Back to all research

Aphantasia, Unsymbolized Thinking and Conscious Thought

DOI: 10.1007/s10670-023-00706-2
Krempel, R. (2025). Aphantasia, unsymbolized thinking and conscious thought. Erkenntnis, 90(2), 605–624. doi:10.1007/s10670-023-00706-2

Abstract

According to a common view, conscious thoughts necessarily involve quasi-perceptual experiences, or mental images. This is alleged to be the case not only

Authors

  • Raquel Krempel3

Overview/Introduction

The paper challenges a long-held belief in philosophy and psychology that conscious thoughts must involve mental images, a view known as "Consciousness is Imagistic" (CI). Traditionally, it is thought that even abstract thoughts occur through inner speech, which involves auditory imagery of words. However, this research suggests that certain conditions, such as unsymbolized thinking and aphantasia, indicate that conscious thoughts can occur without any imagery.

Methodology

The study examines two phenomena: unsymbolized thinking and total aphantasia. Unsymbolized thinking refers to having conscious thoughts without any mental images or words, while total aphantasia is the inability to produce mental images in any sensory form. The research relies on reports from individuals experiencing these phenomena and analyzes their implications for the CI theory.

Key Findings

  • Unsymbolized Thinking: Reports from individuals indicate they can have conscious thoughts without any imagery or inner speech. For example, someone might think about a decision without visualizing or verbalizing it internally.
  • Aphantasia: People with total aphantasia report no mental imagery, yet they still engage in conscious thought processes. This suggests that imagery is not necessary for conscious thinking.
  • The study finds that both unsymbolized thinking and aphantasia challenge the CI view, as they demonstrate that conscious thoughts can be non-imagistic.

Implications

  • Rethinking Consciousness: These findings suggest a need to reconsider how we understand consciousness and thought processes. It implies that mental imagery is not a prerequisite for conscious thought, which could impact cognitive science and philosophy.
  • Broader Understanding of Thought: Recognizing non-imagistic thoughts could lead to a broader understanding of human cognition, accommodating diverse experiences like those of individuals with aphantasia.

Limitations

  • Subjective Reports: The study relies heavily on self-reported experiences, which can be subjective and prone to error. However, the research argues that these reports are as reliable as those supporting the CI view.
  • Need for Further Research: More empirical studies are necessary to explore the mechanisms behind aphantasia and unsymbolized thinking, and to confirm these findings across larger populations.
In conclusion, the research provides compelling evidence that challenges the traditional view that conscious thoughts must involve imagery. It opens up new avenues for understanding the complexity of human thought and consciousness.