yadave wrote:1. Reality is mind-independent.
2. Knowledge is mind-dependent.
3. Therefore mind cannot perceive reality?
This is the argument:
P1) All knowledge is mediated by experience.
P2) The objective is not mediated by experience.
C1) Therefore, the objective cannot be known.
P1 is the principle of empiricism i.e. science. P2 is superficially true by definition. Therefore, a [scientific] realist, in short, has to explain how something non-experiential gives rise to something experiential and/or contest P2.
Wiktionary, annihilation …
The point is that no quanta can be measured twice e.g. no photon is ever seen twice. So any hypothesis of essential, objective salt is derived from changing, subjective not-salt.
In neither case is your sample of salt measurably changed.
You have to define and establish that aspect of salt that is essential in order to qualify whether or not it has changed between measurements. The “sample of salt” is a perception of yours, not, by your own definition, the objective causative thing you want to measure. Even if we assume the objective, then that perception is caused by things other than salt i.e. photons hitting your retina etc. If that proposed thing behind all this could not change, it could not interact i.e. with your sensory system, therefore you could not know about it, nor have reason to posit it.
Particles are not objects, they are packets of energy. This energy dissipates into heat when it interacts with cells in your eyes that are photosensitive.
It depends how you look, you can see particle or wave behavior.
Exactly, the act of measurement changes what you are looking at. Therefore reality is not independent of observation and realism is refuted.
I'm not sure what we were arguing but Khenchen Thrangu distinguishes internal from external in his presentation of mahamudra and emptiness.
Yes, but internal and external does not mean subjective and objective. I claimed you were making this equation. The external is still part of experience.