Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

When I say "Buddhist meditation," let me say that's a placeholder for any organized system of introspection.  Buddhists refer to perceptions (including thoughts) as objects, and discuss their properties, processes for working with them and so on.  In a sense, you could call it "the science of what things are like," i.e. of qualia.  But I'm not a convert to Buddhist beliefs in general nor have much interest in the religious or cultural aspects of it.

Sure, that's totally workable.  An organized system of introspection would still seem to be the same in that it can only be staring at the back of that veil.

If you want an organized study of what things are like, then you have to consider what things are like, and draw inferences.  What are ideas like?  How do we categorize them?   How do we control them to our advantage?  What is it like to experience XYZ?  What should be done in order to experience XYZ?  If a "tree" is a compositie idea, of what is it composed?

Well, that certainly fails the criteria of objectivity.  Introspection is purely subjective.  It also fails with respect to noted observations..and in fact the fundamental concept behind any ideas of a veil to pierce, that the way things seem is not interchangeable with they way they are.  Brains are amazing things.  

Unless XYZ is a state that can be achieved through electrical stimulation or drug administration, I don't think the modern science of mind is really as useful as you claim it is.  In fact, I don't think science can study "what things are like" at all-- at best, it can influence what things are like by disrupting brain function, or enumerate what things are like by measuring poll results.

In fact, indeed. You don't object to normal old truth, and make many normal old truth claims.  You doubt one in particular.  We don't even need to litigate which truth claims are and aren't really true to make that observation.  Have you given it much introspection? It's one of those areas where you have to pick a lane. Being skeptical of truth in total if it suggests a position you hold might be wrong, and vociferously committed to a competing truth claim that supports your position, probably isn't a very strong position.

(I'll read the entirety of your posts, but I'll have to cherry pick what I respond to to prevent post-quote explosion.  If you want a particular idea addressed that you consider critical, please re-quote your own post and I'll answer that)

No idea any more than another.  Just things to consider.