Both. Life rests in balance between the two.

Both? How is this possible? A 'mind-independent reality' clearly has a definition with an opposite, no? Is the opposite not 'a world of immaterial minds', perhaps? In accordance with Proposition A.

There is Consciousness/Mind.
Thats all.
One MindConsciousness within which 'reality' is perceived.
'Reality' is, for you, as you perceive it to be. Perspective.
The complete definition of universe/existence, at the moment, is the sum total of all Perspectives, at the moment of perception.
All are valid and necessary.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective." -Book of Fudd (1:2)

Bonjour Peregrinus!

Well, it seems like both persons A and B are rationalists. With person A, mind and matter being one and unified sounds much like Spinoza or even Leibniz. Person B sounds like Descartes. So both are correct and both are wrong because they are both correct in their respective doctrine, namely rationalism, but rationalism is only one side of a many sided coin, like empiricism. It's a metaphysical question that does not have a wrong or right answer.

But anyway, good stuff and welcome to the forum! You would definitely be interested in the epistemology section, and we have a philosophers section with discussion on Descartes, Spinoza and more! Have a blast! Propino tibi salutem

The more correct is Person B. A mind-independent reality would suggest that there is a "reality" that is objective and stands on its own, whether it is perceived by someone or not. But this does not mean that perceived reality is independent of mind, nor does it mean that the mind does not---in some way---help "shape" that reality.

Welcome to the Philforum!
Regards,
John