Aphantasia-Phantasia is a Philosophy, Not a Science


Aphantasia-Phantasia is a Philosophy, Not a Science

Larry Neal Gowdy - Copyright ©2024 - January 04, 2024

Sensory Perceptions are Learned, Not Innate

The capacity for sensory perceptions (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch) may exist before birth, but the sensory perceptions are not developed until after the individual self-learns how to use the senses. The ability to see distances, requires the mental ability and the mental willpower to purposefully focus the eyes. Most people do not remember nor recognize that they themselves self-learned how to focus their eyes, and also self-learned how to recognize distances.

Similarly, the other four sensory perceptions require learning. If an individual never gives attention to their senses, and never gives effort to learn how to sense, then the other four sensory perceptions will always remain undeveloped. Unfortunately, most people never self-exert the self-effort to self-learn how to focus their senses. The result is as what is seen within all sciences and all philosophies; their belief is that all sensory perceptions are what they are, and that all sensory perceptions are permanently fixed.

Muscles must be developed, else the person will always be weak. The mind must be developed, else the person will always be weak. The sensory perceptions must be developed, else the person will always be weak.

If a theory is not based upon one's own firsthand observations, then the theory is imaginary and invalid. If a scientific theory is not based upon the scientific method of firsthand observations, then the theory cannot be scientifically valid. All known theories of '-phantasia' are based upon an absence of knowing that sensory perceptions are self-learned, and the theories are also based upon the absence of firsthand observations. The theories cannot be valid.


Philosophy is the behavior of drawing upon one's existing knowledge while attempting to imagine and to explain what a thing is that the individual has not observed, nor firsthand experienced, nor has knowledge of. The quality of the imagination is dependent upon [1] the quality of one's sensory perceptions, [2] the quality of one's ability to store the sensory perceptions into memories, [3] the quality and quantity of firsthand sensory perceptions, [4] the quality of retained memories, [5] the quality of one's knowledge that was created by the sensory perceptions, [6] the quality of one's ability to mentally recall the memories' details, and [7] the quality of one's ability to apply rational 'laws of Nature' logic to the recalled memories.

Historically, philosophy scores almost zero on all seven dependencies. Philosophy invents imaginations that are not based upon firsthand experiences, nor do the imaginations correlate with the laws of Nature (physics).

Similarly, the topic of 'aphantasia - phantasia' is an imaginative mental exercise that assembles various topics of existing knowledge, and then attempts to explain an unknown thing by use of other unknown things. The imaginative mental exercise cannot succeed nor be accurate because the philosophers [1] do not themselves have firsthand experience with the topic, [2] the philosophers attempt to sidestep the prerequisite of firsthand observation, [3] the philosophers literally know nothing useful of the topic that they are imagining, and [4] the philosophers' 'logic' includes personal biases (i.e. the philosophers incorrectly assume that their own manner of thinking is healthy, and the philosophers then incorrectly assume that all other manners of thinking must therefore be unhealthy).

Philosophical Aphantasia-Phantasia Papers

This article had originally begun with a sizable commentary about a European academic "theoretical' paper that has invented a theory about '-phantasia'. The author is young, and though his mental patterns are above average, still the paper was apparently required by the individual's superiors to include substantial quantities of pseudoscience, which, thus, naturally, led to the paper merely being philosophical. Since the author is living, and since I prefer to never critique a living author's work, then I will bypass a critique of the European author's paper as well.

Aphantasia-Phantasia Do Not Arrive From Only One Source

What is 1 + 1 + 1? What is 5 minus 2? What is 1x3? What is 1.5x2? What is 9 divided by 3? What is the cube of 9? What is one-seventh of 21? What is 900-trillion divided by 300-trillion? The answers are all the same, but the preexisting purposes are all different. Is a person's 'aphantasia-phantasia' caused by additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, or something else? Everyone is different, and just because two people might have a '3', it does not mandate that the '3' is descriptive of the individual himself.

100% of all known 'aphantasia-phantasia' papers assume that 'aphantasia' and 'phantasia' are singularities that cannot have different causes. 100% of all known 'aphantasia-phantasia' papers claim to be scientific, but the papers blatantly deny the science of cause and effect.

If an individual is unable to intricately describe the origins of causes, then the individual cannot know the effect, and everything the individual claims must be philosophical. No known 'aphantasia-phantasia' project so much as attempted to describe the origins of causes.

100% of all known 'aphantasia-phantasia' papers are philosophical.

Summary of Aphantasia-Phantasia Theories

Please never permit yourself to believe that your own personal manner of thinking is superior or inferior. Everything in the universe is different, including humans. No two people are identical, nor the same, nor equal. Everyone must think differently than everyone else.

If an individual is incapable of intricately describing a thing, then the individual does not know what the thing is. Scientists and academicians are incapable of so much as intricately describing a piece of paper, and much less-so are they capable of describing what a thought is. The scientists and academicians are making stuff up about '-phantasia'. Please do not permit yourself to be their victim by believing what they falsely claim.

There is a very specific reason why some so-called 'aphantasics' do not 'see imaginary images' when the individuals think with eyes closed. The reason is highly positive, extremely positive, and is indicative of things that will not be publicly spoken of. Please do not allow yourself to believe in the sciencian and academician theories that are fully ignorant of what the reason is.

Related articles are on the HHAP Home Page.