@kennethamy,
with regards to mind dependence and knowledge.
We could describe knowledge as not the thing in itself, and therefore knowledge is something else (eg a representation). We could then
further say that knowledge
because it is not the thing in itself is mind dependent. eg the manual for fixing a motorcycle. This knowledge is on the one hand not the motorcycle in itself AND that it is mind dependent because without a mind it is not knowledge. (in either its writing or reading).
Alternatively, we could say that knowledge is the thing in itself AND that it is mind dependent. In other words when the thing in itself is in the mind it becomes knowledge in the context of mind. Knowledge is thus a mind charged context of the thing in itself. This scheme is not popular in modern intellectualism at the moment, and the former is preferred.
The reason why idealism rejects this scheme is the interpretation of when something
is in the mind. Idealism cannot conceive of this phrase "in the mind" as not being spatial and temporal. ie if it is in the mind it is not in the same space as something outside the mind, and therefore it cannot be the same as the thing outside the mind. So the concept of a representation is created to distinguish between them. In the very modern context (based upon relativity) the same arguement can be used to show that
in time the thing in the mind is different
in time to the thing outside the mind. Thus another reason for believing that the mind holds representations of outer/other things.
However, there now exists the possibility that idealism can be overthrown intellectually by info realism. In info realism everything (including space and time) is information. (non classical information). This reopens the possibility of
intellectually understanding that the thing in itself (and reality generally) can be in the mind. Thus the second scheme is resurrected ..... but in a different way to naive realism.
Of course there are other schemes, such as knowledge is not
necessarily mind dependent. But that is not being discussed here.