I became aware of aphantasia semi-recently and believe I have it, but have been wanting to asking someone who can see images a question ever since to try and comprehend something I’ve questioned my whole life. I haven’t seen a clear answer when reading articles.

When someone is giving talk and tells everyone (or asks you directly) to close your eyes and imagine you are on a beach with a cold drink next to you. Then they ask what color the drink is, or if there is anything in the distance… do you just look to see what’s there and answer, or do you need to create new information?

Every time I’ve been in this situation I just see black, and am simply trying to think about whatever I was told to think about. Any time a question is asked about what I’m seeing, I just have to make up an answer. I’m basically lying so I can answer, and I thought that’s what everyone was doing. Is this not your experience? If you imagine and apple, do you just look at it to know what kind you’re brain picked today, without having to make a decision about what kind of apple you want to see?

A follow up to that, if most people can see imagery like this, why on earth do people spend so much time with their nose in a phone? I think I’d be one of those problem daydreamers the article talked about. That sounds like a super power.

The only time I’ve ever seen anything was when I went to a place to learn a certain meditation practice. The first time I did it I saw what were kind of like the northern lights, but a vivid blue. I actually opened my eyes for a second to see if they were shining lights at me to make it seem more magical. It only happened that one time. If that happened every time I meditated, I would be doing it all the time. It was so cool.

> When someone is giving talk and tells everyone (or asks you directly) to close your eyes and imagine you are on a beach with a cold drink next to you. Then they ask what color the drink is, or if there is anything in the distance… do you just look to see what’s there and answer, or do you need to create new information?

It depends. In order to visualize something, I give constraints to my imagination.

If I decide to visualize a photo-realistic drink, the drink will have a color. If I don't constrain the color either directly ("yellow") or indirectly ("citrus drink"), my imagination will pick a color by default because it has to fill in the scene given by the constraints ("photo-realistic"). What color it picks at a given moment or why in that case is up to my subconscious I guess.

If I decide to visualize a black-and-white drawing of a drink on a sheet of paper, it doesn't have a color. It has a shade of gray that I either consciously or unconsciously choose as above.

If I decide to conceptualize a drink, the drink doesn't have a color unless I pick one. It's harder to describe what I experience then, but "feeling" a graph of concepts would be somewhat close. It's harder to conceptualize a purely non-abstract thing for me because my imagination will try to picture it given the chance, it works better as part of a reasoning process or on abstract things.

> A follow up to that, if most people can see imagery like this, why on earth do people spend so much time with their nose in a phone? I think I’d be one of those problem daydreamers the article talked about. That sounds like a super power.

Imagination isn't inspiration. Being uninspired applies equally to imagination and drawing. There's also only so many times you can draw or imagine a particular topic in a row before you get bored of it.

It's also a question of producing vs consuming. I can listen to music in my head with little effort, but I can hear music with my headphones with no effort. If you're mentally spent or depressed, you probably don't have the focus or willpower to visualize an epic D&D quest playing out in your head, because it takes effort and creativity to do so.

Thanks for helping to clarify how you’re able to see things. I appreciate having clarity, while also disappointed I’m not able to do this.

The inspiration vs imagination, and effort, makes sense. I suppose I’m thinking I’d do it all the time, because the idea of it is novel to me. Having it your whole life makes it a different story.

Sounds like hyperphantasia, so also a bit rare and on the complete opposite side of the spectrum ;) Most people fall in between the two extremes.

I do have a vivid imagination, but I was specifically referring to the way it is subjectively experienced, not its objective quality.

If I decide to play a song in my head, I know that it's not real, but I don't hear that it's not real. Not because of the quality of the rendition, but because it would be indistinguishable to me from hearing an identical live reproduction [1]. If I'm really tired and start having sensory hallucinations, I don't know that they're not real and I don't hear that they're not real.

Personally, after experimenting with it, I believe that when I'm imagining sights or sounds, I'm actually self-inducing sensory hallucinations. I can do it with other senses too, but I have less practice with those. I don't have to visualize in order to think or conceptualize [2].

All of that is what makes me think that aphantasia is the inability to induce sensory hallucinations at will. Depending on the person, it might be limited to one or more senses, the quality might be limited by available bandwidth, but if it's visualized then it would not be distinguishable from an equivalent sensory input. If it's conceptualized, then by definition it's not a sensory input. Of course, I only have my own subjective experience as a data point, so I don't expect this to be an authoritative answer.

[1] Excluding other correlated stimuli, like feeling my innards vibrating due to proximity to a speaker emitting a loud base.

[2] I'll have to think and experiment on my own to quantify this part. That being said, I haven't managed to read a sentence without having a voice speaking out the words in my head.

If I understand you correctly, then no, aphantasia is not the inability to induce sensory hallucinations. "Typical" visualizing is different from actually seeing/..., see other comments in this thread for descriptions. Not sure what you mean by conceptualized, but most people do "see" images, but thet don't "actually see" them. There is something between aphantasia and hyperphantasia, and it's where moet people are actually.

> I'm wondering if aphantasia is merely the inability to induce sensory hallucinations at will.

I have aphantasia and this is how I'd define it for myself. I have visual dreams and sometimes when I'm tired or on certain drugs I experience visualizations, but not being able to call these visualizations to mind deliberately I feel is what sets my experience apart from others.

I only have visual aphantasia though and can imagine sounds in my head quite well (with verification of this through being a musician and being able to play by ear), so the effect is definitely not universal and can be limited to certain senses.