IF the Hollow-Mask Illusion is Real...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you define the term "mind-independent"? What does it mean for something to be mind-independent?

Note,

Philosophical realism – – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Another view of mind-independent is perception-independent.

At the extreme of mind-independence it means reality and things [e.g. the moon] will exist even if there are no humans [no human minds] to interact with them.

There is a difference between "a thing that can exist in the absence of any mind perceiving it" and "a thing that is not an appearance in the eye of the beholder". Do you agree with that?

If so, which of the two things is to be called a mind-independent thing? Both?

Both 'thing' are the same in this specific context.

Say, the moon-in-itself is a thing that is not an appearance in the eye of the beholder, and the moon is a moon-it-itself that can can exist in the absence of any mind perceiving it [when a person is not looking at it and if there are no humans (extinct) at all].
That-which-appear need a human mind to perceive it as appearance.

In both cases, philosophical realists are referring to the same thing-in-itself, e.g. moon and the like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If anything, shouldn't little V's consensus-FSK-FSR-proper-MickeyMouse-nonsense conclude that the T-rex really keeps an eye contact with us? Without an objective reality, we are left with consensus opinion, so the majority is right and the schizophrenics are making it up.. or even worse, we are left with solipsism

It depends on what he means by "mind-independent". If a mind-independent thing, as defined by him, is a thing that is not "an appearance in the eye of the beholder", which means, it is not someone's perception, then it follows that what he's saying is that only perceptions exist. As such, a T-rex toy does not really exist because a T-rex toy is not a perception -- it is a three-dimensional physical object. Instead, what exists is a belief that a T-rex toy exists and a belief that the toy is looking at us. Both beliefs are erroneous, of course, but they exist nonetheless.

Yes there are two beliefs here in consideration, i.e.
1. a belief that a T-rex toy exists
2. a belief that the T-rex toy is looking at us

Here are my point;
Philosophical Realists believe the physical-T-rex toy [1] exists as absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Philosophical Realists when informed understand [2] is an illusion, i.e. it is "dependent" on the mind of the observer.

What philosophical realists are ignorant is actually "1.a belief that a T-rex toy exists" the SAME process as "2. the T-rex toy is looking at us is an illusion"

As Ramachandran [famous neuroscientist] as I stated;

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
  One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

As such, our perception of reality is on a continuum of hallucinating [in one perspective] from low objectivity [e.g. 2 above] to high objectivity [e.g. 1 above].

This is what philosophical realists banking on Law of Excluded Middle do not realize our perception of reality on on a continuum of hallucinating in one perspective.

See this thread;
Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34077

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

[Magnus Anderson]

There is a difference between "a thing that can exist in the absence of any mind perceiving it" and "a thing that is not an appearance in the eye of the beholder". Do you agree with that?

If so, which of the two things is to be called a mind-independent thing? Both?

Both 'thing' are the same in this specific
context.

There is no need to use scare quotes around the word "thing". They are both things. That's indisputable. But are they the same type of thing? I wouldn't say they are. The latter type is necessarily an appearance. The former isn't. The former does not have to be an appearance. That's why I am asking for clarification.

[Magnus Anderson]

Here are my point;
Philosophical Realists believe the physical-T-rex toy [1] exists as absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Philosophical Realists when informed understand [2] is an illusion, i.e. it is "dependent" on the mind of the observer.

You can simply say "Philosophical realists believe that T-rex toys exist". There is no need for "as absolutely mind independent". That part seems to be redundant. Instead of adding clarification, it adds confusion.

Let us recap.

1) A thing is said to be mind-independent if and only if it is not a perception.

2) Mind-independent things do not exist. In other words, only perceptions exist.

3) A T-rex toy, by definition, is not a perception. In other words, it's a mind-independent thing.

4) Therefore, T-rex toys do not exist.

You're basically arguing that only perceptions exist. That makes you a subjective idealist at best and a solipsist at worst. ( I know you've denied being either in the past but you weren't convincing. )

As Ramachandran [famous neuroscientist] as I stated;

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
  One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

As such, our perception of reality is on a continuum of hallucinating [in one perspective] from low objectivity [e.g. 2 above] to high objectivity [e.g. 1 above].

It depends on how you define the word "hallucination". Dr. Ramachandran seems to be stretching it too much. He's a scientist after all not an English professor.

But in any case, whether or not we hallucinate all the time does not seem related to the question of whether or not mind-independent things exist. Even if we hallucinate all the time, how exactly does it follow that mind-independent things do not exist?

[Gary Childress]

We dream until we wake up. We hallucinate until we figure out what is reality. Reality tells us what is happening. Morality tells us what we ought to do with respect to what is happening. Science tells us how to accomplish what we ought to do. But morality is the key. And morality is not the same for everyone. Morality is universal. Thus morality cannot be derived without consensus. If there is no consensus, then it becomes necessary to threaten others to do what is right. Threatening others in order to achieve a political goal = terrorism.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a difference between "a thing that can exist in the absence of any mind perceiving it" and "a thing that is not an appearance in the eye of the beholder". Do you agree with that?

If so, which of the two things is to be called a mind-independent thing? Both?

Both 'thing' are the same in this specific
context.

There is no need to use scare quotes around the word "thing". They are both things. That's indisputable. But are they the same type of thing? I wouldn't say they are. The latter type is necessarily an appearance. The former isn't. The former does not have to be an appearance. That's why I am asking for clarification.

There are some nuances to the term 'thing' in this case thus I do not agree with the general term 'thing-.

I need to highlight, a philosophical realist believe in the following;
1. "a thing that can exist in the absence of any mind perceiving it" and
2. "a thing that is not an appearance in the eye of the beholder"

Earlier I agree with your presentation of the issue but not the above as my philosophical stance;

As an ANTI-philosophical_Realist, I do not agree with the above, i.e.
"no thing exist in the absence of any mind perceiving it" in the absolute sense.

The term 'absolute' is necessary to differentiate from the relative sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are my point;
Philosophical Realists believe the physical-T-rex toy [1] exists as absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Philosophical Realists when informed understand [2] is an illusion, i.e. it is "dependent" on the mind of the observer.

You can simply say "Philosophical realists believe that T-rex toys exist". There is no need for "as absolutely mind independent". That part seems to be redundant. Instead of adding clarification, it adds confusion.

There is a serious contention between Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism which require to differentiate between "as absolutely mind independent" and "relative mind-independent."
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The is a deeper philosophical issue so, precision is necessary.

Let us recap.

1) A thing is said to be mind-independent if and only if it is not a perception.

2) Mind-independent things do not exist. In other words, only perceptions exist.

3) A T-rex toy, by definition, is not a perception. In other words, it's a mind-independent thing.

4) Therefore, T-rex toys do not exist.

You're basically arguing that only perceptions exist. That makes you a subjective idealist at best and a solipsist at worst. ( I know you've denied being either in the past but you weren't convincing. )

Your 1 is too narrow, in our case, it should be;
Philosophical realists believe a thing is mind-independent if and only if it is not absolutely conditioned upon the human conditions [mind, brain, body, perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, and the like].

So, your
"2) Mind-independent things do not exist. In other words, only perceptions exists"
is not valid.
It should be;
2) Absolute mind-independent things do not exist, what exist as real is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [human conditions].

3) A T-rex toy claimed as absolutely mind-independent [unconditioned by humans] cannot exist as real.

As Ramachandran [famous neuroscientist] as I stated;

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
  One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

As such, our perception of reality is on a continuum of hallucinating [in one perspective] from low objectivity [e.g. 2 above] to high objectivity [e.g. 1 above].

It depends on how you define the word "hallucination". Dr. Ramachandran seems to be stretching it too much. He's a scientist after all not an English professor.

But in any case, whether or not we hallucinate all the time does not seem related to the question of whether or not mind-independent things exist. Even if we hallucinate all the time, how exactly does it follow that mind-independent things do not exist?

If we hallucinate all the time, then what is objective real is that hallucination that is verifiable and justifiable within a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK [model, system] is the most credible and objective as the standard.
In this sense, hallucinations claimed by a schizo in general cannot be as objective as that which are verifiable by the scientific FSK.
The hallucination re the T-Rex toy is also not as objective as scientific objectivity because science can prove the T-Rex toy is merely pieces of wood with painting of various colors.

Whilst scientific claims are the most real and objective, they are at best polished conjectures.

Mind-independent things cannot exist as real because we need some sort of mind-dependent mechanism [reasoning] to infer they are mind-independent.
As such, logically and rationally whatever the follow from the above cannot be absolute mind-independent.

I have argued, the drive of philosophical realists to assume and claim there are absolutely mind-independent things is purely psychological rather than epistemological. Philosophical realists are ignorant of what is going within their internal self as a biological organism.
Kant [alluded] and Hume has pointed this out; are you very familiar with Kant and Hume?
If you are not, then you must provide reservations that your claim could be wrong, which I am sure it is wrong.