1. Reality is all-encompassing.

2. Consciousness is reality.

3. Therefore consciousness is fundamental. | Materialism can’t accept premise (2). | Idealism embraces it. |

| o) Nonlocal Consciousness

Mind seems to defy spatial locality. | Materialism force-fits “neural correlates.” | Idealism expects non-locality as mind’s nature. |

| p) Elimination of Materialism

If materialism fails, idealism stands. | Shows a genuine dichotomy. | Idealism remains coherent without ad hoc rescues. |

| q) Unreasonable Alternatives

All materialist accounts of consciousness are implausible. | Leaves only idealism viable. | Idealism is no more far-fetched than any other metaphysical claim. |

| r) Observer in Science

Measurements require an observer: science depends on mind. | Suggests objectivity is illusory. | Idealism places mind at science’s core. |

| s) Mind as Noun

Grammar treats “mind” as abstract. | Materialism tries to make it concrete. | Idealism accepts mind’s abstract reality. |

| t) Reality vs. Perception

Should reality “perceive itself”? | Materialism can’t self-reference. | Idealism inherently self-referential. |

| u) Qualia

Colors, sounds exist only in experience. | Materialism must reduce them to “brain states.” | Idealism sees them as primary data. |

| v) Synchronicities

Meaningful coincidences defy chance. | Materialism calls them “apophenia.” | Idealism embraces them as signals in mind’s web. |

| w) Physical vs. Mental

“Physical” is never encountered outside perception. | Materialism assumes an unobserved substrate. | Idealism holds all “physical” as mental appearances. |

| x) Causation vs. Correlation

Neural correlates ≠ causation of consciousness. | Materialism conflates the two. | Idealism treats brain events as expressions of mind. |

| y) Noncontradiction

One reality can’t be both objective and subjective. | Materialism forces a contradiction. | Idealism resolves it: one mind-reality. |

| z) Definition Collapse

Consciousness is reality, by definition. | Materialism denies its own basis. | Idealism acknowledges it straightaway. |

⸻

Conclusion

• Materialism hides its unfalsifiable assumptions behind complex epicycles (multiverses, emergent laws, neural correlates) and ultimately can’t explain why mind exists at all.

• Idealism, by contrast, posits a single substrate—conscious-reality—in which time, matter, law, life, and thought all unfold coherently.

Move: Recognize that every philosophical grid is itself a mental construct.

Heart: Experience is primary, not a byproduct of blind atoms.

Luster: A universe of mind yields fine-tuning, purpose, and self-reflection naturally.

In the final analysis, subjective monistic idealism doesn’t add ad hoc forces to prop up consciousness—it begins with it. And that makes it the most consistent foundation for reality’s grand narrative from nothing to life… and beyond.

My rebuttal::

My entire existence is in question after reading this. Not a crisis. Just a question of what occupies my mind. I fear it. Which is not what I fear. I fear god and that's what is my consciousness. Therefore, this follows the particular and not the actual. What is the actual is a whole. What is the particular is what is awareness to the present.

What this means is I believe what you are stating. Because I feel I speak as an idealist in the sense it is better than a material view of it. That is the center or what is the spark of what is philosophy. To be aware of the space of consciousness.

Marco Almeida 

-The Peg

Interlocutor 1:

"1. Reality is all-encompassing.

2. Consciousness is reality.

3. Therefore consciousness is fundamental."

How can anyone take such a post seriously? Or is this satire, I hope.

1. Truth is essential.

2. Nonsense is truth.

3. Therefore nonsense is essential.

My rebuttal:

All birds have names.

All eagles can fly.

Therefore, all birds are not eagles.

What is satire in this case. The course of this discussion is one of logical interference.

I see what you stated cannot be corrected. But I cannot say it fails to connect with the truth being nonsense. It takes highly skilled philosophy to decodify what you had deduced. Personally speaking, I have a belief in what the original post is trying to achieve. Even if we find accuracy or not.

Interlocutor 2 - 3:

(2) False equivocation fallacy. Consciousness is not all encompassing. When a Consciousness dies, we know reality continues to exist.

(3) Every philosophical grid is not a mental construct. For the most part because the term "Philosophical Grid" is just something you made up.

But no, logic is an objective characteristic of reality. It's not just something we invented. It was something we "discovered"

My rebuttal:

~2 I do follow what is the direction you've taken. However, in order to help understand it better.

1- there is a correlation which states consciousness if it dies continues (because "we know reality" continues to exist) 2- what is reality?

I suggest the 'if' in this query: that IF conscious dies. . . where does that leave us whether reality does qualify or not. (Please read to the end.) Therefore, to have properly understood what you stated? What is reality if we already know what is conscious of it. This follows:

What is it that gave birth to the conscious element. Are you suggesting that reality is a test we pass based on scrutinizing consciousness.

Finally, I get to my point in all of this, which is, what is it if consciousness never dies.

I am not referring to the reincarnation principle of consciousness. How do we know consciousness dies.

Marco Almeida 2025

- The Peg

Edit: Again - I don't care to deliberately misconstrue. I think I make a fair point?? If not - forgive me. But I do believe there is reason to further quantify what we are discussing in question. Note: because you said "consciousness is not all encompassing" which you also qualified it by stating "consciousness dies". If consciousness dies - what is it that makes reality - reality. Am I off base? Is this me making a case for consciousness behaving in a way that is a source for creation. I think her original argument defines me as an idealist. Admittedly so.

edit 2: I think you are only saying we all experience what is reality. Therefore, reality is all encompassing. Despite if consciousness dies. But - and this is a huge BUT - if we ALL experience what is reality. Then, what is reality that makes us act if we are all experiencing the same thing. Again, I am not trying to bullshit you here.

3~  are we not unreasonable saying, that consciousness is the less trivial recovery and more based on what is abstract thinking? How did we invent reasoning? (e.g. if not modified ways to interpret reality = abstractly.) I say this on the basis of your argument. That if we care to dismiss what you described as a mental construct. If everything what is stated is a NEAGATION of rules based theory fused together with philosophical inquiry - may it not hold validity?

Again - I confess. It is not to deliberately misconstrue what you are stating. I just don't know if I agree with everything you've stated.

Interlocutor 1:

All reactions: