WEBVTT - Ep79 "Does everyone have different mind's eyes, mind's ears, and mind's tongues?" 0:00:05.080 --> 0:00:08.520 If I ask you to imagine something like the sun 0:00:08.640 --> 0:00:13.320 peeking over a mountain during an early morning rainstorm, do 0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:16.720 you see it with rich visual detail like a movie. 0:00:17.400 --> 0:00:19.799 Or at the other end of the spectrum, do you 0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:23.720 not really have any internal picture at all, but instead 0:00:23.840 --> 0:00:27.360 just a concept. In an earlier episode, we tackled the 0:00:27.440 --> 0:00:33.159 spectrum of internal visual imagination from hyperfantasia at one end 0:00:33.479 --> 0:00:37.080 to a fantasia at the other end. How does your 0:00:37.120 --> 0:00:40.440 experience differ from other people's and what does this have 0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:43.880 to do with the mind's eye or the mind's ear, 0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:47.640 or how your brain cobbles together the skills that you 0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:54.880 have to nail the tasks before you. Welcome to Inner 0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:58.240 Cosmos with me, David Eagleman. I'm a neuroscientist and an 0:00:58.240 --> 0:01:02.200 author at Stanford and in the episodes we dive deeply 0:01:02.400 --> 0:01:06.520 into our three pound universe to uncover some of the 0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:21.080 most surprising aspects of our lives. Today's episode returns to 0:01:21.160 --> 0:01:24.240 an issue that I hit a little while ago about 0:01:24.400 --> 0:01:28.280 how we visualize on the inside. Specifically, we talked about 0:01:28.680 --> 0:01:33.759 a fantasia and hyperfantasia. In a fantasia, you just don't 0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:37.640 picture anything in your head when you're asked to visually 0:01:37.760 --> 0:01:42.199 imagine something, and in Hyperfantasia, it's like a movie going 0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:45.240 on on the inside, and every one of us is 0:01:45.360 --> 0:01:50.120 somewhere on this spectrum between these two end points. And 0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:52.160 if you heard that episode, you know that I talked 0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:56.560 with Ed Katmoll, who's the founder of Pixar Films, and 0:01:56.840 --> 0:02:00.800 Ed was surprised to discover a while ago that he 0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:05.320 is a fantasic. And when he quizzed some of the 0:02:05.320 --> 0:02:09.160 best artists and animators at Pixar, he was even more 0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:13.440 surprised to discover that many of them were a fantasic. 0:02:14.200 --> 0:02:17.040 So the key lesson that emerged from that episode is 0:02:17.040 --> 0:02:21.800 that we each have our own experience of reality, but 0:02:22.520 --> 0:02:26.560 most of the time we assume that our experiences are 0:02:27.120 --> 0:02:31.320 human universals. It never even strikes us that other people 0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:33.960 might be having a different reality. 0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:35.040 And this is. 0:02:34.960 --> 0:02:38.239 Something we've seen in the scientific community, even very recently. 0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:42.840 Some researcher will introspect and think about how they're experiencing 0:02:42.880 --> 0:02:46.800 the world, and then they will argue that that is 0:02:46.880 --> 0:02:51.119 how brains work. They're operating under the assumption that all 0:02:51.240 --> 0:02:55.280 brains are having the same experience on the inside. It's 0:02:55.440 --> 0:03:00.200 very reasonable assumption it just turns out to be incorrect. 0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:03.240 Episode on how We Imagine on the Inside that turned 0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:04.959 out to be a very popular episode. 0:03:05.000 --> 0:03:06.840 I got a lot of emails about this. 0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:10.080 And I think this is because it's a real eye 0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:14.480 opener to almost everybody when they realize that it's difficult 0:03:14.520 --> 0:03:19.359 to know whether your version of reality is true for everybody. 0:03:19.400 --> 0:03:22.519 You only know that it's true for you, and when 0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:26.360 things get subjected to rigorous study, it often turns out 0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:30.640 that there's a different experience going on from person to person. 0:03:31.000 --> 0:03:33.160 And one thing that was very interesting to me and 0:03:33.280 --> 0:03:37.440 came out of these emails was this question about how 0:03:37.480 --> 0:03:42.440 people lean into their own strengths and compensate for their weaknesses, 0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:46.440 with the end result being that you often just don't 0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:50.440 know from looking at somebody's behavior or performance what that 0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:54.600 person can or can't do on the inside. And I 0:03:54.640 --> 0:03:57.680 was reminded about this issue of how the brain might 0:03:57.840 --> 0:04:01.839 cobble together lots of ways of acomplishing a task. When 0:04:02.320 --> 0:04:06.520 Ed Catmull told me about his interaction with Glenn Keen, 0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:10.280 who's one of the best animators that Pixar has ever known. 0:04:10.480 --> 0:04:13.160 I didn't play that clip in the earlier episode but 0:04:13.240 --> 0:04:18.800 I wanted to concentrate on that now. 0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:23.719 When I had my dinner with Glenn Keene after we 0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:27.919 had the results, because as I mentioned, when I first 0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:32.440 met with Glenn, he said, yeah, he can't visualize, and 0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.240 he knows that and it's just part of his skill. 0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:38.359 So Ed had run an internal study at Pixar and 0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:43.480 found that many of the great artists and animators couldn't visualize. 0:04:43.520 --> 0:04:46.000 That was a much more normal thing than would have 0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:49.960 been expected. And Ed presented those results to Glenn. 0:04:50.520 --> 0:04:54.240 Then he said that he felt relieved because he was 0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:56.120 always a little worried that something was. 0:04:57.680 --> 0:04:58.560 Wrong with him. 0:04:58.720 --> 0:05:01.200 And I was surprised at that one because he was 0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:04.400 so good. But it was also true with some of 0:05:04.480 --> 0:05:08.640 the people with a fantasia was they they felt relieved 0:05:09.320 --> 0:05:12.120 because they felt there might be something wrong with them. 0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:17.599 I thought, well, okay, that's curious. It's understandable. And the 0:05:17.720 --> 0:05:22.760 terminology that's frequently used is one of a deficiency. 0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:26.200 It's like the mind blind eye. 0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:30.080 Which is a phrase that's frequently used when people write about. 0:05:29.839 --> 0:05:32.279 It, A blind mind's eye, right. 0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:37.360 Yeah, blind mind's eye. So uh. And I never really 0:05:37.480 --> 0:05:39.480 liked the term because. 0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:43.279 I didn't feel like I had a blind mind's eye. 0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:47.120 I didn't feel deficient in that way. It was just 0:05:47.160 --> 0:05:50.159 like I had a different set of skills. So the 0:05:50.240 --> 0:05:55.840 negative terminology wasn't helpful to them. And it was like 0:05:55.880 --> 0:05:58.800 a curious thing where people felt like they were deficient 0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:04.279 when actually the quality of their work wasn't was extraordinarily good. 0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:06.520 Let me make sure I understand the story, though, was 0:06:06.520 --> 0:06:11.160 that Glenn felt that way before he understood what a 0:06:11.240 --> 0:06:14.640 fantasia was. I mean, the reason I ask is because 0:06:14.640 --> 0:06:19.600 most people assume that everyone else's reality is the same 0:06:19.760 --> 0:06:23.240 as theirs on the inside. Did he have a sense 0:06:23.320 --> 0:06:26.320 in some way that he was different even before he 0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:27.919 understood about a fantasia? 0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:34.400 Well, he did know that he couldn't visualize before all 0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:38.360 this took place, So I think in some people's cases, 0:06:39.680 --> 0:06:41.960 I would say this is true with others too. And 0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:45.719 some of the others who were storyboard artists at Disney 0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:49.480 said they knew that the others could work faster than 0:06:49.520 --> 0:06:52.960 they could, and they felt deficient in their ability to 0:06:53.320 --> 0:06:57.040 operate at that speed, but they didn't say anything. In 0:06:57.520 --> 0:07:00.719 Glenn's case, he said that he he knew that he 0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:05.359 couldn't visualize because he'd had this discussion with his mentor 0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:08.320 about it, but it wasn't until after the result came 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:12.680 out that he said that he felt realated. Initially, he 0:07:12.680 --> 0:07:14.880 didn't say that he thought there was any problems. So 0:07:14.880 --> 0:07:18.640 there's a little bit of something inside of people saying, oh, 0:07:18.720 --> 0:07:23.120 maybe there's something wrong with me because I can't do it. 0:07:27.240 --> 0:07:27.520 Again. 0:07:27.560 --> 0:07:30.240 That was Ed catmull, the founder of Pixar Films. He 0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:33.120 is a fantasic and you can hear my full interview 0:07:33.160 --> 0:07:37.040 with him on episode fifty nine. Anyway, so many people 0:07:37.120 --> 0:07:40.040 contacted me about this that I decided it was time 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:43.520 to do a second episode on this topic with a 0:07:43.600 --> 0:07:46.880 deeper dive into the science. So I called a friend 0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:50.240 and colleague of mine, Joel Pearson, a professor of cognitive 0:07:50.280 --> 0:07:54.600 neuroscience at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. 0:07:55.040 --> 0:07:57.400 Now you may remember I had Joel on the show 0:07:57.440 --> 0:08:00.080 a little while ago to talk about the science and 0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:04.440 psychology of intuition, as in what it is, when to 0:08:04.480 --> 0:08:06.680 trust it, when not to trust it. But I had 0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:10.400 him back now to speak more about a fantasia and 0:08:10.520 --> 0:08:14.160 hyper fantasia and all of the studies that his lab 0:08:14.440 --> 0:08:22.760 has done on this So here's my interview with Joel Pearson. Okay, 0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:24.800 so Joel tell us what is a fantasia. 0:08:25.240 --> 0:08:28.440 Well, it's the name to describe a complete lack of 0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:31.640 visual imagery. Now we can dig a little bit deeper 0:08:31.680 --> 0:08:34.240 and talk about imagery in the other senses, but primarily 0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:38.160 it refers to people that either acquired or lost their 0:08:38.240 --> 0:08:41.280 visual imagery or were born without any visual imagery. 0:08:41.679 --> 0:08:44.160 And what percentage of population are we looking at? That 0:08:44.200 --> 0:08:45.319 has a fantastic Yeah. 0:08:45.200 --> 0:08:47.120 Kind of a controversial question. So it seems to be 0:08:47.120 --> 0:08:50.280 between say two percent and four percent, give or take. 0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:53.280 I think it's probably more like five to seven percent. 0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:55.760 Because a lot of people I talk to who have 0:08:55.880 --> 0:08:59.600 it or discover that imagery exists, they never realized imagery 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:02.319 actually exists. They always thought it was a metaphor and 0:09:02.360 --> 0:09:04.760 the mind's eye was simply a metaphor. So they're shocked. 0:09:04.800 --> 0:09:06.880 And so I think the way people measure it with 0:09:07.000 --> 0:09:11.560 questionnaires is actually under undermeasuring the total number. Yeah, so 0:09:11.600 --> 0:09:14.839 I think it's a little bit higher. Sounds right. 0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:16.920 So you know, back in two thousand and seven, I 0:09:16.960 --> 0:09:19.360 did this paper where we did brain imagery and show 0:09:19.400 --> 0:09:23.080 that we could correlate what someone's subjective report is on 0:09:23.200 --> 0:09:26.280 the vividness of visual imergy questionnaire to their brain imaging. 0:09:26.480 --> 0:09:30.000 But you've done something even cooler and simpler than brain imaging, 0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:32.600 which is pupil ametory. So tell us explain to us 0:09:32.600 --> 0:09:32.800 what that's. 0:09:33.080 --> 0:09:34.440 Yeah, there's a paper. So we've been on this quest 0:09:34.480 --> 0:09:37.280 to try and have objective measurements of visual imagery. And 0:09:37.320 --> 0:09:39.959 the pupil measure was simply we get par dispants into 0:09:39.960 --> 0:09:42.719 the lab and they have to imagine bright objects or 0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:44.520 dark objects. Right, So if you look at a bright 0:09:44.559 --> 0:09:47.240 object or a dark object, we actually use at triangle. 0:09:47.280 --> 0:09:48.920 So if you look at the bright triangle, your pupil 0:09:48.920 --> 0:09:51.079 can strict right bright light. When you look at the 0:09:51.120 --> 0:09:53.839 dark thing, it relaxes and opens up. And it turns 0:09:53.880 --> 0:09:56.640 out if you have someone imagine the same shapes a 0:09:56.760 --> 0:09:59.240 light or a dark triangle, the pupil would do a 0:09:59.240 --> 0:10:02.360 similar thing. Right. So simply by imagining a bright light 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:06.000 it contracts, which is pretty cool in itself, right, And 0:10:06.080 --> 0:10:09.280 it turns out you do that in the normal population, let's say, 0:10:09.400 --> 0:10:12.640 to people's typical imagery. You get this effect, then you 0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:14.640 can be got people with a fantasia into the lab 0:10:14.920 --> 0:10:17.200 and we didn't see the effects, so their eyes, their 0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:20.960 pupils don't constrict, right, And then the question is, well 0:10:21.000 --> 0:10:22.800 are they are they faking it? They just don't want 0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:25.120 to do it because they think they have a fantasia. Right, 0:10:25.200 --> 0:10:27.800 it's some sort of a psychological thing. We have this 0:10:27.880 --> 0:10:30.680 other condition where we have rather than just one triangle, 0:10:30.679 --> 0:10:32.960 we have two or three or four triangles. And you 0:10:33.000 --> 0:10:35.400 see this set size effect which seems to be linked 0:10:35.760 --> 0:10:38.520 with the sort of cognitive and mental effort. So unpack 0:10:38.559 --> 0:10:42.240 the set size effects. Yeah, so when there's more triangles, 0:10:42.600 --> 0:10:45.960 you see a more of a general dilation independent of 0:10:46.000 --> 0:10:48.720 the bright or dark condition, right, And that just seems 0:10:48.760 --> 0:10:51.520 to be like people are trying harder with more triangles. 0:10:51.679 --> 0:10:54.120 And the cool thing is you see this set size 0:10:54.120 --> 0:10:57.640 effect in both groups, in people with imagery and people 0:10:57.640 --> 0:11:01.200 without imagery, people with a fantasia. So suggest they are 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:03.360 trying as hard as they can, or they're trying pretty 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:06.480 hard because it's set size effects there, but there's no 0:11:06.520 --> 0:11:09.160 difference in the luminance or the brightness of the shapes. 0:11:09.480 --> 0:11:13.040 So they're trying, but something's just not happening in their brain. 0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:15.960 It's not happening in visual cortex. Whatever is driving that 0:11:15.960 --> 0:11:18.880 pupil response is not there, so and is. 0:11:18.840 --> 0:11:21.240 It a clear enough effect that you can just ask 0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:23.560 somebody when they tell you that there are fantastic you 0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:24.839 can see, hey picture? 0:11:25.400 --> 0:11:26.760 Can you do it that way? In ser I don't 0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:28.360 know if you can do it right now? Like what's 0:11:28.400 --> 0:11:31.480 your pupil You probably did lots of trials under the 0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:34.679 right conditions. I think it'd be cool to try and 0:11:34.800 --> 0:11:36.599 you know, have a phone test of that where you 0:11:36.640 --> 0:11:39.520 could just test that in anyone any time. But yeah, 0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:42.640 the data was pretty clear and it correlated with other 0:11:42.679 --> 0:11:44.760 measures of visual imagery we have in the lab. So 0:11:44.760 --> 0:11:47.480 it's nice to see the different techniques that have come together. 0:12:05.840 --> 0:12:07.840 You and I know lots and lots of people with 0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:11.880 a fantasia who are terrifically successful in their careers. For example, 0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:14.880 we both are friends with Ed Catmoll, who I interviewed 0:12:14.880 --> 0:12:17.800 in a previous episode. And there's you know, this very 0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:21.120 famous software engineer who's a fantasic and nonetheless did all 0:12:21.120 --> 0:12:24.439 the UI for the for Mozilla. One of the engineers 0:12:24.480 --> 0:12:28.160 at my company, Neo Censury, is a fantasic can yet 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:31.760 he's a terrifically creative engineer. So you've studied the issue 0:12:31.760 --> 0:12:34.600 about what are the strategies that people of the East 0:12:34.600 --> 0:12:35.640 Fantasia are using? 0:12:35.800 --> 0:12:38.000 Tell us about that. Yes, so it depends what we're 0:12:38.000 --> 0:12:41.040 talking about. We're talking about so working memory, so holding 0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:44.880 information in short term memory and visual information. People with 0:12:44.960 --> 0:12:47.960 imagery or people with no imagery have different strategies. So 0:12:48.000 --> 0:12:49.920 I have imagery, and if I have to remember, you know, 0:12:50.120 --> 0:12:52.760 like how many coups you have in front of me, 0:12:53.120 --> 0:12:55.880 I'm going to basically imagine those cups while I'm trying 0:12:55.880 --> 0:12:58.040 to hold it in memory. And that's my mnemonic strategy 0:12:58.040 --> 0:13:01.480 to use a technical word. People without imagery won't do that. 0:13:01.520 --> 0:13:03.880 They have to use and it's not just one other strategy. 0:13:04.240 --> 0:13:06.040 It seems to be a bunch of different strategies. So 0:13:06.040 --> 0:13:10.480 they'll use words, geometry, locations in space. So there's a 0:13:10.600 --> 0:13:14.120 range of different compensatory mechanisms or strategies if you like. 0:13:14.720 --> 0:13:16.960 And they've been practicing most of the people have been 0:13:16.960 --> 0:13:19.960 practicing those strategies their whole life, right, so they're very 0:13:20.000 --> 0:13:21.680 good at it. So if you just look at the 0:13:21.720 --> 0:13:24.560 performance data, it can look exactly the same in some 0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:27.640 of these memory tests, these short term working memory tests, 0:13:28.080 --> 0:13:29.959 and then we see this sort of strategy difference across 0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:32.800 the board in other things we've measured as well. 0:13:33.640 --> 0:13:36.280 Yeah, and it's funny because you and I both in 0:13:36.400 --> 0:13:38.960 several other researchers around the planet figured when we first 0:13:39.000 --> 0:13:41.200 learned about a fantasia, figured, oh, we can just do 0:13:41.280 --> 0:13:43.959 some simple tests on this, and we were surprised that 0:13:44.080 --> 0:13:47.000 on many tests you can't really find a performance difference. 0:13:47.520 --> 0:13:49.880 And it's precisely because of this, right, because people figure 0:13:49.920 --> 0:13:52.720 out other strategies to get buy in the world. And 0:13:52.800 --> 0:13:55.880 I mentioned to you the other day my hypothesis about 0:13:56.200 --> 0:14:00.720 why really good artists and animators like a Pixar, maybe 0:14:00.760 --> 0:14:04.680 why why a fantasics are more likely to become good artists. 0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:05.880 This is just the dumb hypothesis. 0:14:05.920 --> 0:14:08.319 But I figure, if you're a kid in you're hyperfantagic, 0:14:08.360 --> 0:14:11.800 and someone says, draw the horse, you know, you sort 0:14:11.840 --> 0:14:13.199 of know what a horse looks like, and you draw 0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:16.000 with there. But if you're a fantasic, you really have 0:14:16.080 --> 0:14:17.640 to stare at the model and you have to figure 0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:18.960 out what the heck's out there, and you have a 0:14:19.000 --> 0:14:21.760 dialogue with the page and you get more practice. That 0:14:21.800 --> 0:14:24.960 way is the hypothesis, and That's why, even though it 0:14:25.040 --> 0:14:28.160 seems like a surprise at first that Pixar found that 0:14:28.240 --> 0:14:31.240 it had so many a fantagic animators there, maybe it's 0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:35.400 not such a surprise because they were learning different strategies 0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:37.880 in life and ended up becoming better artists that way. 0:14:38.040 --> 0:14:40.320 Yeah, I think the exactly And what is it, Glenn 0:14:40.400 --> 0:14:42.520 Keane that's his name. Yeah, the animator at picks out 0:14:42.520 --> 0:14:44.120 when you see you've seen the footage of him. Yeah, 0:14:44.160 --> 0:14:47.600 but he embodies the motions the movements of his character, 0:14:47.640 --> 0:14:49.840 and he's like jumping around. If you're watching the video, 0:14:50.000 --> 0:14:52.080 I'm still moving around on the chair, right, And so 0:14:52.120 --> 0:14:54.360 he has to almost feel in his body, I think 0:14:54.400 --> 0:14:57.000 before he draws it. So I've sat down with people 0:14:57.040 --> 0:14:59.640 with with a fantasia and said, you know, draw an apple. 0:14:59.640 --> 0:15:02.800 When they to draw a beautiful, perfect, almost perfect apple, right, 0:15:03.240 --> 0:15:05.280 I say, well, how do you know what you're going 0:15:05.320 --> 0:15:07.920 to draw before the pen touched the paper? And he 0:15:08.040 --> 0:15:10.800 was like, I don't really. As I'm drawing it, I 0:15:10.840 --> 0:15:12.320 know I know what an apple looks like. I know 0:15:12.360 --> 0:15:15.160 it looks like an apple. So I just keep drawing, right, 0:15:15.200 --> 0:15:17.280 which is different to how I draw an apple. But again, 0:15:17.400 --> 0:15:20.720 the strategy probably the brain mechanisms are different there, but 0:15:21.200 --> 0:15:23.240 you still get a very similar outcome. 0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:26.560 Also, you found that people can be perfectly good at 0:15:26.600 --> 0:15:29.960 facial recognition and yet they are a fantastic one. They're 0:15:29.960 --> 0:15:32.760 trying to picture a face internally. 0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:34.920 Yeah, this is a So, this is thing called procep 0:15:34.960 --> 0:15:38.720 pagnosia where people have just trouble recognizing just faces, right, 0:15:38.800 --> 0:15:42.120 nothing else that no perceptions normal comes to a face. 0:15:42.160 --> 0:15:44.040 Show them a picture of Brad Pitt. They're like, I 0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:47.000 don't know. They could use the hair or the clothes, right, 0:15:47.400 --> 0:15:50.560 and that's perceptual. Now, we've found a few cases of 0:15:50.640 --> 0:15:53.880 people that have what looks like pro so pagnosia, but 0:15:54.080 --> 0:15:56.840 only in their imagery, which is pretty wild. Right, So 0:15:56.880 --> 0:16:00.160 they have I don't know, proce pagnosia, A fantasia. I've 0:16:00.160 --> 0:16:01.800 got a good name for this, and I've just started 0:16:01.840 --> 0:16:04.080 studying this. But yeah, they don't seem to be able 0:16:04.080 --> 0:16:07.240 to imagine human faces. And when you ask can, they 0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:08.520 say they've got a dog or something, and you say, 0:16:08.520 --> 0:16:10.160 can you imagine the dog's face? They say, yeah, sure, 0:16:10.200 --> 0:16:14.160 no problem, it's just the human face, which is super specific. 0:16:14.280 --> 0:16:17.240 Right now, should also at this point say that a 0:16:17.360 --> 0:16:19.720 fantasia is not just purely visual. When the studies we've 0:16:19.720 --> 0:16:23.400 done it goes there can be full multisensory a fantasia, 0:16:23.920 --> 0:16:27.240 so no mind's ear, no minds smell or taste, none 0:16:27.280 --> 0:16:29.920 of the senses. In the studies we've done, people this 0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:32.440 seem to have Most people have pure visual a fantasia 0:16:32.520 --> 0:16:36.120 or multisensory. The other sort of subtypes of the pure 0:16:36.160 --> 0:16:38.120 auditory a fantasia are very very rare. 0:16:38.760 --> 0:16:41.840 And so let's describe what auditory fantasia would be. So 0:16:41.920 --> 0:16:45.240 you say, okay, picture of betas like symphony. The person says, 0:16:45.400 --> 0:16:47.280 I just have no idea or you know a picture. 0:16:47.280 --> 0:16:49.480 I had the Happy Birthday song in your head. Do 0:16:49.520 --> 0:16:53.560 you hear it? Somebody who is hyper fantasia in that 0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:55.800 way it says, oh, yeah, it's like a symphony. I'm 0:16:55.840 --> 0:16:58.760 hearing the thing, but other people don't hear it. 0:16:59.040 --> 0:17:02.560 Yeah, So it's like, can't get the e worms the 0:17:02.640 --> 0:17:04.639 name for these songs that gets these annoying songs they 0:17:04.640 --> 0:17:07.000 get stuck in our head right so that they have 0:17:07.080 --> 0:17:09.520 no mind's ear. If you're like, they can't now, I 0:17:09.520 --> 0:17:12.720 should say that. In the studies we've done a lot 0:17:12.720 --> 0:17:16.600 of the publicity around a fantasia is around pure visual 0:17:16.600 --> 0:17:18.800 a fantasia, so there's always a bias there. When we're 0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:23.080 collecting data in our database international database, a lot of 0:17:23.080 --> 0:17:25.920 those have reached out to us because they've heard about again, 0:17:26.000 --> 0:17:28.000 pure visual imagery, so there could be a bias there 0:17:28.320 --> 0:17:29.920 in selecting the participants as well. 0:17:30.359 --> 0:17:32.480 So my impression, but you've got data on this which 0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:34.159 I want to ask you. My impression has been that 0:17:34.280 --> 0:17:37.800 it's actually a dice toss on anything. Like somebody might 0:17:37.840 --> 0:17:41.600 have visual a fantasia, but they've got perfectly good ability 0:17:41.640 --> 0:17:44.200 to imagine the auditory, but not so good at imagining 0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:46.520 let's say, how their muscles would feel if they were 0:17:46.520 --> 0:17:49.280 going up twenty flights of stairs, But they're perfectly good 0:17:49.040 --> 0:17:51.520 at at smell fantasia. 0:17:52.000 --> 0:17:53.840 And it's just each one. 0:17:53.960 --> 0:17:56.280 It is felt to me is sort of a random 0:17:56.320 --> 0:17:58.200 toss of those. But have you found clustering that. 0:17:59.440 --> 0:18:02.560 Yeah, I mean the multisensory across the board is the 0:18:02.640 --> 0:18:05.680 largest group really that and pure visual but that's probably 0:18:05.680 --> 0:18:06.080 a bias. 0:18:06.119 --> 0:18:08.080 And by that you mean someone who has a fantasia 0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:09.040 across all the sensors. 0:18:09.080 --> 0:18:10.560 Yeah, which is pretty if you think about it, just 0:18:10.560 --> 0:18:13.800 per second and something that always struck me. What is 0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:19.760 the equivalent in perception. There's no like natural occurring multisensory blindness, right, 0:18:20.240 --> 0:18:22.760 So spatial neglect or something might be the closest thing 0:18:22.760 --> 0:18:25.320 to that, but that's not blindness. So that's an interesting 0:18:25.359 --> 0:18:28.719 way that that a fantasial imagery differs from perception. Right 0:18:28.720 --> 0:18:31.720 You just the chances of being blind and having no 0:18:31.800 --> 0:18:34.520 taste and being deaf and through all the senses is 0:18:35.080 --> 0:18:37.240 I don't know the probabilities are, but it's I've never 0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:39.800 come across someone like that, right, right, right, I don't 0:18:39.800 --> 0:18:40.840 know if it exists even. 0:18:41.400 --> 0:18:44.320 It would certainly be very unlucky to have that, that's right. 0:18:44.359 --> 0:18:45.959 But of course it makes sense because you've got all 0:18:45.960 --> 0:18:47.960 these windows on the world that pick up on different 0:18:48.040 --> 0:18:51.480 energy sources, whether photons are compression waves or mixtures and molecules. 0:18:51.840 --> 0:18:56.679 And then but imagery is you know, this this multicolor 0:18:56.760 --> 0:18:59.880 theater that you're putting together on the inside in the Dora, 0:19:00.680 --> 0:19:03.879 in this hurricane of electrical spikes, we're putting together a 0:19:03.920 --> 0:19:07.200 model of the world. So if there's some problem in that, 0:19:07.480 --> 0:19:12.080 in you know, maybe it's a form of consciousness. Essentially, 0:19:12.160 --> 0:19:14.159 that says, okay, here's how he puts this together to 0:19:14.200 --> 0:19:18.200 make this theatrical play. Yeah, that's a really interesting clue 0:19:18.200 --> 0:19:19.439 into what's going on there. 0:19:19.680 --> 0:19:21.800 Yeah, nicely put. You should write a book. 0:19:21.640 --> 0:19:25.800 David, So okay, But do you also find people like 0:19:25.840 --> 0:19:28.320 I did, where it's you know, it's one and not 0:19:28.480 --> 0:19:30.960 the other, and they're probably good at hearing but not 0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:32.040 at the visualized. 0:19:32.240 --> 0:19:34.240 Yeah, the hearing is less common, but there is, Yeah, 0:19:34.280 --> 0:19:36.640 there is auditory a fantasia, and then there's a sort 0:19:36.640 --> 0:19:39.160 of a sub this question as this, where that people 0:19:39.240 --> 0:19:41.720 will be able to get to have a song in 0:19:41.760 --> 0:19:44.240 their mind, but they won't be able to have they 0:19:44.280 --> 0:19:46.800 won't have the voice in their mind right, so they're 0:19:46.800 --> 0:19:48.800 inner monologue. It's in a dialogue thing. Like there's a 0:19:48.800 --> 0:19:50.360 lot of people when they read a book, they'll hear 0:19:50.359 --> 0:19:52.520 a voice, some version of their own voice sort of 0:19:52.640 --> 0:19:55.960 saying the words in their mind. And some people won't 0:19:56.000 --> 0:19:58.280 have that, but they'll still be able to you know, 0:19:58.359 --> 0:20:00.639 sing a song or listen to music in their minds. E. 0:20:01.200 --> 0:20:04.240 So that's another, you know, even more specific category. You 0:20:04.280 --> 0:20:05.600 know what this all reminds me of? 0:20:05.680 --> 0:20:08.119 So Okay, In my book Incognito, I wrote about this 0:20:08.240 --> 0:20:10.639 team of rivals framework, which is you've got all these 0:20:10.680 --> 0:20:13.800 neural networks that are all doing different things, and you've 0:20:13.840 --> 0:20:16.639 evolved lots of these over the you know, yawns, and 0:20:16.680 --> 0:20:18.360 so you know, all these different ways of doing things. 0:20:18.840 --> 0:20:20.800 So one of the classes I teach her at Stanford 0:20:20.880 --> 0:20:22.160 is literature in the Brain. 0:20:22.680 --> 0:20:24.840 And one of the questions with literature is if you 0:20:24.880 --> 0:20:26.399 just read some passage. 0:20:26.040 --> 0:20:31.119 From Hemingway, are you inside the character or are you 0:20:31.320 --> 0:20:34.960 watching as though watching a movie seeing the characters there? 0:20:35.280 --> 0:20:37.960 And so I really queried the students on this very carefully, 0:20:37.960 --> 0:20:40.879 and what it seems is that we're doing both. We 0:20:40.920 --> 0:20:42.560 do both, and we kind of switch back and forth. 0:20:42.600 --> 0:20:45.240 If you force someone to answer, they'll do one or 0:20:45.280 --> 0:20:45.880 the other. 0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:49.439 Interesting way, independent of how the first person second, how 0:20:49.440 --> 0:20:50.959 the book's written exactly. 0:20:51.200 --> 0:20:53.679 It's just some Hemingway asks scene where it's like some 0:20:53.720 --> 0:20:56.560 guy's talking and doing something. The question is are you 0:20:56.640 --> 0:20:59.000 the guy or are you watching the guy? Yeah, And 0:20:59.040 --> 0:21:02.359 it certainly seems like bounce back and forth pretty seamlessly there. 0:21:02.960 --> 0:21:04.560 So this all comes back to this point you were 0:21:04.560 --> 0:21:07.520 making about all the different strategies that people have to 0:21:07.560 --> 0:21:11.719 solve whatever kind of problem, and maybe visualizing something is 0:21:11.840 --> 0:21:14.600