Patenzihad – Moshe Rat

In the SD
Hello Rabbi, I wanted to ask,
I saw Rabbi Dr. Moshe Rat's book, Patenzihadut, and I wanted to ask what you think about it?
I'll start with the first few chapters.
Rabbi Ratt Shem makes the claim that our entire worldview passes through consciousness.
In the course of this discussion, he brings up the idealist (versus the solfeissetist) approach and argues that it is the most plausible.
First, I will present the concept as he presents it to my understanding, and present his evidence for it: I wanted to hear what you think about the concept and its evidence:
It can be said that the world as we experience it – our commons – exists simultaneously in the minds of all humans, and therefore we experience it in common. But it exists within us, not we within it.
It is a kind of shared dream that all humans constantly dream. Only here there is no real world, but our body is an image created by consciousness, just like the body in a dream. (The reality shared by all people is permanent, while the dream is personal, short and unstable.)
And so, for example, the interrelationship between consciousness and brain impressions is that consciousness is what produces the image of the brain, just as in a dream consciousness produces an image of our body, and someone who observes the brain and comes to the conclusion that consciousness is composed of neurons is similar to someone who observes the image of a person on a screen and comes to the conclusion that people are made of pixels.
He brings up a parable about icons created by software on a computer's desktop, or like the relationship between the sea and the whirlpool that appears in it.
If we know that consciousness is capable of producing images and sensory impressions, such as in a dream, then here the burden of proof lies with the knower. (This is also how the influence seen in neuroscience between the body and consciousness is understood.)
Likewise, realism can never prove that it exists in itself. And what is the relationship between impressions and real reality? Do they represent it faithfully or not?
Quantum theory supports this approach according to the interpretation that observation has an effect, and in general, some cite evidence from it that the universe is mental.
And it can be explained that the world that we share with other people is not that it exists outside, but simply that those people exist within consciousness.

He easily rejects the two famous refutations: What about the history that occurred before the existence of the BNA and claims that it is also contained in the superconsciousness of G-d. (Although I don't understand why he needed to get there).
The accepted refutation that "there is a stone and we feel it, let's say, and hence idealism is wrong" is not valid at all against this approach, because we agree that it exists, but the place where it exists is in consciousness.
 
The implications of his approach in this way are enormous and through this approach and even later on he tries to undermine and show that there is an inability to distinguish between something real and something not (for example, dreams and hallucinations) + the conclusion from earlier that everything is in the mind anyway. Similarly, even if we encounter a green man on the TV, we cannot ask other non-humans whether they see it, because who said they are real (using the same sense and consciousness to negate the same self or using the desired assumption).. And if there is a dispute between several people, who can we believe… He also repeats that a circular argument is not logically sound but is a fallacy (it is not possible to prove that X because of the premise X, for example, other people exist and therefore what they testify is true while they themselves could be part of a dream or hallucination). He raises the possibility of Peta Morgana and hallucination and that this also exists in the world, it is not possible to distinguish between a dream and reality and every night we are deceived and we cannot trust something that deceives us night after night.
From all these arguments and more, he wants to conclude that there is a fundamental inability to know what exists and what does not, i.e. what exists outside and what does not. And who even said that there is a reality outside?! And who said that now you are not in a hallucination (and especially in a hallucination you can feel as real as reality) and therefore he neglects the entire concept of truth in the accepted perception for a new concept called "the effect" and the impression on consciousness.
A thing is real the more influential it is. And he does not mean truth as something objective! (And it can be something real to an individual like a hallucination or a trip) and then wants to develop imagination as a real thing – and to claim that even ancient societies did not see a sharp difference between reality and imagination. He then challenges the importance of the world of imagination and history, for example, there can be mythologies that are more influential than a historical figure, and both are real as defined above. And so on and so forth
I wanted to ask what you think? The main arguments have just been presented, as far as I understand, at the beginning of the basic chapters and the preparation for the book.
I also wanted to ask how to properly deal with these claims, because even if there is a shred of truth in them, it sounds like he is taking them far beyond what is reasonable.