XtremeTurnip

XtremeTurnip t1_je8rg6m wrote

>aphantasmagoria

That would be aphantasia.

I have the personal belief that they can produce images but they're just not aware of it because the process is either too fast or they wouldn't call it "image". I don't see (pun intended) how you can develop or perform a lot of human functions without : object permanence, face recognition, etc.

But most people say it exists so i must be wrong.

That was a completely unrelated response, sorry. On your point i think Feynman did the experiment with a colleague of his where they had to count and one could read at the same time and the other one could talk or something, but none could do what the other one was doing. Meaning that they didn't had the same representation/functionning but had the same result.

edit : i think it's this one or part of it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y

7

XtremeTurnip t1_jcrncm5 wrote

That's just one image out of the blue.

In terms of render, sure.

But if you have a specific design in mind, good luck generating it with AI, same if you want to make a character coherent through multiple iterations.

The artist that makes either one of those is fine, the artist that makes the same shit as everyone else might be in trouble.

1