Aphantasia and the Alleged Lack of Fear and Other Emotions

Aphantasia and the Alleged Lack of Fear and Other Emotions

Larry Neal Gowdy - Copyright ©2023 - December 15, 2023

Science Worship

(PD) Molech Worship

It has always been common for people to worship their own self-invented gods.

Quotes from Pathological Science #10 March for Science Religion Signs:

"Psychopathic religions include [1] human sacrifice to the ultimate authority, [2] wishing for favoritism from the ultimate authority by offering foods and sacrificing one's own children to the 'god', and [3] all evils are excused-away as good things if committed for the ultimate authority."

"Five core things mark what a cult is: [1] the cult's beliefs are the one and only true truth, [2] no one is permitted to question the leader's word, [3] anyone who stops believing in the cult's teachings will be shunned and driven from the group, [4] any outsider who does not believe in the cult's teachings will be hated, and [5] the cult itself is a fringe group. All of the above ingredients are present within science except for the fifth mark of cults: science is now too popular to be a fringe group."

"...all of science's theories of life, consciousness, and emotions deny even the laws of science's own physics while also claiming that the scientists supernaturally know what everyone in the world is thinking and feeling."

"...Sciencians' Science is merely a self-worshipping religion of popular opinion."

"Today's 'science' is schizophrenic with many inner voices, none of which agree with the other."

The Topic is About the Emotion of Fear Amongst Phantasia and Aphantasia Individuals

Drawing conclusions from an average of about one person out of a billion (literally), a theorist has claimed that 'phantasia' individuals experience the emotion of fear when reading horror stories, while 'aphantasia' individuals do not experience the emotion of fear when reading horror stories. According to what the theorist wrote, he believes that seeing imaginary imagery in one's mind aids in the creation of emotions, and that the 'ability' to experience the emotion of fear when reading horror stories is a good thing. The author also claims that 'aphantasia' individuals not experiencing fear is a bad thing.

The theorist's paper proved that the theorist possessed no knowledge whatsoever of the mind, nor of emotions, nor of eyesight, nor of psychological structuring, nor of physics, nor of anything else related to living beings. The theorist simply made stuff up in his 'phantasia' mind, and then claimed that his imaginary 'phantasia' fantasies were true truth science.

The theorist's claims were as outrageously false as was John Watson's claim that "there were three basic emotions present at birth — fear, rage, and love". Watson reportedly received a gold medal from the APA (American Psychological Association) for his contributions to psychology, and yet he knew literally nothing about emotions. Worse, neither can the American Psychological Association know anything about emotions if the APA is giving gold medals to people who know nothing about emotions.

It is irrational for anyone to believe in the 'phantasia' theories that have already been permanently proven to be false.

Cannot Describe What is Unknown

No scientist nor academician is able to describe what emotions are. Never has happened, and never will happen. Pathological Science Emotions #4 gives an adequate sampling of proof that no known scientist, western philosopher, nor academician throughout history has ever mentioned a positive emotion. The utter absence of positive emotions within the scientists' and academicians' lists of emotions proves that the scientists and academicians themselves have no positive emotions.

If an individual has never had a positive emotion, then they cannot know what a positive emotion is.

The 'horror story' theorist cannot know what emotions an 'aphantasia' individual may experience.

Absence of Data

What, specifically, was the horror story? The theorist did not and could not describe what was of 'horror' within the alleged 'horror story'. The theorist imaginatively imaged things in his mind, and then believed that the reader ought to be able to supernaturally read the theorist's mind as well as to magically know every word within the 'horror story' that allegedly caused 'phantasia' individuals to experience fear. The theorist's theory and conclusions were imaginary and fraudulent.

Investigating Horror Stories

Going in search of 'horror stories', numerous short stories can be found online. While reading the horror stories that were voted to be the best, within none was there found anything that could instill a sense of physical danger. Of the stories found, all of them were boring, amateurishly written, of no sensory details beyond vague visualizations, and they tended to focus on the immature lusts of immoral individuals'. If the stories were popularly interpreted to be of 'horror' by the readers, then the readers' sense of 'fear' did not relate to physical danger.

Obviously, the words 'horror' and 'fear' do not share the same definitions as what other people interpret the words to mean.

One popular 'horror' story was fully absent of physical danger to the main character, but the story ended within a scenario that the character might could have saved a person from death if the character had been home to receive an email. The story is an excellent example of how some individuals interpret an event to be of 'horror', while other individuals interpret the same event by expressing heart-breaking sympathy and compassion for the characters. The people who saw 'horror' were cold and callous towards the characters. The people who care about other people, they experienced warmths of heart towards the characters.

All claims of 'aphantasia' people not feeling fear when reading a horror story, are extraordinarily ignorant. Within what is observable of popular 'horror stories', the ability to experience fear is indicative of underdeveloped mentalities.

Timid rabbits, timid birds, timid mice, they all race to escape what they perceive to be physical danger, and none are able to exhibit warmths of positive emotions. The 'horror' story readers who experienced fear, were similar.

As originally suspected, the theorist's experiment actually proved the opposite of what the theorist claimed: the problem is not that 'aphantasia' people do not feel fear when reading 'horror' stories, but rather the problem is within the individuals who did experience fear.

Related, a book (copyrighted in 2003) was worded in a manner that would help lead the reader into feeling positive emotions. To most readers, the book sparked no positive emotions whatsoever, but of the readers who care about other people, they experienced strong positive emotions. About ten years later, a series of books was given emphases towards intensifying positive emotions. The books' method is remarkably effective, but only for people who care about other people. The point here is that people who feel fear when reading 'horror' stories, do not and cannot exhibit the positive emotions that are expressed by people who care about other people, and since the ability to care about other people is dependent upon advanced mental abilities, then it further proves that the people who felt fear were of lower mental abilities.

Predetermined Conclusions

The theorist's 'experiment' was designed and executed to conclude what the theorist had previously wanted the experiment to 'prove'. The 'experiment' was fraudulent.

What Is Fear?

Your description of fear is yours and yours alone. Nothing in Nature is identical, the same, nor equal, including the emotion of fear. Everyone's 'fear' is the product of their own life's history. Everyone has a different life history. No one can have fear for the same reasons that you have fear. Some individuals experience fear when seeing a bug. Some individuals experience fear when seeing a lion. Some individuals of whom can feel variances of gravity mass, may experience a type of 'fear' when near the edge of a tall mountain. Typically, 'fear' arises when an individual reasons that they are in physical danger, but there is not just one form of 'fear'.

The man was in fear of losing his job.

The man was in fear of losing his hair.

The man was in fear of eating too much.

The man was looking at a piece of paper on a desk when he said "I fear that papers will blow off of the desk if the ceiling fan is turned to high."

The man said to a lady: "I fear you are too beautiful".

As is common for all English words, none have detailed definitions, and any English word can be used for any meaning that a speaker wants the word to imply. The word 'fear' only means what the speaker imagines it to mean.

If an individual claims that someone else is experiencing 'fear', and the individual does not describe which form of 'fear' is intended, then the individual's claim of 'fear' is incoherent and absurd.

All 'phantasia' theories are incoherent and absurd.

Knowledge of What Emotions Are

Natives and Researchers know what emotions are, and by what process the emotions arise. Sciencians, academicians, and 'phantasia' theorists do not know what emotions are, nor by what process emotions arise. The theorists' 'phantasia' projects permanently prove it to be so, which also permanently invalidates all 'phantasia' theories.

All known theories of 'phantasia' are pathological science.

Knowledge Not Shared

Dogs do not possess the capacity to mentally arrange ideas into a form that enables the dogs to construct their own dog houses. Sciencians and academicians do not possess the capacity to mentally arrange ideas into a form that enables the sciencians and academicians to construct sequencings of emotions.

Due to sciencians and academicians copy-pasting-plagiarizing-paraphrasing other people's work, and then claiming that they themselves discovered it, there will be no public sharing of the knowledge of emotions.


The topic of emotions is huge with lengthy descriptions of endless quantities of variables, but, for the purpose of this brief article, what has been said ought to be sufficient enough to convey the idea that the academicians' imaginary theories are obviously invalid.

There are smart 'phantasia' people, and there are smart 'aphantasia' people. There are also dumb 'phantasia' and 'aphantasia' people. Helen Keller could 'see' better with her hands and nose than what most any 'phantasia' person is able to see with their eyes. Having or not having imaginary images in one's head is irrelevant. That which you think when you close your eyes, is what is important, and, is, what, will not be described in public.

Related articles are in the Intelligence section.