> If you could visualize a bike then you'd be drawing a poorly drawn bike that was fundamentally correct.
This contains the presupposition that the ability to visualize a bike draws on a precise memory of what that something actually looks like, rather than is a construction from a heavily compressed representation that may or may not include the information necessary to reproduce something accurate.
I don't think it's a valid assumption at all.
Even if the information is there, it presumes that the visualisation functions like displaying a photo rather than symbolically reconstructing an image the way you might e.g. draw it, equally limited by skill as your ability to draw.
From the descriptions here, I'm not convinced it's a valid presumption to think it's like a photo for most people vs. "drawing" an image either.
This contains the presupposition that the ability to visualize a bike draws on a precise memory of what that something actually looks like, rather than is a construction from a heavily compressed representation that may or may not include the information necessary to reproduce something accurate.
I don't think it's a valid assumption at all.
Even if the information is there, it presumes that the visualisation functions like displaying a photo rather than symbolically reconstructing an image the way you might e.g. draw it, equally limited by skill as your ability to draw.
From the descriptions here, I'm not convinced it's a valid presumption to think it's like a photo for most people vs. "drawing" an image either.