This doesn't answer the question.Because its possible to approach reality by being thoroughly tentative (apparently).
I'll ask again: why is it necessary to discard experience as real?
One simply needs to accept that at a later point in time it might be shown not to be reality.
Until that time, accept it on a pragmatic basis.
To the degree you understand what the experience might be.I am not talking about you not feeling hungry and a doctor coming along to explain that you have a problem with your liver which affects your metabolism or something. I am not talking about you not feeling hungry and being supplied some other information so that you somehow or rather continue with this persistent experience of the (apparent) reality of not feeling hungry. I am talking about dismantling your actual experience of not feeling hungry as a reality, stripping it down to its tentative essence. To what degree can you doubt that you are not feeling hungry at all?
As much doubt as one allows.Your direct experience ( after all, that is the medium of a seers scope for their self evident truths) of not feeling hungry. What space is there for doubt to manifest?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that for something to be tentatively held one needs to understand exactly how it might be shown to be false?For instance, to borrow an example from fiction, in the matrix, the main character was blithely existing in a world of superficial sensations. Upon taking the red pill he was delivered to a perspective where he could see that it was all a simulation (even though in that metareality- or the reality from which he sees what is really going on - also had its constituent issues of sensations, so in one sense the problem is not solved, but merely regresses .... although there is one interesting part where they are eating chicken flavoured mush, and wonder if this is what chicken actually tastes like, since none of them have the experience of eating a real chicken).
However, the point is not to discuss plot details of the matrix, but to point how tentative world views are revealed as such through an aperture .... kind of like a third dimension is required to observe the completeness of two dimensions, and so forth. We doubt from a particular position, and in turn, can focus that doubt on that position.
I don't see it that way.
One merely needs to accept that it may be shown to be false.
One otherwise accepts only a tentative trust in the matter, e.g. on a pragmatic basis.
Of course.Breaking down a tentative position requires another position. Is that position also necessarily tentative, as a world view that subsists purely in the tentative would require?
In the Matrix, who is to say that the metareality is any more or less real than the one being experienced by the population at large?
Unless one can eliminate every possibility of something being wrong, there remains the possibility.In the way of introducing self evident truths as perceived by the seer, I am just cutting to the car chase (or a scene at least closer to the car chase).
So, in light of all this, how do you propose to introduce doubt to self evident truths of a seer?
That is all it takes.
One doesn't need to identify every way, or indeed any way, for it to be shown to be wrong, one merely needs a mindset that allows for it.