You cannot see your own seeing, so consciousness as a whole is unverifiable as the only reality. Awareness has no awareness of itself, in other words. We are trapped in an inherently random universe, because there are no ultimate pre-determining factors for existence. So if things exist, they are, without reason. There is no way to prove any of the claims, since our mind's, intuition's, and perception's can only ponder in wonder, awe, dread, and fear. Though, perhaps there is a way to deduce behind the veil: My proposition is that 'a void remains a void, because it is a void', but this only works if things themselves obey logic, and it appears they do not. So, if there are independences of observation, there is no way to know–hitherto I have found–besides guessing consciousness is not necessarily telling us all the information upfront. There is no way to prove that it does. I still have yet to prove the other way, either. My 'best guess' is that there is a void, behind all perception and things, if they are. It's irrelevant to deny feelings–they are their own context–but not the other way 'round. You don't need the theory of duality, as reality, to find relationships, rules of engagement (patterns), and laws. Apparentness enacts upon itself, independent–minimally–by our inability to predict and know all outcomes. "Seperation" is not a necessary feat., The processing of thought does not need to assume it. It points, somewhat inaccurately, or accurately–according to–intentions, of driven will, and rational methodological formulas. If the experience is non-objective, meaning, entirely within a flux–you can still–make descriptions, based on differences of sensation, those including, but not limited to: sight, sound, kinetic pressure / touch, taste, smell, proprioception, interioception, exteroceptive, mind-eye, etc.; the 'purpose' of this being for navigation and motivation. It works, as a tool, for that at least. That fact tells me, my limitation of knowledge, to be surprised and uncertain–is–functional enough for it to be used. The non-omnipotence and omnipresence, tells me, that it isn't self-governed (autonomous)–I cannnot be–'god'; so this 'presence' must be non-unified by its non-self-awareness. You call it the 'mind's doing', but there is no way to truly verify that. I can just guess it's like chaos. Of course, you will no doubt, assert you have the answers. I think admittance, to some uncertainty would be more honest, however. I cannot know what I do not know.