I don’t think there are any implications about qualia; the concept there is incoherent, whereas ‘mental images’ aren’t.
Even so, I don’t think the concept is very useful. What’s the difference between forming a mental image, and forming the concept of what properties an image would have in great detail?
With the tiger example: are the ‘eidetic imagers’ really generating a picture (or the neurological equivalent of such), or is it just that their minds fill out the properties of what they’re asked to imagine in far more detail than was requested?
If I ask you to imagine a man, and then ask what color shoelaces he was wearing, is answering rapidly and without hesitation evidence that you’ve formed an image or merely that you generated a lot of detail that wasn’t specified?
Also, how does the capacity for eidetic imagery correlate with ability to count visual objects? I can’t instantaneously count more than about six things (e.g. marbles) at once or up to a dozen or so depending how they’re arranged. If you asked an eidetic imager to imagine a bar code, and then asked them how many lines there were, would they be able to respond quickly?
Eidetic imagery seems to be more a matter of degree. If asked to imagine a table, I can tell you instantly the number of chairs around it, but I would fail the tiger test. So perhaps passing the tiger test has more to do fast counting than vivid imagining.
Let’s not forget - ‘qualia’ is said in many ways. One definition is that qualia of X means “what it’s like to experience X”. A qualia-believer thus hears a qualia-denier saying “there’s no qualia” and responds, “Do you really not think there’s anything it’s like to see the color red?”—thus, the parallel.
I don’t think there are any implications about qualia; the concept there is incoherent, whereas ‘mental images’ aren’t.
Even so, I don’t think the concept is very useful. What’s the difference between forming a mental image, and forming the concept of what properties an image would have in great detail?
With the tiger example: are the ‘eidetic imagers’ really generating a picture (or the neurological equivalent of such), or is it just that their minds fill out the properties of what they’re asked to imagine in far more detail than was requested?
If I ask you to imagine a man, and then ask what color shoelaces he was wearing, is answering rapidly and without hesitation evidence that you’ve formed an image or merely that you generated a lot of detail that wasn’t specified?
Also, how does the capacity for eidetic imagery correlate with ability to count visual objects? I can’t instantaneously count more than about six things (e.g. marbles) at once or up to a dozen or so depending how they’re arranged. If you asked an eidetic imager to imagine a bar code, and then asked them how many lines there were, would they be able to respond quickly?
Eidetic imagery seems to be more a matter of degree. If asked to imagine a table, I can tell you instantly the number of chairs around it, but I would fail the tiger test. So perhaps passing the tiger test has more to do fast counting than vivid imagining.
Let’s not forget - ‘qualia’ is said in many ways. One definition is that qualia of X means “what it’s like to experience X”. A qualia-believer thus hears a qualia-denier saying “there’s no qualia” and responds, “Do you really not think there’s anything it’s like to see the color red?”—thus, the parallel.