Berkeley. Three Dialogues.
Hylas : I agree with you.
Philonous: Wheter does anything consist in embracing the affirmative or negative side of a question?
Hylas: In neither; for whoever understands English cannot but know that doubting signifies a suspense between both.
Philonous: He then that denies any point can no more be said to doubt of it than he who affirms it with the same degree of assurance.
Philonous: And, consequently, for such his denial is no more to be esteemed a skeptic than the other.
Hylas: I acknowledge it.
Philonous: How comes it to pass then, Hylas, that you pronounce me a skeptic because I deny what you affirm, to wit, the existence of matter? Since for aught you can tell, I am as peremptory in my denial as you in your affirmation.
Hylas: Hold, Philonous, I have been a little out in my definition; but every false step a man takes in discourse is not to be insisted on. I said that a "skeptic" was one who doubted of everything; but I should have added: or who denies the reality and truth of things.
Philonous: What things? Do you mean the principles and theorems of sciences? But these you know are universal intellectual notions, and consequently independent of matter; the denial therefore of it does not imply the denying them...
We simply can't ignore that without "we" - the physical beings existing at this moment- there is no reasoning to discuss.
How far we can go with our thoughts won't rule our tendency to live in a world that is not connected with physical reality. This is a weird condition in our minds, and great philosophers suffered and mastered this condition.
If a person denies physical reality because he thinks that is just the product of our minds, then rather than being a great thinker, he must be taken to the nearest mental institution.
How we live in a physically real world and still live as well in a world full of thoughts, is a question without answer, we just don't know. We can create thousands of hypothesis trying to explain it, and the final agreement will be a disagreement.
When one stops imitating the rest, and think different, he realizes that the handicap dude in the wheelchair is not a genius but an idiot. So I agree 100% with the questioning found in the first post of this thread.