The fact that we are able to look at the rules of logic as if they were rules of a board game suggests to me that they are not fundamental to reality.
We can play with them and invent new games (logics, e.g. paraconsistent), leading to various different interpretations of reality.
We recognize that these game rules are only (at some level) arbitrary sets of assumptions that could be swapped with different ones without fundamental change to how things operate.
How reality and our minds are is deeper, perhaps fundamentally inacessible, forever elusive. We know that something is there, but we have no way of stepping outside and examining it. We are it, we embody it.
Anything that we can examine and play with is not it.