aphant.org
home / reddit

LCD / Access-Blocked Phenomenology

Methodology

1. Pure absence — "there is just nothing there"

Working description. No mind-space, no canvas, no representation. Often phrased as "blank," "black," "nothing," "the void." Two sub-patterns recur: (a) "completely black" — there is a visual field and it is dark, and (b) "not even black" — the visual field itself is missing, the way one cannot see out of one's elbow. Pattern (b) is the more linguistically careful version of the same absence and shows up frequently in replies to (a).

1a. "Completely black / blank"

"When I close my eyes it is just blank. I can see the difference if you turn a light on or off but it’s all still blank." 2026 · t1_ohp9683 ↗

"When I close my eyes most of the time there is just complete blackness. Sometimes there are little flashes of white dots but don't seem to have anything to do with what I'm thinking about." 2024 · t1_m02wzxp ↗

"Happy to answer any questions, though in my case I can't see anything in my mind. No shapes, no colors, nothing. When I close my eyes, it's just completely blank." 2023 · t1_kct8h82 ↗

"I’m not able to visualize anything at all. I see pure blackness and that’s it." 2021 · t1_hq0co0q ↗

"Mines just pure black with the occasional small light grey/white flashes." 2024 · t1_kzfchel ↗

"nah i see complete blackness" 2024 · t1_lxzxozg ↗

"Like looking into a black void. Formless, empty; just a vast swath of Nothing." 2024 · t1_kz1mrcz ↗

"A black void is all I see, sometimes I try to make a picture come but nothing happens." 2026 · t1_ockg875 ↗

1b. "Not even black" — the field itself is missing

"I don't even get blackness, there's nothing at all to even have color attached." 2025 · t1_mmi32rl ↗

"Absolutely nothing. No images, no patterns, no blobs. Not even the sense that an object is there but invisible." 2025 · t1_mc5pjc5 ↗

"I see literally nothing. I can’t picture my own face, my child’s face, even a simple circle. There’s absolutely nothing there." 2024 · t1_m4hu5ym ↗

"I see nothing...not even black. For me, there's nothing to draw." 2022 · t1_icckzxw ↗

"I wouldn't even describe it that way. there's just nothing there for me to see. no colour no place nothing" 2020 · t1_ffrbicp ↗

"Nothing at all. No image or any other sense. Just nothing" 2019 · t1_f810tzf ↗

"i see nothing. i also hear nothing, smell nothing and feel nothing." 2021 · t1_h3723un ↗

"There is literally nothing there. All I \"see\" is the inside of my eyelids." 2022 · t1_hw0l3o0 ↗

"Pretty much … is all dark and silent . There’s nothing there , just calmness. No pictures, no sounds, no smells … nothing" 2022 · t1_i7032ox ↗

Counts. Across the six pure-absence queries (completely blank when I close my eyes, there is nothing there, pure blackness, no images at all, void, black void aphantasia), 36 distinct chunks in the top-10 pools are clean fits for this label. The "completely black" sub-pattern accounts for roughly two-thirds; the "not even black" refinement accounts for the rest. This is the single largest category by retrieved volume — both because the queries are well-matched to the substrate and because this is the default lay description on the subreddit.

2. Access-blocked presence — "I can feel it is there but cannot see it"

Working description. The user reports that the imagined object is in some sense present — known, felt, "there" — but visually unreachable. The defining move is the contrast: something is there, but the seeing is missing. Three sub-patterns: (a) the canonical "out of reach" / "just behind a wall" language; (b) the explicit computer-without-monitor / unrendered metaphor (close kin to the LCD frame); (c) the "knowing" — confident report of what an object looks like without any visual content.

2a. "Just out of reach" — feel-not-see

"I would describe the feeling as having the image just out of reach. Like you can feel it's there but cant see it" 2020 · t1_frigy5n ↗

"Yes! It's like I can imagine seeing it, but can't actually see it." 2020 · t1_frin7c3 ↗

"Yep. It’s there, I just can’t see it. I can almost ‘feel’ it pop up." 2024 · t1_luysucc ↗

"It’s like I can almost see it, but I can’t “look” right at it or it disappears" 2024 · t1_luxv9al ↗

"I definitely feels like I can almost see it, like it's just out of reach." 2021 · t1_grb7g7l ↗

"Yes I feel like. When I think of something I can feel its.. presence. But cannot see it." 2018 · t1_e9kweig ↗

"Yes... when I try to picture something in my minds eye, the space is occupied (sometimes) with something like 'an unrendered 3D model..... it looks like just black (or empty), but I can feel and almost see something taking up the space... but not quite." 2022 · t1_htwvoq7 ↗

"It's like feeling the image without seeing it. In the mind it's there and thought about, just not seen" 2021 · t1_gjyk4bm ↗

"I get that feeling the shape of something without being able to see it at all thing" 2026 · t1_of5ptby ↗

2b. Computer-without-monitor / unrendered metaphors

This is the closest community-native technical metaphor to the "LCD" frame in the original brief. Note that the metaphor is typically reached for to explain access-blocked presence, not pure absence. Several posters explicitly say the data is there, the output is missing.

"The computer is on, but not the monitor. The image exists but without the monitor you can't see it." 2024 · t1_luyzuhy ↗

"Innante nonvisual impression of an image is quite on point. I like the computer analogy. Aphantasia is like a pc without a monitor attached. You can't see anything yet all the data is in there including all your images. You can feel the visuals of that pc but just not see any output." 2023 · t1_j30skxv ↗

"Yes! Thank you! I am not alone! Isn’t it weird feeling? It’s like coding for the image without the computer’s monitor." 2022 · t1_ihpo7r1 ↗

"Seems a little similar to my perception. If I think of an image of something familiar I might perceive a very brief, dull, flash of an image. To use a computer analogy it's as if my brain lacks the relevant software to open the image." 2023 · t1_j2zewz4 ↗

2c. The "knowing" — confident report without visual content

A distinct strand: posters describe non-visual knowing of appearance, route, layout, or identity. The classifier risk here is that "knowing" sometimes shades into the §4 (non-visual substitute) bucket. I count it as access-blocked when the user explicitly contrasts the knowing with their not-seeing, and as substitute when they describe the knowing as a positive replacement for sight.

"Yeah pretty much it’s like I know it’s there but no visible image" 2020 · t1_fh1prc2 ↗

"We don't have a hard time imagining things, we, like you, cannot see anything, cannot visualize in our minds. The thing you describe with the map, I just call the knowing. I can feel the route to work, and I could draw it out, but I cannot see that drawing in my head." 2024 · t1_kurl33b ↗

"I was trying to explain with that sentence, but, yes. I just know what something looks like without consciously being able to see it in my mind." 2021 · t1_hf6gcyj ↗

"The image is there in a way. Otherwise we wouldn't recognise something we've seen before. It's there but we can't see it. We know what it looks like, though." 2024 · t1_l8pwu0d ↗

"I can \"conceptualize\" images, rather than \"see\" them if that makes any sense?" 2022 · t1_i0n0wmk ↗

Counts. Across the six access-blocked queries (I can feel it is there but cannot see it, I know it but cannot see it, sense rather than see, the image exists I just cannot view it, unrendered image, feeling of an image without seeing it), 22 distinct chunks in the top-10 pools are clean fits. This is clearly meaningful but smaller than the pure-absence pool under matched queries. The computer-without-monitor / unrendered metaphor (sub-pattern 2b) is recurrent and articulate but numerically rare — five strong instances across the retrieved pool.

3. Flash / unstable access

Working description. Reports of brief, involuntary, or fleeting imagery that does not stay long enough to be inspected. Two sub-patterns: (a) waking flashes — "milliseconds," "lightning flash," fades on attempt to focus; (b) hypnagogic / pre-sleep imagery — vivid involuntary visuals at the edge of consciousness. The community has a strong meta-discourse on whether flashes "count": several long-time posters point out that the original aphantasia paper noted flashes in roughly half of subjects but that subsequent research treats them as involuntary and discounts them.

3a. Waking flashes

"Same, I am on the \"flash team\"!" 2023 · t1_j30vxjd ↗

"I get flashes when I think about them but they fade immediately and I cannot force an image into my mind." 2021 · t1_h8oqosv ↗

"That's how it is for me too. Rarely, I'll get a super brief flash of something, but it's faint and it fades instantly. If I try to make it happen, there is nothing." 2021 · t1_h8oxzuw ↗

"yes, i sometimes get short flashes of mental images. its very rare tho." "its the missing ability to control it that is aphantasia." 2018 · t1_e4qot4q ↗

"I have seen flashes before. For me it's almost always something I've actually seen before. Very specific and strong memories. I can't consciously force them to come, but thinking about certain things will sometimes give me this split second flash that feels like it could be an image but it was gone so fast that I couldn't really be sure." 2018 · t1_e4w0hjm ↗

"Yep, but no short gifs. Everything is extremely brief, a still image, and usually amorphous blobs/concepts in greyscale rather than colours." 2021 · t1_gwkqxs5 ↗

"INFP--I am not purely Aphantasmic, I can get brief flashes of images, but they are faint and I can't focus on them" 2024 · t1_l870gbq ↗

"Yes, the image is fleeting." "I hope so too." 2022 · t1_hvjt5l6 ↗

"Nowhere near. The images I get are fleeting and last a fraction of a second" 2022 · t1_iqaka4h ↗

"I can see a glimpse of the image like if lightning lit up the sky briefly and then the room went pitch black again." 2025 · t1_mkyrcy5 ↗

"Yeah, I occasionally will get involuntary flashes of imagery. It's mildly frustrating because I can't focus on it, and it ends up making me feel like my brain just short circuited." 2017 · t1_dc00t9w ↗

"yup, it's literally like a milisecond thing and it flashes by, i do it subconsciously." 2023 · t1_jvk703w ↗

3b. Hypnagogic / pre-sleep imagery

"I have aphantasia but get hypnagogic images. They are really easy to get if you try when you first wake up." 2026 · t1_ojy4w59 ↗

"As most others are saying, I get super fleeting (almost instantaneous) and hazy images sometimes when close to sleep" 2018 · t1_e4r1y5b ↗

"I get little glimpses of involuntary visuals around bedtime if I’m overtired" 2024 · t1_ligiu9r ↗

"Very faint, fleeting photo-negative like glimpses. I'm sure it will take more than one session to train my mind's eye to \"see\"." 2018 · t1_e80uz8k ↗

"Yes I get this, involuntary flashes of very vague faint imagery as I’m trying to fall asleep, but I can’t willingly conjure specific imagery, and if I make any effort to focus on or look at the imagery it disappears." 2020 · t1_g2r75ka ↗

3c. Meta — does flash "count"?

"About half the people in the study which named aphantasia reported flashes. They were not further defined or described. They are generally ignored as involuntary in subsequent research. Aphantasia is the lack of voluntary visualization." 2025 · t3_1ifwsdr ↗

Counts. Across the six flash queries (brief flash of an image, hypnagogic image, involuntary glimpse, afterimage, fleeting image, flash of imagery aphantasia), 18 distinct chunks in the top-10 pools are clean fits for the label, after discarding the bot-generated afterimage definitions that dominate the afterimage query. About two-thirds describe waking flashes and one-third describe hypnagogic or pre-sleep imagery. The volume is comparable to the access-blocked label. The community treats flashes as a recognized but contested boundary: many posters explicitly hold that flashes are involuntary and that aphantasia is properly defined as the absence of voluntary imagery.

4. Non-visual substitute

Working description. The user describes a positively-present non-visual experience — spatial sense, emotion, "knowing," auditory imagery, somatic — that does the work that visual imagery would otherwise do. Three sub-patterns: (a) spatial sense without picture; (b) emotional/somatic memory; (c) auditory or inner-monologue substitute.

4a. Spatial sense without picture

"Personally, I feel the addition of information on and possibly a test for spatial sense would be useful, since many of us aphants can use our spatial sense to trace shapes in our minds without seeing them." 2023 · t1_k53mz5e ↗

"If you can imagine the...feeling of a shape, but when you try to picture it it's like a black shape on a black background that's using your spatial sense."

"Adding the colours and detail and everything other than the shape is visualising." 2023 · t1_k9hceur ↗

"I call it spatializing rather than deep knowing. I can map out spaces and 3D objects, similar to a bat or dolphin using echolocation. Nothing has color, or even a visual substance to it, but I can sense the space it takes." 2025 · t1_nq2rl1f ↗

"Yes. I feel things relative to my body. Spatial sense is not fundamentally visual." 2026 · t1_nxj94kz ↗

"There is something like a spatial image? I don't have images at all. Just a feeling for spatial awareness." 2023 · t1_j7a85fa ↗

"It's just imagining presence. If I really zone out and get thinking about a specific object, I can feel the presence of that object." 2020 · t1_g4ljkwj ↗

"I think so. Like I am imagining a ball right now and I don't see anything at all but I can kind of sense that it's there." 2019 · t1_f1g0qno ↗

"I call that the knowing of the thing, and it does sound like you have aphantasia. You know what the apple/ball/horse looks like, you just can't see it as if there were one standing in front of you." 2025 · t1_maek1r3 ↗

4b. Emotional / somatic substitute

"I can't visualize, but I a lot of my memory is feelings-based. \"Picture an apple\" will spit out data about how they look, taste, smell, and how I feel about them and memories associated with them." 2021 · t3_pqjzja ↗

"I can't hold an image in my mind. I can't see images in my mind at all. I do have memories though, and they can have emotions attached. I have C-PTSD and my flashbacks are all emotional not visual." 2025 · t1_m8sleyt ↗

"I am not a photo taker or keeper. Images aren’t very important for me, but emotions are very real and meaningful to me. I remember things in how I felt at that time." 2026 · t1_ob3mwl1 ↗

"I feel exactly that. I can hear sounds, but not images. Even still, music is all emotion." 2020 · t1_fow97v5 ↗

"I tend to use the word \"concept\" rather than \"feeling\" but I think it's same idea. Rather than a written or verbal description, it's a collection of related, abstract ideas." 2019 · t1_elxg7m0 ↗

4c. Auditory / inner-monologue substitute

"I ‘see’ the image the way I ‘hear’ a thought. No real sound occurs and the ears are not involved, but the sound is imagined and is completely artificial. It is just like that but with an image instead." 2021 · t1_hnmbil1 ↗

"My experience is more like if I was imagining that I'm able of seeing things. Kind of like I tell my head what I want to imagine, but instead of images it just gives me sounds." 2020 · t1_fnikfu1 ↗

Counts. Across the six substitute queries (spatial sense without picture, feeling rather than image, knowing without seeing, emotional memory without image, sound instead of image, sense of presence not picture), 21 distinct chunks in the top-10 pools are clean fits. The boundary with §2c (the "knowing") is genuinely fuzzy: the same poster may say "I can feel it but not see it" (§2) and "I just know — I don't need to see" (§4). Where the user explicitly contrasts the substitute with a missing visual sense ("instead of," "rather than," "replaces") I count it here; where the contrast is "feel-but-not- see" I count it in §2.

5. Boundary cases

These chunks resist clean labelling. They are quoted because the existence of these accounts is the substantive finding: people move between labels, contradict the label, or describe a label that is not in the four-way scheme.

"Some specific things, otherwise nothing" — mixed within one user

"Most of time, I personally see nothing, but there are specific things I can see if I have a reference in front or if I am really used to them, but the image disappears instantly. My dreams are purely shadows and noises." 2025 · t1_mmhx0rk ↗

This poster carries §1 (pure absence as default), §3 (occasional fleeting access), and §4 (auditory dream substitute) in one account.

Awake-blank, sleeping-vivid (a different boundary)

"A black void is all I see, sometimes I try to make a picture come but nothing happens. Whereas when having a dream, it's like I'm really there, it's that realistic. So no connection between the two at all really." 2026 · t1_ockg875 ↗

This is §1 in waking and full visual experience in dreams — the classifier scheme does not capture it.

"Sense rather than presence" — explicit rejection of §4a

"Not at all. When I imagine something, there is no sense of anything being present or that I am unconsciously seeing something. I am just making things up without any sense of anything being there. I think that people who say yes to this one have a certain type of mental imagery called \"object presence\". This is sort of a spatial sense that something is there and it has the shape, even if you can't see it. I don't have that." 2024 · t1_lv09w5x ↗

This poster is firmly §1 (pure absence) and rejects the §4a spatial-presence frame as not their experience.

"Sense of a concept" — fully off the visual axis

"I don’t SEE anything. Not black, not dim, nothing. It’s more like a sense of a concept. There’s no “seeing” anything." 2025 · t1_mmhx0rk ↗

Could be classified as §1 (pure absence) or §4 (semantic substitute). The user's phrasing makes it both.

"Veiled" — between absence and access-blocked

"The \"image\" is like a shadow in darkness."

"It's like eating food when your sense of smell and taste had gone. There is just a sense that the true sensation is there, without actually perceiving it. Heavily veiled." 2025 · t1_nuzqgr7 ↗

Reaches for both pure-absence ("shadow in darkness") and access-blocked ("the true sensation is there, without actually perceiving it") in adjacent sentences.

Transition reports

"I mean Cus my mind is literally blank haha. When I close my eyes - it’s just my eye lids. I never physically visually, until recent where with a lot of mental effort I can see basic images" 2021 · t1_houbmtw ↗

A user reporting movement from §1 (pure absence) toward §3 (faint basic imagery). Whether this is genuine plasticity, training artifact, or relabeling is not testable from the corpus.

6. What this answers and what it does not

Answers. All four phenomenologies exist and are amply attested in the corpus. Under matched queries, retrieved volumes fall in roughly this order: pure absence (§1, ~36 chunks) > flash/unstable (§3, ~18) ≈ access-blocked (§2, ~22) ≈ non-visual substitute (§4, ~21). Pure absence is the largest category by retrieved volume, but only by a factor of about 1.5–2× — it is not the only or even the dominant story. The computer-without-monitor / unrendered-3D-model metaphor — the closest thing to the original "LCD" frame — is real, articulate, and recurrent, but numerically rare (about five strong instances). It is not a community-wide default metaphor.

Does NOT answer.

7. Headline finding

All four phenomenologies — pure absence, access-blocked presence, flash/unstable access, and non-visual substitute — are clearly present in the corpus, and pure absence ("there is just nothing there") is the most retrievable under matched queries by roughly 1.5–2×. Access-blocked presence ("I can feel it is there but cannot see it") is a real, well-articulated minority pattern, not an exotic outlier; it is the natural home of the computer-without-monitor and unrendered-3D-model metaphors, though those exact technical analogies surface in only a handful of chunks. The most honest summary is that aphantasia phenomenology is mixed within the same community and sometimes within the same user: the LCD / access-blocked frame describes a real subtype, but treating it as the dominant frame would overstate what the substrate supports.