Just to understand the baseline you're working form, what data are you drawing on when stating what's "normal"? It has appeared to me throughout this conversation that you are starting from the assumption that your internal experience (at least, with regard to mental imagery) is consistent with the majority and making assertions about the majority based on that.
If you are actually drawing on a larger amount of data, specifically pertaining to the mechanisms of people's internal experiences, that'd be useful to know. If you are not, I'd gently suggest that you're working from a flawed statistical assumption, and that looking at the numerous interactions in this thread where people describe materially different internal experiences ("I can only recall tastes in terms of descriptors" - "I can experience a taste by imagining it"[0]) may be more informative without presuming universal consistency.
I'm not sure what you think you've gained or stated with this remark.
"Mind's eye" and "visualization" refer to actual experiences. Those of us with aphantasia (no exceptions that I've encountered so far) did not realize these words referred to actual experiences.
Define "actual experiences". Normal people can not imagine an object like a red apple and actually see it, same as if one existed right in front of them. They can "visualize" it (just like you, it sounds), as in they can think of what it looks like, they would recognize one, they can even imagine broader scenes involving this apple (like an entire grocery aisle) but there is no "actual experience." You couldn't walk straight otherwise, you'd constantly be dodging imaginary objects that you'd be seeing.
The generous interpretation of everything you've written so far is that you have aphantasia and don't realize it, and when it finally registers you'll feel like a real ass about these comments.
