I will re-iterate the reply, The meaning of the word "reality" depends on the context in which it is being used. The non-representational position I concur with is that that a word stands for a concept
not a thing
whose status is dependent on other context related concepts, including "observer" and "social function". In this view, there are only
concepts, so to ask whether "reality" can be "concept independent" is an oxymoron.
Now to ask" how I know this view is correct" is naive, because I base it on the empirical evidence of cognitive scientists dealing with perception that the representationalist view is incorrect
. For a simplistic analogy, note the physical concept of "the luminiferous ether" was rejected on the basis of counter evidence. Yet, physicists still utilize
equations based on the existence of the ether because they still work. In the same way we utilize
the concept of a geocentric solar system because it works for mundane
use. So I "know" the sun moves across the sky when I'm gardening, but I also "know" that the earth circles the sun when I think about the seasons. So which one is "reality"?..answer BOTH are according to context.
NB That was not so much an appeal to authority as a statement that there are many "big thinkers" on my