I, for one, cannot fathom what it would mean for something to exist independent of my mental conception of that thing.
when you bump your head against a wall, do you stubbornly keep walking into it arguing that nothing is ever real so this wall must just be a figment of your imagination that can be simply wished away? Or do you make the induction that the wall exists as an absolute apart from what you think of it and you have no choice but to adapt to it.

when someone prods a person with a spear, do you refrain from objecting to the action, because whatever scenario your mind comes up with is as good as any other, and the person writhing in pain could just as well be some imitation of a real conscious person in pain? Or do you induce that some scenarios are more likely real than others, and your ability to distinguish real scenarios from fictive ones could mean the difference between the anguish endured by a really existing conscious person and the relief of their anguish?

any philosophy that denies the existence of an independent reality is irreconcilable with practical and ethical action and for that reason void of convincing power. this undermines the very purpose of ever engaging in philosophy in the first place.

Who, for instance, precludes love from their conception of reality?
i don't preclude love from the conception of reality. Reality is both abstract and concrete. Love is abstract, but real, in as far as it exists.