In order to get around this issue and actually be able to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that something is indeed true of MIR precisely the way we perceive and understand it. There would seem to be 2 critical stages
1) a postulate free theorem that can be shown to be true regardless of which way we wish to think about things. Science goes along way to achieving this, but still doesn't match the bar. Nor does your concept of tigers etc although in some ways it gets close. The problems here are well characterized throughout this thread and elsewhere. The simple truth is, no demonstration exists that is totally postulate free. However some obviously have more, and not all postulates are equally large.
2) Now the even harder bit... To demonstrate that regardless of setup this would have to be true. That is its not just an inescapable conclusion for the human mind, but in fact the truth MUST transcend this to any conceivable or indeed inconceivable mind. This might well turn out impossible to do, even if we limit it to conceivable minds, (which would leave a huge question mark over the validity of the conclusion). However one thing is certain here, you can't even begin to ask the second question, until you can satisfy the first one, which we have no current example.
ETA: now we might be able to reframe this a little. But as we do so we must be aware of what we are doing. The above represents the purest form of 'proof' here, it still wouldn't be absolute proof but it is probably as close as we could ever achieve. So for example we might allow in that there are question marks over MIR, but if we accept that Postulate as a given for our framework we can avoid some of the problems in question 1, but are then constraining our ability to answer question 2. However we can do this and then we move some of what we are saying closer to an acceptable answer to question 1 given that assumption. However we are still highly constrained in what we can actually say here. We can certainly move onto assert that something is there in MIR that we are all experiencing as a tiger and that we all seem to draw at least a consistent viewpoint to allow consensus. SO at this point we can given our postulate say that to at least this extent what we are perceiving has a reality in MIR, although there are question marks over whether what we are agreeing upon is actually the same thing, or just similar enough for us to find consensus etc. In ordfer to adreess this we would have to add in more postulates etc, each of which making it harder and harder to answer question 2.
Question 2 cannot be simplified at all, the answer to this cannot require anything that happens to make sense to us but which cannot actually be demonstrated, or it invalidates itself. So it seems that in order to allow us to form a descriptive notion of MIR, we must by this very action ensure that we cannot claim it matches up to MIR, only that we can find a consensus MDR as human beings into which we can assert our assumptions.
THUS: only with a genuine claim that matches both 1 and 2 could we ever reasonably assert that we have, (in so far as is physically possible) have avoided the MDR trap and indeed be able to make a genuine claim about something mind independent. At this point the role of the mind here would have been trivialised to it simply needing a mind to draw a conclusion, but its role would be demonstrably passive.
Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-21 at 11:25 AM.
You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
it was a tricky assignment.
"Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
"I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett