4 ms·

Yup, sadly the absolute denialists saying "it is just semantic confusion" don't really have a tenable position, as a quick read through this whole thread would

Yup, sadly the absolute denialists saying "it is just semantic confusion" don't really have a tenable position, as a quick read through this whole thread would instantly reveal.

estearum 22d ago
Yeah, this is a valid critique of the whole internal monologue idea, but interestingly aphantasia has been quite empirically confirmed and the simple apple test has been validated!
- zeofig 22d ago
  I don't consider self-reported nonsense to be empirical confirmation. There can be correlations between different self-reports, that doesn't mean that our idea of why those correlations exist is correct.
  - D-Machine 21d ago
    There are plenty of examples multiple times in this thread that show that what is self-reported is demonstrated in non-self-reported phenomena, so those self-reports are clearly not nonsense, basically by definition. The aphantasia theory is clear and parsimoniously makes sense of all this, but your "it's all just semantics" does not, and additionally requires rather other extreme acrobatics with regards to much of the entirety of human experience and discourse. Scholarly research also basically says this. Your mind is clearly closed and you do not have any serious interest in understanding anything here.
  - estearum 21d ago
    You're not reading what is being said to you. There are correlations to non self-reported phenomena. This comment names a few (despite being dead for some reason?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49475441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49475441
- tomveber 21d ago
  The self-report objection has been tested, though. Aphantasics show no imagery priming in binocular rivalry, no pupil constriction when asked to imagine bright shapes, and flat skin conductance to frightening text while responding normally to frightening pictures. A questionnaire that predicts autonomic responses nobody can fake is doing more than semantics.
  - estearum 21d ago
    Yes, sorry I believe we are saying the same thing. I'm saying there are a number of physical tests like the ones you describe, and those line up with the much simpler apple imagery self-report test.

Yup, sadly the absolute denialists saying "it is just semantic confusion" don't really have a tenable position, as a quick read through this whole thread would instantly reveal.

estearum 22d ago

Yeah, this is a valid critique of the whole internal monologue idea, but interestingly aphantasia has been quite empirically confirmed and the simple apple test has been validated!

zeofig 22d ago
I don't consider self-reported nonsense to be empirical confirmation. There can be correlations between different self-reports, that doesn't mean that our idea of why those correlations exist is correct.
- D-Machine 21d ago
  There are plenty of examples multiple times in this thread that show that what is self-reported is demonstrated in non-self-reported phenomena, so those self-reports are clearly not nonsense, basically by definition. The aphantasia theory is clear and parsimoniously makes sense of all this, but your "it's all just semantics" does not, and additionally requires rather other extreme acrobatics with regards to much of the entirety of human experience and discourse. Scholarly research also basically says this. Your mind is clearly closed and you do not have any serious interest in understanding anything here.
- estearum 21d ago
  You're not reading what is being said to you. There are correlations to non self-reported phenomena. This comment names a few (despite being dead for some reason?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49475441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49475441
tomveber 21d ago
The self-report objection has been tested, though. Aphantasics show no imagery priming in binocular rivalry, no pupil constriction when asked to imagine bright shapes, and flat skin conductance to frightening text while responding normally to frightening pictures. A questionnaire that predicts autonomic responses nobody can fake is doing more than semantics.
- estearum 21d ago
  Yes, sorry I believe we are saying the same thing. I'm saying there are a number of physical tests like the ones you describe, and those line up with the much simpler apple imagery self-report test.