This has been in the science news lately.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words

Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.

And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
hallucinations.

On 2024-01-03, John Larkin wrote:
> This has been in the science news lately.
>
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>
> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.

I can't (or well not well). Like "close your eyes and imagine an apple"
might (*MIGHT*) get me "circle, red, stick out the top" (otherwise, just
the black of the inside of my eyelids.

On the other hand, ask me to draw a shape that'll fold into a cube, and
I'll whip that up right quick (plus tabs for glue, etc). Likewise, stuff
like "will this bookshelf fit on that wall" type things can usually be
generalized to a "yeah, probably" or "notta chance" by eye.

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 01:07:51 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
wrote:

>On 2024-01-03, John Larkin wrote:
>> This has been in the science news lately.
>>
>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>
>> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>
>I can't (or well not well). Like "close your eyes and imagine an apple"
>might (*MIGHT*) get me "circle, red, stick out the top" (otherwise, just
>the black of the inside of my eyelids.
>
>On the other hand, ask me to draw a shape that'll fold into a cube, and
>I'll whip that up right quick (plus tabs for glue, etc). Likewise, stuff
>like "will this bookshelf fit on that wall" type things can usually be
>generalized to a "yeah, probably" or "notta chance" by eye.

That's interesting. You can invent things with a pencil, on paper, but
you can't visualize them?

I can visualize simple circuits, but serious stuff must be drawn. With
a pencil on paper, not CAD. Visualization is often a sort of
out-of-focus image, a hint of what's possible.

I'm very good at sizes and volumes, as whether the leftover soup in
the pot will fit into this square plastic storage thing. Good to about
5% there. I also guess circuit values pretty close. I notice that some
engineers are terrible at estimating magnitudes, like whether PCB
capacitance will affect this circuit (when it won't by a million-to-1)

People are so different.

On 2024-01-03, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 01:07:51 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-01-03, John Larkin wrote:
>>> This has been in the science news lately.
>>>
>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>>
>>> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>>> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>>
>>I can't (or well not well). Like "close your eyes and imagine an apple"
>>might (*MIGHT*) get me "circle, red, stick out the top" (otherwise, just
>>the black of the inside of my eyelids.
>>
>>On the other hand, ask me to draw a shape that'll fold into a cube, and
>>I'll whip that up right quick (plus tabs for glue, etc). Likewise, stuff
>>like "will this bookshelf fit on that wall" type things can usually be
>>generalized to a "yeah, probably" or "notta chance" by eye.
>
> That's interesting. You can invent things with a pencil, on paper, but
> you can't visualize them?
>
> I can visualize simple circuits, but serious stuff must be drawn. With
> a pencil on paper, not CAD. Visualization is often a sort of
> out-of-focus image, a hint of what's possible.

If by "visualize", you mean "see a picture of it in my head" - no, not
really.

Like I *know* a cube can be made of 6 1" squares laid out in a "t"
pattern; but even describing it here, it's not like I see a picture of
that layout in my head (fuzzy or not). Actually, in the case of this
"foldable template", it's almost more a series of instructions
describing the lines. Not quite as blatant as what I've written below,
but it's the best approximation I can put to paper:

LINE 1.1, 2.1, BOLD
LINE 1.1, 1.2, BOLD
LINE 2.1, 2.2, BOLD
LINE 1.2, 2.2, DASH
[...]

(Instructions -> "Cut on BOLD lines, fold on DASH...")

>
> I'm very good at sizes and volumes, as whether the leftover soup in
> the pot will fit into this square plastic storage thing. Good to about
> 5% there. I also guess circuit values pretty close. I notice that some
> engineers are terrible at estimating magnitudes, like whether PCB
> capacitance will affect this circuit (when it won't by a million-to-1)

I've not yet had to worry about parasitic loads on a PCB .. but then
again, I'm way down at DC out on the boards (eh, okay, 1 or 2 MHz on an
SPI bus sometimes, but the RF engineers I know [jokingly] told me that's
basically just DC anyway ;) )

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 03/01/2024 00:37, John Larkin wrote:
> This has been in the science news lately.
>
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>
> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.

It probably isn't a massive handicap to them unless they want to become
a sculptor or an artist. They cannot visualise things or recall images.

I rely on my visual memory to figure some problems out and then write
them down. I have known people who could solve serious mathematical
problems without writing anything down at all - that is impressive.

Playing blindfold chess is another visual memory trick worthy of note.

Visual memory can also defeat some of the oft used simple tests for
Alzheimers since one of them is apple, ball and chair - visualising that
scene bypasses the memory paths that they are trying to test.

> And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
> always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
> hallucinations.

Depending how dark your environment you see thermal shot noise on the
retina after a few hours in true total darkness.
As in photographic manufacturing plant darkroom conditions or deep cave.
It is darker in there than the darkest outdoors.

BTW Happy New Year

--
Martin Brown

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 15:07:57 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/01/2024 00:37, John Larkin wrote:
>> This has been in the science news lately.
>>
>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>
>> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>
>It probably isn't a massive handicap to them unless they want to become
>a sculptor or an artist. They cannot visualise things or recall images.
>
>I rely on my visual memory to figure some problems out and then write
>them down. I have known people who could solve serious mathematical
>problems without writing anything down at all - that is impressive.
>
>Playing blindfold chess is another visual memory trick worthy of note.
>
>Visual memory can also defeat some of the oft used simple tests for
>Alzheimers since one of them is apple, ball and chair - visualising that
>scene bypasses the memory paths that they are trying to test.
>
>> And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
>> always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
>> hallucinations.
>
>Depending how dark your environment you see thermal shot noise on the
>retina after a few hours in true total darkness.
>As in photographic manufacturing plant darkroom conditions or deep cave.
>It is darker in there than the darkest outdoors.
>

I see a sort of fireworks display in the dark, with occasional
geometric patterns. I once had a concussion and they went away for a
few days. You normal people live in DARKNESS!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene

>BTW Happy New Year

Ditto. It may not seem like it, but the world is actually getting
better.

On 1/3/2024 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> It probably isn't a massive handicap to them unless they want to become a
> sculptor or an artist. They cannot visualise things or recall images.

We have a friend who is also a (artistic) painter. When out with
his colleagues, they will be painting a *desert* scene -- and Tony
is off painting images of the seashore.

"Tony, why do you even come out with us on these /plein air/ jaunts?
You're NEVER 'here'..."

> I rely on my visual memory to figure some problems out and then write them
> down. I have known people who could solve serious mathematical problems without
> writing anything down at all - that is impressive.

I rely (heavily) on visual abstractions to plan how processes interact.
Most folks have "single threaded" ideas of the world -- which can
be a downside when designing hardware or (modern) software. Particularly
distributed systems where many things ARE happening concurrently and
transport delays are *tangible*!

> Playing blindfold chess is another visual memory trick worthy of note.

I am amused by the things that I can *visualize* but can't reify.
One would assume that "seeing it" should correlate with being
able to (re)create it...

[I am also amused by how much WORSE my auditory learning channel is
than visual.]

> Visual memory can also defeat some of the oft used simple tests for Alzheimers
> since one of them is apple, ball and chair - visualising that scene bypasses
> the memory paths that they are trying to test.

Likewise cognitive skills. I can recall very long strings of digits
if I can *see* them written down; less so if read to me (in which case,
I *imagine* writing them down). And, simple arithmetic (often fails
in alzheimers pts) is just a bunch of digit sequences that flash in
my mind, without thinking about how they are (algorithmically) "formed".

I met a /savant/, once. His "skill" was scary. But, like many (most)
/savants/, not very "deep". :<

John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> Wrote in message:r
> This has been in the science news lately.https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-wordsSomething like one to three per cent of the population can't visualizeobjects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct fromhallucinations.

I wonder if that's related to not having an 'Internal monologue '.
Eg; talking to oneself.

Cheers
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On 1/3/2024 10:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 15:07:57 +0000, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2024 00:37, John Larkin wrote:
>>> This has been in the science news lately.
>>>
>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>>
>>> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>>> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>>
>> It probably isn't a massive handicap to them unless they want to become
>> a sculptor or an artist. They cannot visualise things or recall images.
>>
>> I rely on my visual memory to figure some problems out and then write
>> them down. I have known people who could solve serious mathematical
>> problems without writing anything down at all - that is impressive.
>>
>> Playing blindfold chess is another visual memory trick worthy of note.
>>
>> Visual memory can also defeat some of the oft used simple tests for
>> Alzheimers since one of them is apple, ball and chair - visualising that
>> scene bypasses the memory paths that they are trying to test.
>>
>>> And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
>>> always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
>>> hallucinations.
>>
>> Depending how dark your environment you see thermal shot noise on the
>> retina after a few hours in true total darkness.
>> As in photographic manufacturing plant darkroom conditions or deep cave.
>> It is darker in there than the darkest outdoors.
>>
>
> I see a sort of fireworks display in the dark, with occasional
> geometric patterns. I once had a concussion and they went away for a
> few days. You normal people live in DARKNESS!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene

About 150 mg of dextromethorphan hydrobromide and in a few hours in a
dark room you'll be seeing arcade game racecars zipping across the walls
like Frogger, not a problem at all.

Not recommended. Good news is I never got into mescaline or any of that
in my younger days.

>> BTW Happy New Year
>
> Ditto. It may not seem like it, but the world is actually getting
> better.
>

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 23:15:13 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 1/3/2024 10:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 15:07:57 +0000, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/01/2024 00:37, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> This has been in the science news lately.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>>>
>>>> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>>>> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>>>
>>> It probably isn't a massive handicap to them unless they want to become
>>> a sculptor or an artist. They cannot visualise things or recall images.
>>>
>>> I rely on my visual memory to figure some problems out and then write
>>> them down. I have known people who could solve serious mathematical
>>> problems without writing anything down at all - that is impressive.
>>>
>>> Playing blindfold chess is another visual memory trick worthy of note.
>>>
>>> Visual memory can also defeat some of the oft used simple tests for
>>> Alzheimers since one of them is apple, ball and chair - visualising that
>>> scene bypasses the memory paths that they are trying to test.
>>>
>>>> And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
>>>> always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
>>>> hallucinations.
>>>
>>> Depending how dark your environment you see thermal shot noise on the
>>> retina after a few hours in true total darkness.
>>> As in photographic manufacturing plant darkroom conditions or deep cave.
>>> It is darker in there than the darkest outdoors.
>>>
>>
>> I see a sort of fireworks display in the dark, with occasional
>> geometric patterns. I once had a concussion and they went away for a
>> few days. You normal people live in DARKNESS!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene
>
>About 150 mg of dextromethorphan hydrobromide and in a few hours in a
>dark room you'll be seeing arcade game racecars zipping across the walls
>like Frogger, not a problem at all.
>
>Not recommended. Good news is I never got into mescaline or any of that
>in my younger days.
>

I'm basically crazy enough that chemicals don't make much difference.
A lady once gave me some LSD at Mardi Gras and I thought it made
things duller than normal.

I also get migraine auras, which are interesting, but I don't get the
usual follow-on headache. My favorites are hallucinations, which are
beautiful and colorful and in perfect focus, a nice experience for
someone who has always had mediocre eyesight.

After two vitectomies, my giant structural floaters are gone and I
have tiny ones now, some of which look like energetically swimming
tadpoles. I think they must be some sort of cells.

Optics is cool.

On 2024-01-03, Martin Rid wrote:
> John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> Wrote in message:r
>> This has been in the science news
>> lately. [...]
>> like one to three per cent of the population can't visualizeobjects.
>> I wonder if such people can still design electronics.And maybe 10% of
>> the population is never really in the dark. They (we)always see
>> flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct fromhallucinations.
>
> I wonder if that's related to not having an 'Internal monologue '.
> Eg; talking to oneself.

It's the only intelligent conversation I can get some days :)

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:21:08 -0500 (EST), Martin Rid
<martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:

>John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> Wrote in message:r
>> This has been in the science news lately.https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-wordsSomething like one to three per cent of the population can't visualizeobjects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct fromhallucinations.
>
>I wonder if that's related to not having an 'Internal monologue '.
> Eg; talking to oneself.
>
>Cheers

Some people really talk to themselves, out loud, which can be
confusing to others.

john larkin <jl@650pot.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:21:08 -0500 (EST), Martin Rid<martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:>John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> Wrote in message:r>> This has been in the science news lately.https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-wordsSomething like one to three per cent of the population can't visualizeobjects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct fromhallucinations.>>I wonder if that's related to not having an 'Internal monologue '.> Eg; talking to oneself. >>Cheers Some people really talk to themselves, out loud, which can beconfusing to others.

I'm referring to internal, not out loud. Search 'internal
monologue ' on youtube. It's interesting, never knew there were
people like that.

Cheers
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On 2024-01-05 12:34, Martin Rid wrote:
> john larkin <jl@650pot.com> Wrote in message:r
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:21:08 -0500 (EST), Martin Rid<martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:>John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> Wrote in message:r>> This has been in the science news lately.https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-wordsSomething like one to three per cent of the population can't visualizeobjects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct fromhallucinations.>>I wonder if that's related to not having an 'Internal monologue '.> Eg; talking to oneself. >>Cheers Some people really talk to themselves, out loud, which can beconfusing to others.
>
> I'm referring to internal, not out loud. Search 'internal
> monologue ' on youtube. It's interesting, never knew there were
> people like that.
>
> Cheers
>

I have a very quiet mind like that, but I can speak in my head. One of
my sisters can't--if she wants to work out what she's planning to say,
she has to say it under her breath.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:37:24 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

>This has been in the science news lately.
>
>https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>
>Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>
>And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
>always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
>hallucinations.

Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something?

I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain.

RL

On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:40:16 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:37:24 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>wrote:
>
>>This has been in the science news lately.
>>
>>https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>
>>Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>>objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>>
>>And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
>>always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
>>hallucinations.
>
>Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something?
>

Some people close their eyes to better hear voices or music, or
appreciate flavors or whatever. Or kiss.

>I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain.

Both need brain bandwidth.

In some university math departments, a professor's office has a couch
where they can recline and close their eyes think about mathematics
and get paid, too.

I have my best ideas while I'm asleep. 100% available brain bandwidth.

When do you get your best electronic design ideas?

>
>RL

On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
> [...]
> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?

When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
way ;) )

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
wrote:

>On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>> [...]
>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>
>When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>way ;) )

My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
days?

Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
them simultaneously.

John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>
>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>> way ;) )
>
> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
> days?
>
> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
> them simultaneously.
>
>

;)

‘Tain’t that hard a problem—it doesn’t have to be the ultimate, most
cosmically optimal solution—it just needs to work right, and (ideally) be
pretty enough to be satisfying to the designer.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:04:07 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net>
> wrote:
> >On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
> >
> >When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
> >way ;) )
> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
> days?
>
> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
> them simultaneously.

Of course, setting up a "goodness" mask involves working out what you want the circuit to do, and one vital part of invention involves seeing that there is a problem that could be solved. Once you've defined the problem, the solution can be trivial.

Politicians define lots of problems, most of which don't actually exist, and then tout their "solutions". Hitler thought that German needed more living space. Donald Trump seems to have though that the US needed fewer immigrants.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/6/2024 8:40 AM, legg wrote:
> Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something?

I have no problem "visualizing" STATIC objects, regardless of
whether eyes are open or closed and whether or not the "scene"
around me is static or dynamic. Showering, walking, even
driving.

But, to "visualize" dynamic processes, I find I have to either
have a static scene engaging my sight *or* close my eyes (thereby
creating one).

> I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain.

On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:27:42 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:40:16 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:37:24 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>This has been in the science news lately.
>>>
>>>https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>>
>>>Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>>>objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>>>
>>>And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
>>>always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
>>>hallucinations.
>>
>>Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something?
>>
>
>Some people close their eyes to better hear voices or music, or
>appreciate flavors or whatever. Or kiss.
>
>>I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain.
>
>Both need brain bandwidth.
>
>In some university math departments, a professor's office has a couch
>where they can recline and close their eyes think about mathematics
>and get paid, too.
>
>I have my best ideas while I'm asleep. 100% available brain bandwidth.
>
>When do you get your best electronic design ideas?

It's the other way around; most of the better ideas get me by
accident. You just have to notice them, when they occur.

.. . . but walking the dog or riding the bike is a good start
to the day.

RL

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 11:38:38 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> This has been in the science news lately.
>
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>
> Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
> objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>
> And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
> always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
> hallucinations.

And why should anyone care? Individual differences can be interesting, but John Larkin doesn't seem to be able to design electronics and obsesses about what he does when he cobbles together parts in what he imagines to be electronic design.

This hasn't stopped thread from getting something like thirty response, from all the usual people, including five from John Larkin, but about half of them are posts from a a labelled as "off-topic alerts" calling people idiots and arseholes, but not explaining why he thinks that.

I've taken to marking his posts as spam, but theye don't get deleted. Google has a last taken to deleting the southeast asian gambling ads which I mark as a spam advertising regulated goods and services, but meaningless noise doesn't seem to worry them,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>
>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>> way ;) )
>
> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
> days?
>
> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
> them simultaneously.
>

There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":

<https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>

Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the person is
unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only think in
words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure what if
any disciplines are involved.

But total aphantasia is rare and it's a matter of degree, I expect
people who are strongly phantasic might like fiction significantly more
- imagine being able to pick up a book and visualize its contents very
strongly almost like you were watching a film. Sure save money on Netflix.

I'm not a big fiction fan, I was moreso as a kid. My test rates me
somewhere in the middle, not sure if it's an ability that perhaps tends
to decline with age and is strongest in children.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>
>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>>> way ;) )
>>
>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>> days?
>>
>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>> them simultaneously.
>>
>
>There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>
><https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>
>Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the person is
>unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only think in
>words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure what if
>any disciplines are involved.

Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.

Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
common words.

>
>But total aphantasia is rare and it's a matter of degree, I expect
>people who are strongly phantasic might like fiction significantly more
>- imagine being able to pick up a book and visualize its contents very
>strongly almost like you were watching a film. Sure save money on Netflix.
>
>I'm not a big fiction fan, I was moreso as a kid. My test rates me
>somewhere in the middle, not sure if it's an ability that perhaps tends
>to decline with age and is strongest in children.

I loved sci-fi as a kid, but find it lame and boring now. But I hated
classics, Jane Austin and Shakespeare sorts of stuff, but love it now.

Fortunately, I can still design electronics. I visualize basic
circuits but have to draw them to really think about them. I go
through absurd numbers of grid pads and uniball pens. The Amazon
Basics pads are pretty good.

LT Spice is a great aid to thinking.

When I was 30, I had designed hundreds of PCBs and could draw any of
their schematics from memory. I can't do that any more. No big deal,
they are on my computer now.