I think the initial problem with your argument remains. If the 'laws of physics' (honestly I'm not keen on that term except for casual use -- can we say 'way things behave'?) only exist in the human brain, and not in reality, then we have the problem that our map does not point to any territory. All maps are imperfect, but the 'map' that includes relativity is more accurate than the one that includes Newtonian mechanics, which in turn is more accurate that the one that includes Aristotelian physics, which in turn is more accurate that the one that says a giant dragon in the sky controls everything, etc. But again, the map presupposes a territory. The fact that one map is better than the other presupposes something independent of any map that each map must be measured against to determine its accuracy. Given that each map is attempting to describe the 'way things behave', it implies that a territory, independent of any map, exists; and further, that the 'way things behave' exists on the territory. Agree?

And therefore, the original statement that I took issue with, which was "[t]he laws of physics are 'universally' agreed truths about certain mental phenomena experienced by the conscious observers that conscious observers have so far interacted with" must be false.

> Materliasm is essentially that to me, looking at the very detailed map of current physics, wiping their hands and saying yup that should be enough, it's a straight line from here.

Oh I totally agree with you about that. I'm not a materialist at all, as my comment history will reveal. Materialism cannot account for the obvious fact of consciousness, or the fact that the human mind is capable of reasoning. In general, any philosophy that tries to reduce all reality to a single principle (like matter, number, energy, power, dialectic, the self, etc) is suspect, IMO. Starting with 'existence' as the first principle avoids this problem.

> I try to refrain from making an observer-observation distinction. To quote Krishnamurti "the observer is the observed"... I don't think reality obeys logic in so much as logic is another way for us to make sense of the phenomena around us.

This must imply that someone who says 'the observer is not the observed' (assuming he means these terms in the same sense as Krishnamurti) is wrong, but this only makes sense if one accepts logic as an unbreakable and truly-existing principle.

So I would disagree that logic is a map; instead, logic must be presupposed by any statement or any belief; it must be presupposed by any map. (I think logic is 'baked into' existence itself -- it's inseperable from existence -- in some sense it is existence.) Again, if we deny the law of non-contradiction (one of the first principles of logic), anything we say, believe or think can be true or false in the same sense at the same time, so any attempt to make any sense of reality will inevitable not even get to first base. Hence, nothing we say would have any meaning whatsoever. So hence, I disagree that logic is within the realm of thoughts (except insofar as it's something we grasp or see - meaning it's only derivatively in the realm of thought).

> Can you discern in your own experience "this is observation", "this is existence". Could they be one and the same?

I'd respond by saying that all these questions presuppose something, which is existence, for the reasons I gave in this and my previous post. The fact that you can ask these questions, and that there is any meaning in the questions, presupposes that (for example) the law of non-contradiction exists independently of you (and me, etc).

> Thank you for engaging in these topics which are tricky to discuss :)

Sure!