Wow, are you me?

> mainly remembers things as a fractal of associations.

I have described this as a graph representation, without any visual/dimensional embedding. I naturally represent things as configurations of connected things, both in long term and working term memory.

I have that same uniformly connected view of existence, from spacetime Planck distances and quarks on up, through chemistry, life and artifacts, through to societies and systems. It is one graph.

And also no practical sense of time, but see our history from the big bang, to alternate universe endings, with all our history and current events along the way, and our quantum multiverse foam of versions that we cut through, as one seamless thing.

One drawback, is I often have trouble putting into words something I can clearly "see", on the spot without effort. Even with regard to "normal" topics. Too many connections, in familiar or tractable forms (to me), that we don't have words for.

Although given time I can explain things well, I just have to compile the order I see into words.

And I have no trouble visualizing and spacial reasoning about anything dimensional/graphical.

--

Super side track, for extending spacial visualization:

Imagine points in space whose brightness vary, and must have the same brightness to collide. That's 4D.

Now imagine groups of points changing both their brightness and position at the same rate, regardless of the relative differences in brightness and position. Those points are translating through 4D space together. Move points together through normal 3D space, and through brightness changes, and then different amounts of each together with varying rates of change, or even cyclical change. That's general 4D translation.

Now consider and practice how to dynamically tradeoff between a points brightness and its distance in any 3D direction, using a sin/cos relationship. Starting rotating between one of x, y and z, against w (brightness) is easy - it is just 2D but with different pairs of axes. Then practicing rotating between brightness an any 3D direction. Then a series of partial rotations, between brightness and various 3D directions. Finally, work out how to rotate a 4D point around the direction defined by the origin to another 4D point. That is general 4D rotation.

That was the hardest step. All down hill now...

Practice rotating and translating 1D lines and line segments, by translating and rotating their points together.

Now practice the same for 3D planes, triangles, squares, etc

Practice visualizing, translating and rotating the points of 3D objects. Then 4D shapes, starting with a 5-point 4D pyramids and 16-point hypercubes.

Imagine objects constructed from several hypercubes, starting with the 4D equivalent of three hypercubes making an L-shaped object, a 5-h-cube plus, etc. Add/remove hypercubes. Add/remove hypercube spaces within a hypercube.

Then start to play around with 3D in a 4D environment. For instance, start with a cube with an empty cube center, and pass another cube that starts outside of it, into its center, without touching, using the 4th dimension. "Paint" a 3D cube, or 3D pyramid, onto a 3D side of a 4D cube. Etc.

Once you get familiar with using brightness to visualize the 4th dimension. This takes no work at all, you are now familiar with the 4D and don't need that hook anymore.
e across a lot of situations, you can stop treating

Now you can reintroduce brightness as a hood to starting exploring 5D. :)

I don't think our brains have any barrier to higher dimensional reasoning, except lack of exposure and familiarity.

--

The variety of internal representations we must all have will be interesting to discover, catalogue and compare, if we can one day detect and watch our detailed thoughts in action.