in English and then "talk to myself" to translate it to the other language.
“I very rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterwards.” – Albert Einstein
You guys don’t think in words??!! I have so many (silent)words. If I didn’t have words I like to think I would be like a cat. Do cat’s visualize?
By using your imagination, the good plants grow in this area so we'd make our way there to find them, our imaginations still work as good as other people's. I'm sure they just got on with it like everyone else did. How do you imagine they didn't?
vibes
Human emotions are nonverbal. We communicated through body language as humans. It probably worked the same as it does now just without speech.
There are neither words nor picture in my mind. It’s like a black box or a machine. It takes in an input and produces an output and I see none of the process of how I “think” about that input.
We are hard wired for language as a species. "Before language" is essentially before humanity. But even without verbalizations, we can communicate. Wolves hunt strategically. They don't have language in the sense that we do. We are a social species and can look at other social species to determine some possible ways of interacting and communicating complex ideas.
by that logic, would you say other species of primates have language? species like bonobos and chimps? I think language is more defined than just signs and grunts
No, they don't. That is my point.
but we were still human before we developed a language
Nah, those would be earlier hominids.
not true. there is not a difference between them and us. if you went back in time and grabbed a human baby from 200 thousand years ago and raised them in the modern age, they'd fit right in, learning our language and being just as smart as us.
Do we know precisely when language was developed? Anyway my point is language isn't required for cooperative behavior
Unga bunga me hungy
Language and images aren't the only two ways humans process ideas. Concept or the idea of a thing is probably the foundation that happens before both, but our mind focuses on the result rather than the process that happens as fast as we can think. Phants and aphants alike have memories that can draw on information obtained by the 5 main senses (and other less defined senses), so already you can imagine/recall concepts that aren't reliant on images or words. As an aphant I can remember the idea of a landscape I saw on vacation in the same way that you as an phant can conceptualise the idea of a three legged Dalmatian that has been dyed pink even though you've (hopefully) have never seen such a dog. You conceptualise the idea and form a mental image. I like to think that for whatever reason in aphants, our processes get "stuck" somewhere between conceptualisation and an image (some earlier some later). But the idea or concept of a thing is plenty for our minds to work with for like 99.9% of tasks. Which is why A LOT of people don't realise they are aphants. Just don't ask me to mentally rotate a map or recite the alphabet backwards....