In exactly the same way, any pain a person experiences cannot be judged by anyone other than that person, as mind reading is impossible. — RussellA

Seeing a colour and feeling a pain are both subjective experiences that are unknowable to any one other than a mind reader. — RussellA

They are subjective mental states, nothing to do with knowledge. If you have knowledge of something, then you must be able to verify, demonstrate and prove on what you know objectively to other minds in linguistic forms, when asked.

If you knew something about a mind-independent world then it couldn't be a mind-independent world.

That would be like knowing something that is unknown. — RussellA

The world or reality means that you live in it, interact with other minds and objects in the world. If you cannot do that, then it is not a world, and it is not the world either. In that sense mind-independent world is a fiction.

If you think, imagine, remember or believe in the existence of the large desk, then it is idea of the desk in your mind. If you stand in front of the desk, touch it, push it or work on it, then it is a matter, or a physical desk you are dealing with — Corvus

The world or reality means that you live in it, interact with other minds and objects in the world. If you cannot do that, then it is not a world, and it is not the world either. In that sense mind-independent world is a fiction — Corvus

All this is too obvious. Beneath the surface of things there is a paralogical bi-reality. We have matter first. We are matter, we are extended so we are extension. People think saying matter is extension is too Cartesian but look: that car there is extended that way, pushes off to the side there, ect. It's extended. It's not the principle of extension maybe, but what does that even mean?

On the other hand we have Descartes arguments for soul. There is nothing about pure abstraction that speaks of an entended organ. This feels strange to write because i feel my own brain and know i am just a body on a material, dangerous planet. However, he has a point that spiritual experiences are perceived as going beyond matter. And if we asign our tactile feelings to the skin because that's were they seem to come from, and the other sensations to each senses, maybe we should asign thought and love to the soul if for nothing else than for psychological necessity

They are subjective mental states, nothing to do with knowledge. — Corvus

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. This means that knowledge about an objective reality cannot be separated from our subjective mental states.

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. — RussellA

Could you describe what mind-independent world could be?

Could you describe what mind-independent world could be? — Corvus

Impossible for the mind to describe a mind-independent world.

Impossible for the mind to describe a mind-independent world. — RussellA

There seem to be two options.
1) Mind-independent world doesn't exist. It is a figment of our imagination like flying horse or golden mountain or mermaid.

2) It could be the countries or places which are known to exist, but we have never been in it such as Australia (for me, I have never been in the country). I read about it, watched youtube videos about it, and heard about it, so I imagine it is a vast land with great weather, and lots of wild bush land and many kangurus jumping around all over the place.

I believe it exists, but I have no idea who are living in there, and what is happening in there. I have no direct perception on the country at all. In that sense, it is a mind-independent world for me.

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. This means that knowledge about an objective reality cannot be separated from our subjective mental states. — RussellA

Are you not confounding knowledge about an objective reality with mind-independent world here?

On the other hand we have Descartes arguments for soul. There is nothing about pure abstraction that speaks of an entended organ. This feels strange to write because i feel my own brain and know i am just a body on a material, dangerous planet. However, he has a point that spiritual experiences are perceived as going beyond matter. — Gregory

Cartesian idea of body and soul is rejected by many contemporaries as an outdated and invalid theory for the fact, that body and mind dualism cannot be proven and makes no sense.

Do you believe in the dualism? Do we have souls? Could you prove the existence of souls? Do souls supposed to survive the bodily deaths? If they are separate substances, souls suppose to survive bodily deaths. If not, then where do they go, or what happen to the souls after death?

All this is too obvious. Beneath the surface of things there is a paralogical bi-reality. — Gregory

What do you mean by a paralogical bi-reality? Could you elaborate on that please?

We have matter first. We are matter, we are extended so we are extension. — Gregory

We are not just matter.

People think saying matter is extension is too Cartesian but look: that car there is extended that way, pushes off to the side there, ect. It's extended. It's not the principle of extension maybe, but what does that even mean? — Gregory

Isn't extended or extension a property of matter? That is obvious. If not, indeed what do you mean?