You've fallen into the "confirmation bias" trap. You are asking a question but you already expect the answer to be "yes".
Epistemology is about disconfirmation, not confirmation. Disconfirmation results in new information.
But more than that the question (and answer) is incomplete, because if we are going to sub-divide the world into "internal" and "external" categories then we also need to ask the question "Does the internal world exist?". I too am betting that the answer would be "yes".
So this begs the question: If the internal and external worlds exist - what are their respective essences and essential differences?
And I am betting you can't answer this question because you don't actually have "internal" and "external" conceptions/representations of reality, even though you claim the "external worlds exists" (whatever that means).
At best - our collective perception is our non-transcendental reality.
Even ascribing "dependency" to the world is already a model!
Dependencies are human constructs.