What's the point of Zen koans?

Douglas Brown4 said:What exactly constitutes the absolute?

Could you perhaps attempt a slightly more subtle approach when answering those questions? 😉 😁

Maybe you could try being a little more subtle with those questions 😉 😁

Sometimes, what doesn't seem subtle is actually quite subtle.
I don't really view the world around me as a product of my own mind, but rather as a consensus. I suppose it isn't clear what the issue is here.

Sometimes, what doesn't seem subtle is actually quite subtle.
I don't really view the world around me as a product of my own mind, but rather as a consensus. I suppose it isn't clear what the issue is here.

Sometimes, what doesn't seem subtle is actually quite subtle.
I don't really view the world around me as a product of my own mind, but rather as a consensus. I suppose it isn't clear what the issue is here.
Sometimes, what lacks subtlety is actually the most subtle thing of all. It’s like watching a high-stakes poker game where the player isn't even trying to hide their bluff—yet, that very lack of pretense is exactly how they manipulate the entire table. It hits you only after the hand is over.
I don't view the world around me as some mere projection of my own mind. It’s a consensus. A collective agreement. Is that really so hard to grasp?
A consensus? What kind of consensus are we even talking about?🙄

Quentin Tarantino

Karen Sanchez19 said:Sometimes, what doesn't seem subtle is actually quite subtle.
I don't really view the world around me as a product of my own mind, but rather as a consensus. I suppose it isn't clear what the issue is here.

Sometimes, what doesn't seem subtle is actually quite subtle.
I don't really view the world around me as a product of my own mind, but rather as a consensus. I suppose it isn't clear what the issue is here.
Sometimes, what lacks subtlety is actually the most subtle thing of all. It’s like watching a high-stakes poker game where the player isn't even trying to hide their bluff—yet, that very lack of pretense is exactly how they manipulate the entire table. It hits you only after the hand is over.
I don't view the world around me as some mere projection of my own mind. It’s a consensus. A collective agreement. Is that really so hard to grasp?
A consensus? What kind of consensus are we even talking about?🙄
Sometimes, what lacks subtlety is actually the most subtle thing of all. It’s like watching a high-stakes poker game where the player isn't even trying to hide their bluff—yet, that very lack of pretense is exactly how they manipulate the entire table. It hits you only after the hand is over.
I don't view the world around me as some mere projection of my own mind. It’s a consensus. A collective agreement. Is that really so hard to grasp?
A consensus? What kind of consensus are we even talking about?🙄
Good grief. I think I already made this clear: it happens through an agreement between all individual conscious units. That includes my own consciousness and yours—since, as you can see, I maintain that consciousness is individual, much like what Teilhard de Chardin argued (I'll find a specific quote for you in my planner later)—as well as everyone else's.
And that is how we construct a collective image—essentially, the universe itself. It isn't just limited to human consciousness, I guess. It likely involves the awareness of every being across all worlds, every single particle, and the global consciousness of the quantum vacuum.

Douglas Brown4 said:Quentin Tarantino

Sometimes, what lacks subtlety is actually the most subtle thing of all. It’s like watching a high-stakes poker game where the player isn't even trying to hide their bluff—yet, that very lack of pretense is exactly how they manipulate the entire table. It hits you only after the hand is over.
I don't view the world around me as some mere projection of my own mind. It’s a consensus. A collective agreement. Is that really so hard to grasp?
A consensus? What kind of consensus are we even talking about?🙄

Good grief. I think I already made this clear: it happens through an agreement between all individual conscious units. That includes my own consciousness and yours—since, as you can see, I maintain that consciousness is individual, much like what Teilhard de Chardin argued (I'll find a specific quote for you in my planner later)—as well as everyone else's.
And that is how we construct a collective image—essentially, the universe itself. It isn't just limited to human consciousness, I guess. It likely involves the awareness of every being across all worlds, every single particle, and the global consciousness of the quantum vacuum.
Man, this one really hits home! Honestly, I feel like giving you a high-five for this, because once I charm someone with a perspective like this (don't worry, I won't try it on you), I'll be set.
Thanks a lot!🙏

electricdrifter68 said:Man, this one really hits home! Honestly, I feel like giving you a high-five for this, because once I charm someone with a perspective like this (don't worry, I won't try it on you), I'll be set.
Thanks a lot!🙏

Well, if you're actually trying to flirt with her, you have to ask:
"Are you a dog person or a cat person?"

If she says "dogs," then maybe skip it.
If she says "cats," then you should probably try harder.

And yeah.
Ask her this:
"Would you rather sleep in the same room as your son or your father?"
That'll tell you if she's an Isadora type or... well, I can't remember what else, since I wasn't paying attention when Quentin was teaching me.
If she isn't an Isadora type, go ahead and make your move.

Also, you definitely need to figure out if she's a Venus, a Mercury, or a Mars.
The Venus and Mars types are usually fine. But the Mercury types? Not so much, they just talk too much.

There you go. That's what the great ladies' man taught me.

Douglas Brown4 said:Quentin Tarantino

Sometimes, what lacks subtlety is actually the most subtle thing of all. It’s like watching a high-stakes poker game where the player isn't even trying to hide their bluff—yet, that very lack of pretense is exactly how they manipulate the entire table. It hits you only after the hand is over.
I don't view the world around me as some mere projection of my own mind. It’s a consensus. A collective agreement. Is that really so hard to grasp?
A consensus? What kind of consensus are we even talking about?🙄

Good grief. I think I already made this clear: it happens through an agreement between all individual conscious units. That includes my own consciousness and yours—since, as you can see, I maintain that consciousness is individual, much like what Teilhard de Chardin argued (I'll find a specific quote for you in my planner later)—as well as everyone else's.
And that is how we construct a collective image—essentially, the universe itself. It isn't just limited to human consciousness, I guess. It likely involves the awareness of every being across all worlds, every single particle, and the global consciousness of the quantum vacuum.
You're talking nonsense.🙄
I certainly didn't sign any consensus with you.🤣 🤣

I don't recall individual conscious units ever signing off on consensus agreements.🤣
My perception isn't yours.😉

CONSCIOUSNESS is ONE... and "you," as an individual personality, are merely a "thought"—a byproduct of that consciousness.
The "I" is one.
Now, you're likely wondering how I am not you, and why you are not me.😁

Karen Sanchez19 said:You're talking nonsense.🙄
I certainly didn't sign any consensus with you.🤣 🤣

I don't recall individual conscious units ever signing off on consensus agreements.🤣
My perception isn't yours.😉

CONSCIOUSNESS is ONE... and "you," as an individual personality, are merely a "thought"—a byproduct of that consciousness.
The "I" is one.
Now, you're likely wondering how I am not you, and why you are not me.😁

You aren't just dealing with me, but with the entire universe.

I don't recall any individual conscious units ever signing formal agreements🤣
My perspective isn't yours😉

True. We both see the same sun.

There is only ONE CONSCIOUSNESS... and "you" as a personality is merely a "thought," or a product of consciousness
The "I" is one
now you're probably wondering how I am not you and you are not me😁

Consciousness is individual. I am myself.

Douglas Brown4 said:You aren't just dealing with me, but with the entire universe.

I don't recall any individual conscious units ever signing formal agreements🤣
My perspective isn't yours😉

True. We both see the same sun.

There is only ONE CONSCIOUSNESS... and "you" as a personality is merely a "thought," or a product of consciousness
The "I" is one
now you're probably wondering how I am not you and you are not me😁

Consciousness is individual. I am myself.

I don't recall ever signing a contract with the cosmos.
The UNIVERSE is you; the universe exists within your own mind.😉

First off, don't go chasing the light.
Second, HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW that the sun I see is the exact same sun you see?!!!!!
There is absolutely no way to prove that.😉

Consciousness is individual. I am me.

Then how in the hell is it individual? Who created it, how did it emerge, and what exactly is driving and controlling the whole thing?😉

Karen Sanchez19 said:I don't recall ever signing a contract with the cosmos.
The UNIVERSE is you; the universe exists within your own mind.😉

First off, don't go chasing the light.
Second, HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW that the sun I see is the exact same sun you see?!!!!!
There is absolutely no way to prove that.😉

Consciousness is individual. I am me.

Then how in the hell is it individual? Who created it, how did it emerge, and what exactly is driving and controlling the whole thing?😉

Then why are our natural laws identical?
You signed it.

firstly, don't be an idiot, don't go toward the sun
secondly, HOW DO YOU KNOW that the sun I see is the SAME sun you see?!!!!!
THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THAT😉

I can. Through my interaction with you.

well how the hell is it individual, who created it, how did it start, what leads and controls it😉

Nobody creates it. It is "older than time." It comes from Nihilism (your term).
So, because it is BEYOND TIME, time doesn't affect it. It was never actually created; it just exists eternally.
Nothing leads it, and nothing controls it. It is autonomous.

Douglas Brown4 said:Well, if you're actually trying to flirt with her, you have to ask:
"Are you a dog person or a cat person?"

If she says "dogs," then maybe skip it.
If she says "cats," then you should probably try harder.

And yeah.
Ask her this:
"Would you rather sleep in the same room as your son or your father?"
That'll tell you if she's an Isadora type or... well, I can't remember what else, since I wasn't paying attention when Quentin was teaching me.
If she isn't an Isadora type, go ahead and make your move.

Also, you definitely need to figure out if she's a Venus, a Mercury, or a Mars.
The Venus and Mars types are usually fine. But the Mercury types? Not so much, they just talk too much.

There you go. That's what the great ladies' man taught me.

Man, by the time I finish all that interrogation and analysis, someone else is going to swoop in and steal her!🙄

Quentin Tarantino

electricdrifter68 said:Man, by the time I finish all that interrogation and analysis, someone else is going to swoop in and steal her!🙄

Exactly. But you’ll have to invent a workout routine first. Rent out some space at a local community center and start running martial arts classes there. It doesn't even matter if you don't know a single move—he doesn't know any either, he just made them up on the spot—but you can just invite her over. Ideally, pick a place right near your apartment so it's easier to walk her home to bed afterward. You can just use the excuse that you both need to practice HARU!

Douglas Brown4 said:Then why are our natural laws identical?
You signed it.

firstly, don't be an idiot, don't go toward the sun
secondly, HOW DO YOU KNOW that the sun I see is the SAME sun you see?!!!!!
THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THAT😉

I can. Through my interaction with you.

well how the hell is it individual, who created it, how did it start, what leads and controls it😉

Nobody creates it. It is "older than time." It comes from Nihilism (your term).
So, because it is BEYOND TIME, time doesn't affect it. It was never actually created; it just exists eternally.
Nothing leads it, and nothing controls it. It is autonomous.

So what if the laws are the same? It doesn't prove anything. Even if the laws governing my existence and yours were identical, you’re just a thought, much like my own presence is merely a thought within consciousness.
That isn't proof of anything... but fine.

I can. Through my interaction with you.

YOU CANNOT.
Take blindness, for instance.
The world is a mere byproduct of sensation; without senses, there is no world.
Imagine existing without a single sense to perceive anything.😉

No one creates it. It's "older than time itself." It emerges from Nihilism (your own term).
Since it exists outside of time, time has no grip on it. It was never created; it simply *is*, eternally.
Nothing directs it. Nothing controls it. It is entirely autonomous.

If that's the case, then there is only ONE. There are no individual "I"s. The "I AM" is always just "I."

I have nothing to do with your "I." You will never truly know my "I," because there is only one "I." You cannot grasp someone else's identity when the "I" is singular.
THE "I" IS THE "I."

What you mistake for your "I"—that supposed individuality—is nothing more than a passing thought. That is not the true "I" itself.

Quentin Tarantino

Karen Sanchez19 said:So what if the laws are the same? It doesn't prove anything. Even if the laws governing my existence and yours were identical, you’re just a thought, much like my own presence is merely a thought within consciousness.
That isn't proof of anything... but fine.

I can. Through my interaction with you.

YOU CANNOT.
Take blindness, for instance.
The world is a mere byproduct of sensation; without senses, there is no world.
Imagine existing without a single sense to perceive anything.😉

No one creates it. It's "older than time itself." It emerges from Nihilism (your own term).
Since it exists outside of time, time has no grip on it. It was never created; it simply *is*, eternally.
Nothing directs it. Nothing controls it. It is entirely autonomous.

If that's the case, then there is only ONE. There are no individual "I"s. The "I AM" is always just "I."

I have nothing to do with your "I." You will never truly know my "I," because there is only one "I." You cannot grasp someone else's identity when the "I" is singular.
THE "I" IS THE "I."

What you mistake for your "I"—that supposed individuality—is nothing more than a passing thought. That is not the true "I" itself.

I suppose I still believe there is such a thing as an objective reality. It seems to me that appearance exists independently of both you and me. It’s just there, regardless of our presence.

Quentin Tarantino

I guess it’s just not possible. What about a horse, for instance? I guess. Maybe. The world is essentially just a byproduct of our senses. I guess you could say that without perception, the world doesn't even exist. Maybe. Imagine if you didn't have a single sense at all. I guess it would be quite something. Maybe it would just be total silence and nothingness.😉

The world isn't just some byproduct of our senses. It exists whether we're here to perceive it or not. I guess.

Quentin Tarantino

I have absolutely nothing to do with your sense of self. I guess you’ll never truly grasp my identity, because there is only one "I." Maybe it's just the way it works—you can't experience someone else's self when there is only one singular existence. I am who I am.

You can't, because you're an individual, just like me.

Quentin Tarantino

What you perceive as my identity—that sense of individuality—is merely a thought. It isn't actually the core of who I am. I guess it’s just a concept. Maybe.

Food.

Quentin Tarantino:

Look, I’ll say it plainly. I still maintain that an objective reality actually exists. Appearance isn't some subjective whim; it stands independent of both you and me. It exists out there, whether we're watching it or not.

The world isn't some objective entity floating out there waiting to be found. It’s constructed. We build it, brick by brick, using nothing but our own senses. Without perception, there is no reality. No sensation, no input—no world. It simply doesn't exist.

Fine... alright. I won't keep spinning the same wheel, but you really ought to give that some actual thought.

By what standard? By whose metric? This supposed "objective reality" everyone clings to—on what basis could it possibly be considered real?😉

Quentin Tarantino:

The world isn't some mere byproduct of our sensory input. It exists entirely independent of us.

Does the world even exist when you’re lost in a deep sleep? It’s a question that keeps me up—ironically—at night. We like to believe in this objective reality, this solid ground beneath our feet, but once the lights go out and the consciousness slips away, everything we claim to know vanishes. It becomes a void. Is there a persistent universe continuing its clockwork motion while we drift, or is "reality" merely a flickering projection of an active mind? If there is no observer, can there truly be an observation? It's all quite unsettling.😉
Prove it. Show me the evidence. Give me something concrete to hold onto.
So, your entire argument rests on that one premise. It’s a bit thin, isn't it? You're essentially claiming that if you’re asleep while I’m wide awake, then reality somehow exists simply because I’m sitting here staring at your unconscious form. It’s like saying a lightbulb only functions because someone is standing in the room watching it glow. It's flawed logic.

If we assume the world exists independently of our own perception—if reality actually stands on its own two feet apart from the observer—then we have to face the heavy question: what is it actually made of? What constitutes this physical reality when consciousness isn't there to witness it? It’s a massive, unsettling thought. If you strip away the mind, what is the fundamental fabric holding everything together?😉

Quentin Tarantino

You can't. Because you are an individual—just like me.

I am no individual.
Everything is everything.
I AM THAT.
It’s a recursive loop. A hall of mirrors. You aren't just looking at me—you *are* me.
And that leads us back to the core issue: I have no access to your internal monologue, just as you remain a stranger to mine. It’s a fundamental disconnect. If we can't truly grasp the mechanics of the other's mind, then this supposed connection—this "you and me"—is nothing more than a hollow construct. Is the concept of a shared identity between two people even real, or is it just a convenient illusion?

Karen Sanchez19 said:Quentin Tarantino:

Look, I’ll say it plainly. I still maintain that an objective reality actually exists. Appearance isn't some subjective whim; it stands independent of both you and me. It exists out there, whether we're watching it or not.

The world isn't some objective entity floating out there waiting to be found. It’s constructed. We build it, brick by brick, using nothing but our own senses. Without perception, there is no reality. No sensation, no input—no world. It simply doesn't exist.

Fine... alright. I won't keep spinning the same wheel, but you really ought to give that some actual thought.

By what standard? By whose metric? This supposed "objective reality" everyone clings to—on what basis could it possibly be considered real?😉

Quentin Tarantino:

The world isn't some mere byproduct of our sensory input. It exists entirely independent of us.

Does the world even exist when you’re lost in a deep sleep? It’s a question that keeps me up—ironically—at night. We like to believe in this objective reality, this solid ground beneath our feet, but once the lights go out and the consciousness slips away, everything we claim to know vanishes. It becomes a void. Is there a persistent universe continuing its clockwork motion while we drift, or is "reality" merely a flickering projection of an active mind? If there is no observer, can there truly be an observation? It's all quite unsettling.😉
Prove it. Show me the evidence. Give me something concrete to hold onto.
So, your entire argument rests on that one premise. It’s a bit thin, isn't it? You're essentially claiming that if you’re asleep while I’m wide awake, then reality somehow exists simply because I’m sitting here staring at your unconscious form. It’s like saying a lightbulb only functions because someone is standing in the room watching it glow. It's flawed logic.

If we assume the world exists independently of our own perception—if reality actually stands on its own two feet apart from the observer—then we have to face the heavy question: what is it actually made of? What constitutes this physical reality when consciousness isn't there to witness it? It’s a massive, unsettling thought. If you strip away the mind, what is the fundamental fabric holding everything together?😉

Quentin Tarantino

You can't. Because you are an individual—just like me.

I am no individual.
Everything is everything.
I AM THAT.
It’s a recursive loop. A hall of mirrors. You aren't just looking at me—you *are* me.
And that leads us back to the core issue: I have no access to your internal monologue, just as you remain a stranger to mine. It’s a fundamental disconnect. If we can't truly grasp the mechanics of the other's mind, then this supposed connection—this "you and me"—is nothing more than a hollow construct. Is the concept of a shared identity between two people even real, or is it just a convenient illusion?

Who says that?

Quentin Tarantino:

So by WHO or by WHAT would that objective reality be considered real😉

On its own. Humans are NOT the measure of all things... we are just bipedal creatures with two arms, a head, and a brain that is slightly more developed than a primate's brain.

Quentin Tarantino:

does the world exist while you are in a deep sleep😉

Yes.

Quentin Tarantino:

prove that it exists

Processes in that world continue even when I am asleep. Just look at the world before and after sleep. Entropy has increased in it by exactly the amount it should have during the time I was dreaming.
The clock moved its hands...
I know, it isn't strong proof, but what can anyone really prove?

Quentin Tarantino:

so your claim is based on this. that if you are sleeping and I am awake then it exists, am I awake and seeing your tiles while you sleep

No. The world exists even when we are all sleeping. It exists simply because it exists. We have nothing to do with it. And we exist within it, independently.

Quentin Tarantino:

so if the world exists independently of us THEN what is it made of, what constitutes the world and reality, and how is it separate from consciousness😉

Consciousness is an indestructible entity in that world. It does not create that world. The world exists regardless of it, though consciousness might change it, could trigger the destruction of the universe, changes in physical laws, and... But the world exists INDEPENDENTLY OF IT, on its own.

Quentin Tarantino:

I am not an individual I AM EVERYTHING I AM YOU and YOU ARE ME And the fact that I am not aware of your thoughts and you aren't of mine is because the "I and You" personality DOES NOT EXIST

I don't know about you. I consider myself an individual. I am who I am, and I'm certainly not you. Nor am I some manifestation of whatever it is you're manifesting. We are entirely independent of one another, except for the fact that we both happen to exist within the same objective world.

Quentin Tarantino:

No. The world keeps spinning even while we’re all fast asleep. It exists simply because it does. We aren't the architects here. We just happen to exist within it, as standalone entities.

The world doesn't actually exist: there is only energy. Individuality acts as the lens, focusing that raw energy into the specific shapes and concepts that make up our perception of reality.

Continuing the discussion on individuality.

Quentin Tarantino:

I can't speak for you. But consciousness? It's an indestructible entity within that world. It isn't the creator of the universe. The world exists independently of it—though consciousness might tweak things, trigger cosmic collapses, or warp physical laws... But the world remains INDEPENDENT OF IT, standing on its own.

Consciousness ISN'T an entity.😉

In other words: are you and your consciousness separate?
Aren't you just the embodiment of consciousness itself?

Quentin Tarantino:

Look, I don't know about you. I am an individual. I am me. I am certainly not you. Nor am I some manifestation of the same thing you're manifesting. We are entirely autonomous, aside from the fact that we both occupy this same objective world.

Building on what was said above... regarding all of this.

Karen Sanchez19 said:Quentin Tarantino:

No. The world keeps spinning even while we’re all fast asleep. It exists simply because it does. We aren't the architects here. We just happen to exist within it, as standalone entities.

The world doesn't actually exist: there is only energy. Individuality acts as the lens, focusing that raw energy into the specific shapes and concepts that make up our perception of reality.

Continuing the discussion on individuality.

Quentin Tarantino:

I can't speak for you. But consciousness? It's an indestructible entity within that world. It isn't the creator of the universe. The world exists independently of it—though consciousness might tweak things, trigger cosmic collapses, or warp physical laws... But the world remains INDEPENDENT OF IT, standing on its own.

Consciousness ISN'T an entity.😉

In other words: are you and your consciousness separate?
Aren't you just the embodiment of consciousness itself?

Quentin Tarantino:

Look, I don't know about you. I am an individual. I am me. I am certainly not you. Nor am I some manifestation of the same thing you're manifesting. We are entirely autonomous, aside from the fact that we both occupy this same objective world.

Building on what was said above... regarding all of this.

Yes. I am an INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words, my consciousness is unique, and my sense of self is aware of its own existence, experiencing itself as a person.

Douglas Brown4 said:Yes. I am an INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words, my consciousness is unique, and my sense of self is aware of its own existence, experiencing itself as a person.

as many people as there are concepts.😍 😁

have you ever actually "felt" a sense of oneness with any other living thing or object?😁
consciousness is one, indivisible whole.
the "individual" is just a concept—an idea that "thinks" it is the self. That specific concept within CONSCIOUSNESS could be called SELF-AWARENESS, or rather, the individual.😉

Karen Sanchez19 said:as many people as there are concepts.😍 😁

have you ever actually "felt" a sense of oneness with any other living thing or object?😁
consciousness is one, indivisible whole.
the "individual" is just a concept—an idea that "thinks" it is the self. That specific concept within CONSCIOUSNESS could be called SELF-AWARENESS, or rather, the individual.😉

Now you're talking.

have you ever actually "felt" oneness with any other living thing or object😁
consciousness is a single, indivisible unit

Never. I have empathy, and I am a sensitive person, but true ONENESS—never.

the individual is just a concept that "thinks" I am this individual, so perhaps that concept within CONSCIOUSNESS could be called INDIVIDUALITY😉

If that were true, why can't I voluntarily stop that thought even for a second? Or imagine being you? Not even for a moment.
And besides, if consciousness isn't limited by space and time, why can't I simply see through your eyes, plug into your brain, or access your sensors? What's stopping me?

Douglas Brown4 said:Quentin Tarantino

Sometimes, what lacks subtlety is actually the most subtle thing of all. It’s like watching a high-stakes poker game where the player isn't even trying to hide their bluff—yet, that very lack of pretense is exactly how they manipulate the entire table. It hits you only after the hand is over.
I don't view the world around me as some mere projection of my own mind. It’s a consensus. A collective agreement. Is that really so hard to grasp?
A consensus? What kind of consensus are we even talking about?🙄

Good grief. I think I already made this clear: it happens through an agreement between all individual conscious units. That includes my own consciousness and yours—since, as you can see, I maintain that consciousness is individual, much like what Teilhard de Chardin argued (I'll find a specific quote for you in my planner later)—as well as everyone else's.
And that is how we construct a collective image—essentially, the universe itself. It isn't just limited to human consciousness, I guess. It likely involves the awareness of every being across all worlds, every single particle, and the global consciousness of the quantum vacuum.
Whoa, hold up, Douglas Brown4, I gotta ask! What do you actually mean by "the consciousness of all particles"? And what's the deal with the "consciousness of the quantum vacuum"? Are you throwing God into that mix too? If you're feeling generous, walk me through it!

I'm basically arguing with you that objects exist independently on their own.

Richard Murphy6 said:Whoa, hold up, Douglas Brown4, I gotta ask! What do you actually mean by "the consciousness of all particles"? And what's the deal with the "consciousness of the quantum vacuum"? Are you throwing God into that mix too? If you're feeling generous, walk me through it!

I'm basically arguing with you that objects exist independently on their own.

I suppose every fundamental particle possesses some form of consciousness. Now, those are things I haven't fully formed my own opinion on yet, so I can't really defend them, but that is what I am discussing here.

And what about the consciousness of the quantum vacuum? Does that include God in your view? Maybe you could clarify that for me if you feel like it!

That is perhaps the closest thing to the concept of God. The quantum vacuum consists of a sea of virtual particles. These have their own modes of motion, like rotations or vibrations. Those modes might be able to preserve information in a certain way, especially spin modes.
It is possible for quantum domains to form—areas with coherent, or synchronized, modes. Think of it as being equivalent to a neuron. Water can do this too, guided by atoms that act like superconductors and exhibit the same quantum properties, meaning they can connect. When such domains create a complex structure, it could become a seat for consciousness. So, the entire universe, the whole vacuum, is one massive mind. You could call that God, I guess...

I agree with you that objects exist independently.

Look, even though magic is somewhat spiritual, this view I hold—that an object is independent of the subject, or that everything exists on its own without needing a mind or consciousness to observe it—is sometimes labeled as materialism. I don't care much for definitions, so I don't really mind what philosophers call it.
My view is simply that the universe exists even without me.