The confusion is yours, as this comment had nothing to do with your use of the term 'host'. This is what happens when you ignore a post for so long - you lose the context of what it was about. In this case the 'two meanings' referred to the ambiguity of your OP question, where you could be read as asking for either:If you are confused by the argument, then the confusion is your own, because I didn't use the word "host" incorrectly and you cannot show that I did.
(1) A place other than a mind, where the knowledge of reality can exist; or
(2) A place other than a mind, that we can know of, where reality can exist.
As I already explained repeatedly, MIPUST is known by minds, but is not itself a mind or dependent on any mind in order to exist. That is the hypothesis. Again, can you give any reason - any reason at all - for denying MIPUST to be a possible candidate for reality?Is YOUR "MIPUST" a mind, or is it belief based? Because if it isn't, then it is unknowable to us in reality, since everything we know to be true in and about reality is belief based and only known to exist in and by a believing mind.
I get to stipulate what it is that I am saying, and I've already told you repeatedly that MIPUST is known to us by our minds - it is known by minds but exists independently of minds. Can you show this to be impossible?lol, you are wallowing around in a self-imposed delusion. And you don't get to stipulate anything without an explanation as to how and why it is known to you, especially when the subject at hand is how and why the truth and reality is known to us.