Not to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative but, my mere inability to state specifically where I saw or experienced something, or even just the seed of something, doesn't mean I absolutely never saw or experienced it.

Let's say you are hiking in the wilds and you come upon an actual version of the old movie trope - a human child raised by wolves with no other human contact from early on in its infancy. As an experiment you ask that child and 100 others of the same age but that had been raised in any of the global cultures with access to internet and movies, to imagine something that in theory, none of them had ever seen or experienced. I would expect the wolf-child to present significantly different answers than the more traditionally raised children. I would expect there to be some level of similarity - however faint - amongst the answers from the traditionally raised children.

It sounds to me like you are saying that my expectations would not be met. That all of the children would come up with equally irrelevant and inexplicable concepts. If so, that would change my thinking. OTOH, if there was an element of similarity, however slight, among the traditionally raised children but not the wolf-child, would that not suggest at least a common seed of an experience or exposure?

I don't think imagination lives in a vacuum. The connections may be tenuous but I suspect there are some there. I have no idea how one might practicably test my theory.