I have been thinking about the nature of reality. I think what I have come up with is what is called idealism. . . ? Anyway if anyone could offer some feedback and/or suggestions on books I should check out to straighten out my thinking, I would really appreciate it.

What cannot reasonably be doubted:
basic logical rules (Laws of thought: law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle);
that thoughts exist: perceptions, sensations, ideas, etc.

It may be that our thoughts and perceptions are the only things that exist; it is not logically necessary that our perceptions must be caused by something else; our perceptions may simply be self-existent.

When we reflect on our perceptions however, we notice that they are remarkably regular and predictable; we continually make accurate predictions about our future perceptions based on some kind of observed regularity in our past perceptions.

So, although we have no logical obligation to believe that our perceptions have an external cause, we have a very strong intuitive belief that there is such a cause, based on the regularity and predictability of our perceptions. There is however no way of knowing what the nature of this cause is, as the only access we have to it (if it exists at all) is through our perceptions themselves. Any hypothesis about the nature of whatever it is that might be causing our perceptions will be nothing more than speculation.

Let us call the collection of thoughts that are directly known (by me), (my) mind. Therefore, I know that thoughts exist and that a mind exists.

Knowing the existence of thoughts and a mind, it is not unreasonable to believe there might be other thoughts outside of my own mind; that is, another mind or other minds, whose contents are unavailable to my own mind.

I have some degree of control over my perceptions; if I am looking at something, I can stop looking at it; if I am touching something, I can stop touching it; I can wilfully change my own perception experiences, although I don't have complete control over them.

Knowing that I have some control over my own perceptions, and finding it reasonable that there might exist some other mind(s) besides my own, I do not find it unreasonable to believe that one or more of these other minds might have control over my perceptions; that is, that my perceptions are caused by some other mind(s).

The solipsist claims that my perceptions are caused by some unconscious part of my own mind. However, all I know for certain is that a conscious mind exists. The idea of a mind that is not conscious is something completely foreign and perhaps unintelligible to me. Surely it is more reasonable to believe in the existence of another conscious mind, than to believe in some part of my own mind, which isn't conscious?

The materialist believes that our perceptions are caused by an external, material world. This hypothesis explains our experiences well, but believing in the existence of unconscious "matter" which is completely different to "thought" seems to be a big step compared to the reasonable belief in the existence of another mind, or other minds. At least we know for sure that one mind exists; the idea of unconscious "matter" is completely foreign to anything that we know for sure.

So my hypothesis is this: that our perceptions are produced in us by some other mind; there is no such thing as "matter"; the idea of an "external" world is an illusion. I am not sure whether this form of idealism is any different to materialism in practical terms, because our perceptions would be the same either way, but it just seems like a more parsimonious/reasonable hypothesis.

Have you ever tried to explain why a camera (using chemical OR electrical processes) manages to provide exactly the same image of a scene as the human brain does in the absence of matter?
If so, try doing it for an X-ray which can be proven to show the internal contents of objects as they can be seen by dissection.

If you are going to negate the rationality or plausibility or even the ability of your own perceptions then to say there is no way of knowing would be a statement not made from fact but delusion. If you believe that there is no way then you have created an absolute statement, and any hypothesis would be a thought like any other thought.

If you can witness yourself speaking thinking and feeling then you can also through perception become aware of a consciousness aware of the mechanical processing of thought into emotional response, even with humor realize you aren't your thoughts or your emotions. If you can intuit another's emotions then you can observe a connection between one mind and another, just as neuropeptides work to facilitate cellular communication, the body has its transmitting and receiving capabilities to communicate impulses of thought. The mind is a transmitter and a receiver it is not the source of thought.

The rest you might have difficulty with because you seem to have an aversion to anything labeled spiritual or outside of the scientific box. If someone doesn't prove to you something exists and you don't have any faith in your own perceptions, then you will forever be waiting for someone or something you've given authority to come along and tell you who and what you are.

But that would be silly, since any granted authority would be some form of perception that you can't know...

That is an incredibly insightful idea Joesus. I wonder if we might communicate through scent in ways we do not realize? There is a smell of fear, I wonder in what other ways we might communicate not just with each other, but with all things in nature.

Perhaps there are connections with things not in a 3 dimensional sense but in a 5 dimensional way. Perhaps we cannot directly observe things which exist, but rather they are connected to us in indirect ways.

To give a very simplified example of how this might work, imagine there is a straight line - the only way you know to get from point A to point B is to move from the right of the line to the left.

A----------------------------B

Now imagine you place a new line blocking the path to move from point A to point B. If you only look at it from the view of the straight line, the only way to get from point A to point B is to go up and over the new line.

A-------------|--------------B

However, if you add in a third dimension, you can now go from point A to point B in a variety of ways. You could for example, go underneath the straight line and take a circular path to point be, in essence you can approach the problem in a whole new fashion.

This is the same way 5 dimensions work as opposed to 3 dimensions. If we only approach something in a 3 dimensional fashion, it may be impossible. However, if we look at it from a different perspective, what is impossible can become plausible. I'm not saying that this means all these different things are true, only that it is possible of a connection existing in a 5 dimensional way. Of course this is only the beginning when you consider all of the philosophical possibilities of perspective and perception coming into play.

I suppose at the end of the day it is to each his own. As long as an individuals beliefs are not harming anyone, then I think that what anyone believes is a matter of personal choice and should be left entirely up to the individual to decide what they do or do not believe.

Alls we can do is discuss ideas and interact with each other in order to bring about deepening our own insights into ourselves and the reality in which we live in. Whether or not people have the same ideals or beliefs is irrelevant, what's important is that we progress as individuals and as society as a whole.

Each persons mind is their own and at the end of the day, you have to make up your mind as to what you believe in.

Is it, or is it that we keep coming back to the idea as a matter of habit?

Maybe all three are valuable concepts: matter, mind, and ideas.

As concepts they appear individual, in cause and effect they might even appear to have a relationship in order of cause and effect, however in spiritual terms they are the effect and cause is spirit.

Intelligence not intellect is the active ingredient to stir spirit into matter which engages mind and produces thought from the perspective of ego where ego sees itself separate/different from spirit.

From another vantage point of merging or uniting consciousness or intelligence with matter all exist as one at the same time. There is no matter without mind, thought and spirit.

So what did we have before life started on this planet? Land and sea must have existed in order for life to get started.

Life existed before the creation of this planet.

Evidence?

(beyond the pattern of life encoded in the physics, of course)

Evidence lies within the intelligence that formed the physical universe. It can be experienced.

Well, yes, the structure of matter contains intelligence, but that's not life. It's only potential life.

Before life started there had to be information.
Can information be intelligent, and where did the information come from?

Life in potential is the immortal all pervasive life, rather than the sandwich of experience between birth and death of physical manifestations. One wears the clothes and changes them, the other is the change of clothes.

I meant "intelligence" in the information science sense of information. In communications, for example, signals are comprised of intelligence and noise.

Where did the structure of matter come from? Now that's a question worth looking into.

Dude, you can at least cite your references. These aren't your own thoughts. This is blasphemy and cannot believe you have the audacity to you came up with this. Unbelievable!!!