At what point do we arrest reification? Further to my last question on reification, I want to know the specificity of the application.
Gathering from the answers;

...reifications are overcome by questioning them.

and

Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching
your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See
how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what
situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions
these states in you.

This paragraph talks about much higher-level mental formulations and emotions which I have overcome.
I am much interested or dealing with reifications suggested in Honey cake sutta which this answer points to, Buddha says;

Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from
the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth
approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which
these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to
desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and
ignorance.

Further Venerable Mahākaccāna explains this as;

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting
of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you
feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think
about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from
which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the
proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known
by the eye in the past, future, and present.

Based on Mahākaccāna's explain, I want to ask, for an e.g. I see a Banana kept on a table, my eye-consciousness arises based on my eye and sight of banana, and contact is made and based on that a feeling arises. What I feel I perceive and what I perceive I think about.
In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification or perception? The moment I see the banana on the table may be within a fraction of seconds I perceive and get in the idea that its a palatable fruit, how can I question this idea that its a fruit and from my past memory I know I like its taste and I would like to eat it. This progress of events happen almost instantaneously. How much time do I have to question the model of my brain, which was trained way way back when I might have eaten the banana for the first time. How can I look at the banana as if I am looking at it for the first time and not recall from the model from my brain or form a new model?
From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read:

&quot;I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
about seclusion &amp; the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?&quot;
&quot;He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'

Objectification-classification in this translation means the same as &quot;reification&quot;.
Ven. Thanissaro, the translator, commented on this:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The perception,
&quot;I am the thinker&quot; lies at the root of these classifications in that
it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
can proliferate into mental and physical conflict. The conceit
inherent in this perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become
unbound, one must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all
take for granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are
not inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able
to drop them.

In our minds, we have the idea of &quot;I am the thinker&quot; i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
From your question, you talked about seeing, let's say, attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people. So why are they &quot;attractive people&quot;? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.
So according to Snp 4.14, to put an end to reification, you must first put an end to the root of reification, which is the mental idea of the self, the thought &quot;I am the thinker&quot;. And the way to achieve this is to increase wisdom and weaken ignorance. That would weaken craving, clinging, becoming and birth (of the idea of the self). For this, please see this answer on the South Indian Monkey Trap.
And how do you increase wisdom and weaken ignorance? For that, we have the Noble Eightfold Path.