The reality we see exists only in our minds

*Pro Has Already Negated* The resolution is that the reality we see exists only in our minds, so if Pro agrees that there is a reality that we see that does not ONLY exist in the mind, then Pro concedes the negation of this resolution. Pro has conceded: "What we see is a very limited version of reality...I agree that human minds are not necessary for reality to exist...the image we see is contingent on reality...the image is a result of external stimuli...the image wouldn't exist without light...yes, we can detect the visible light spectrum...no, the visible light spectrum does not only exist in our minds...yes, the visible light spectrum is part of reality." Pro has negated the resolution for me. *Round 4 Rebuttal* Pro posits: "Everything we see...is just electrical impulses interpreted by our brains...it's possible these electrical impulses are artificially created and the reality we perceive does not exist at all." My response: Pro has dropped my study from the Brain Journal of Neurology. http://brain.oxfordjournals.org... In it, they mention that the impulses ARE NOT artificially created... "the circuits are not simply activated in an additive way. Instead, the components of the circuitry for orientation discrimination are recruited differently according to the position of the stimulus." It's not possible, in this study, that the reality the participants saw does not exist at all, because the eye contact electrodes detected the accurate detection of objective external stimulus by the eyes; the reality they saw existed outside of their mind, and the circuitry was not additive/artificial. Pro adds: "People under the influence of drugs or suffering from mental deceases actually see and hear things that are not real." My response: Ok, so Pro agrees that there is a "real," and that this "real" exists outside of the minds of drugged/mentally-ill people... Pro continues: "There is no way of proving anything without relying on our perceptions, which in themselves are unreliable." My response: Then how does Pro prove that what drugged/mentally-ill people see is not real? Pro must be using his own perceptions to determine the reality of a druggy's hallucination. Pro complains: "Con keeps arguing that because our perception of reality is contingent on reality, it does not exist in the mind." My response: No, I'm arguing that because our perception of reality is contingent on reality, it does not exist ONLY in the mind, because of that on which it is contingent is NOT ONLY in the mind. Pro asks: "1: Is realities existence contingent on light? 2: Does reality cease to exist when there is no light? 3: What do we see when there is no light?" My response: 1. No, by definition in this debate, reality is self-sufficient. 2. No, see #1. 3. No light. Pro finishes: "You seem to think that the image we see and the visible light spectrum is the same thing...The fact that the image wouldn't exist without light proves that the image exists only in the mind." My response: This logic is baffling to me. Pro has already admitted that we see the visible light spectrum and it's separate from our mind, but here he's claiming that since the image couldn't exist without light, this proves the image exists only in the mind...huh? Pro, does light exist outside of the mind like you've already admitted? Then how does a dependence on light affirm that something is completely mental? Pro's baffling logic could be used to say: The sun can't exist without light, and this proves that the sun only exists in the mind...wack. Pro has negated the resolution already, and I agree with him, because the visible light spectrum is the reality we see, and the visible light spectrum does not only exist in our mind.