> If you quiz someone long enough you can get them to acknowledge they don't see anything "in their head" whatever that means.
This is simply false, as numerous people here have demonstrated.
> irrationally annoyed
Yes, irrationality and emotive reaction is evident.
> I suspect because it's unfalsifiable attention seeking
You suspect a lot of things based on no evidence whatsoever.
> some people I've met mention it every chance they get angling at it being some sort of disability
How is being able to see things in one's mind's eye a disability? Ah, but you meant the opposite -- your whole framework is irrational, baseless, intellectually dishonest, bad faith, and indeed quite annoying.
> I get it, you don't see anything...I don't see anything either...nobody does.
Again, it was the claim that people do see things that you were rejecting. You can't keep track of your own argument because it's irrational and devoid of evidence or logic.
aaw, touched a nerve have I because I'm suggesting you're not special?
>Prove it.
Precisely, unfalsifiable nonsense.
>You can't keep track of your own argument
MY argument is this: people don't actually see things or even have imagery inside their head, which is normal, and self-proclaimed aphantasiacs are attention seekers who think they have a disability or special characteristic...there is no logical inconsistency in my argument.
Not sure what could be motivating your reasoning here, but you've ignored several times the physiological evidence of differences in visual cognition between self-reported aphantasics and non-reporters that shows up in: fMRIs, skin conductivity tests, visual priming tests, and pupil dilation tests.
Agreed no logical inconsistency, just very strange laziness and prickishness.
He doesn't even know what an argument is ... he says "MY argument is this:" and then just makes an assertion, not an argument. Of course there's no logical inconsistency in his raw assertion -- there's no logic of any sort. But what I pointed out about his previous comment is that he asserted that no one "sees" objects in their minds -- implying that it is those who claim that they do who are lying -- and then he attacked aphantasics as attention seeking and angling at it being some sort of disability (a remarkably stupid mischaracterization, but then that's true of just about everything he said, like his remarkably hypocritical accusation that I had a nerve touched -- I simply chose to fisk the incoherent ranting of a troll). So his whole "argument" is inconsistent in its framing and presentation and who he is criticizing. It's hard to call it logically inconsistent because there's no logic ... his claims don't flow from reason or evidence, just sheer emo. His utter irrationality, cognitive ineptitude, and bad faith are epitomized by his response to my demand that he prove his claims with saying "Precisely, unfalsifiable nonsense."
Prove it.
> If you quiz someone long enough you can get them to acknowledge they don't see anything "in their head" whatever that means.
This is simply false, as numerous people here have demonstrated.
> irrationally annoyed
Yes, irrationality and emotive reaction is evident.
> I suspect because it's unfalsifiable attention seeking
You suspect a lot of things based on no evidence whatsoever.
> some people I've met mention it every chance they get angling at it being some sort of disability
How is being able to see things in one's mind's eye a disability? Ah, but you meant the opposite -- your whole framework is irrational, baseless, intellectually dishonest, bad faith, and indeed quite annoying.
> I get it, you don't see anything...I don't see anything either...nobody does.
Again, it was the claim that people do see things that you were rejecting. You can't keep track of your own argument because it's irrational and devoid of evidence or logic.
I won't respond again.