>>14029565>Your blatant contradiction is not making your argument compelling.It's a difficult feeling to describe.
Like when you zone out an annoying sound/bad smell or stop noticing something in your peripheral vision, but for the entire field of view.
>It's not visual.It might benefit to understand what visual is.
Your brain does a whole bunch of shit to the visual input before it gets to the conscious mind.
It seems reasonable that the image you visualise isn't the whole thing, just some level of this process of doing shit.
Then it sort of gets re-inserted into the pipeline.
Visualisation is something you can train.
I can visualise graphs and computer code, much better than I used to be able to (though for code, visualisation is not as related to sight).
Artists can do the same thing for visualising images, but here's something intriguing:
“The first thing you need to do to become an artist is learn how to see.”
This is some old wisdom that artists have, and from my experiences with music, its absolutely true.
If you want to visualise the result, you need to also be able to perceive more detail in the input.
What this is telling me, is that you are getting your visualisation fed back through the part of the brain that handles the input.
You are actually _seeing_ the image (or at least sending it through the visual processing part of your brain).
Have you seen The Matrix? That's very applicable here. They don't see the matrix with their eyes, it goes straight to the brain.
I would count that as seeing, since from the perspective of your conscious mind it is the same.
Of course it's not going to the subconscious as much, which is why you couldn't startle yourself with a visualisation, or you can't really invoke fight or flight (unless you have some sort of ptsd).
From this context, the 3d drone thing makes sense, it's how your brain brakes up the image of the dear in the input then stores it as a memory, so that's all you get back when you visualise.
