←back to thread

183 points petalmind | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.585s | source
1. jibbit ◴[] No.45766297[source]
If you could see a photographic-quality image in your mind, you could answer questions about it the way you’d answer questions about a photograph in front of you. 'what’s written on the sign?' 'how many windows?' That's photographic memory. Since that’s not real, the 'normal visualization' everyone's comparing themselves to doesn’t exist either. Yet we keep treating as credible people who assert what others experience based on not experiencing it themselves. This is epistemically bankrupt.
replies(2): >>45766780 #>>45768712 #
2. mandolingual ◴[] No.45766780[source]
'If you could see a photographic-quality image in your mind, you could answer questions about it the way you’d answer questions about a photograph in front of you'

...yes. I wouldn't describe it as photograph-quality, for me it's fuzzier and lower fidelity than that, but yes.

3. ◴[] No.45768712[source]