The problem is that you’re asking somebody to imagine more than one thing. “Imagine a tiger, imagine the tiger’s stripes, imagine a specific number of stripes.” The whole point of imagination is that it’s not veridical. To assume that you can visually explore a mental image the way you would visually explore an object or a picture is to already assume too much.
The point of that kind of question is precisely to tell whether a given person can visually explore a mental image. It’s certainly not assuming you can explore the image, otherwise there wouldn’t be any point to it.
It’s assuming that there’s some sense to the idea of exploring a mental image. You can’t put people on a scale of their ability to explore mental imagery without also assuming that it makes sense to talk about exploring mental imagery. That’s a huge assumption to make.
You take 10 people, and ask them each in turn : “Imagine a tiger. Can you tell me how many stripes it has?”
Five people tell you a number right away
Five people scratch their head and say “I’m not imagining a specific number of stripes, what do you mean?”
… then you have a good clue as to which of these people have strong mental imagery. That’s useful, non-trivial information. I’m not sure which part you object to, and we seem to be talking past each other.
Turns out the number of stripes is not even well defined. Let alone can be told right away in an instant. Obviously one coming up with tiger example doesn’t have good enough mental imagery to see the flaw without looking at a photo of a tiger.
The problem is that you’re asking somebody to imagine more than one thing. “Imagine a tiger, imagine the tiger’s stripes, imagine a specific number of stripes.” The whole point of imagination is that it’s not veridical. To assume that you can visually explore a mental image the way you would visually explore an object or a picture is to already assume too much.
The point of that kind of question is precisely to tell whether a given person can visually explore a mental image. It’s certainly not assuming you can explore the image, otherwise there wouldn’t be any point to it.
It’s assuming that there’s some sense to the idea of exploring a mental image. You can’t put people on a scale of their ability to explore mental imagery without also assuming that it makes sense to talk about exploring mental imagery. That’s a huge assumption to make.
You take 10 people, and ask them each in turn : “Imagine a tiger. Can you tell me how many stripes it has?”
Five people tell you a number right away
Five people scratch their head and say “I’m not imagining a specific number of stripes, what do you mean?”
… then you have a good clue as to which of these people have strong mental imagery. That’s useful, non-trivial information. I’m not sure which part you object to, and we seem to be talking past each other.
There’s a picture of tiger: http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/animal_images/Tiger_panthera_tigris_tigris_Bengal.jpg How many stripes it has?
Turns out the number of stripes is not even well defined. Let alone can be told right away in an instant. Obviously one coming up with tiger example doesn’t have good enough mental imagery to see the flaw without looking at a photo of a tiger.