On the other hand, there is the view that what the mind can imaginatively conceive may well constitute a possibility for nature.
Sigh. These problems are so ticklish: Human experience testifies to the validity of both statements. So then each would be "true" in some way, some context.... Certainly I don't see a necessary "either/or situation" here.
What I do see is that some relation between mind and world obtains in nature. The details of this mystery have yet to be unraveled.
Human sensory organs may not be able to gauge reality correctly.. except in the lesser/lower dimensions.. Could be there is much more to "see" and "hear" and even "feel" than the human body can experience.. The human experience seems to be so lineal.. even two dimensional..
If we cannot deal with a two dimensional experience or even three dimensional one.. greater dimensions might not be appreciated.. The human experience might be a test.. a test of the spirit not of the flesh.. The vet "us" for future deeds/tasks..
And I appreciate hosepipe's point. It is as if our vision and minds are limited to perceive four dimensions. By math physics and philosophy we can discern the real possibility of additional spatial or temporal dimensions - but generally speaking, we are not equipped 'sense' them.
Likewise, by math and physics we can discern and actually test general relativity, e.g. time dilation - be we are not equipped to 'sense' such things.