In 1710 George Berkeley argued that to be is to be perceived. In 1781 Immanuel Kant argued that the conditions we find in experience (succession, extension, substance) are contributed by the cognitive subject rather than found in mind-independent reality. In 1900 Edmund Husserl began a phenomenological program that would relocate the world’s structure to the consciousness that constitutes it. In 2019 Bernardo Kastrup argued that the most parsimonious metaphysics is one on which all reality is a single field of cosmic consciousness, individual minds its dissociated alters. Four positions, three centuries apart, share one move: they relocate the structural conditions to mind. If the move succeeds, the necessity established in this book is a necessity about cognition, not about reality — it shows what any experience requires, not what there is.

This section makes one claim against the whole family, and makes it once. Whatever a metaphysics takes to be fundamental (divine perception, the transcendental subject, the constituting ego, a field of cosmic consciousness), if it is structured enough to do the work the position needs it to do, it instantiates T, S, and Φ (Temporality, Spatiality, and Physicality: the three structural Conditions, borne by Time, Space, and Substance). Idealism does not remove the conditions from reality. It relocates them to whatever it puts at the bottom. The relocation is the concession the argument needs, offered under another name.

*Why the relocation is forced.* The idealist inference runs from a premise about priority to a conclusion about reality: because mind is where the conditions are met, in perception, in intuition, in constitution, the conditions are features of mind rather than of what there is. The inference fails at a single joint. To be a mind of the relevant kind is already to host content, and to host content is to sustain distinguishable items (S) in an ordered succession (T) borne by something that persists through it (Φ). Strip away all distinction, succession, and persistence, and what remains isn't a minimal consciousness — it is no candidate for hosting a world at all. So the conditions the idealist locates in mind are conditions on there being a mind to locate them in. That the mind is fundamental does not touch the point: fundamentality is a claim about explanatory order, while structure is a claim about what the fundamental thing has to be like to play its role. The two are compatible, and idealism needs them run together — it needs 'consciousness is fundamental' to deliver 'the conditions are mind-imposed,' where the first leaves the second exactly where it stood.

Whether there is a contentless or objectless awareness that hosts no world at all is a question about the character of experience, taken up where experience is treated directly; it does not bear here, because the fundamental idealism posits is precisely one that must yield a structured world of appearance. The strongest real instance of that further question is acosmic non-dualism (Advaita Vedānta's *nirguna* Brahman (Eliot Deutsch, 1969), and the contemplative literature's 'pure consciousness event' (Robert K. C. Forman (ed.), 1990)), which holds that the world of appearance is not, at the deepest level, real at all: exactly the premise this section's own inference needs and does not itself defend. Naming the case this precisely is owed even where closing it is not. A reader who wants the acosmic claim engaged on its own terms should look for it at [§8.14.5](<8.14.5 What is Concluded.md>), where the non-dual traditions are engaged directly and both the two-truths and objectless-awareness forms of the claim are met, not assume this section has already closed it.

*A boundary worth marking before the four forms.* Not every observation about perceiver-relativity is an idealist premise, and the difference is worth having explicit before Berkeley's own argument is engaged. Locke's classical distinction between primary qualities (shape, extension, motion, structural facts about a mind-independent object) and secondary qualities (color, heat, wetness, taken as powers an object has to produce a certain effect in a perceiver) grants that some felt qualities are perceiver-relative while leaving a mind-independent bedrock fully intact — a view fully compatible with physicalism, committing nothing to idealism. Berkeley's actual step is a further and heavier one: primary qualities are just as perceiver-relative as secondary ones (a coin looks elliptical from an angle and circular from above; an object's size varies with viewing distance), so the same reasoning that demotes color and heat to the mind demotes shape and extension as well, and no privileged mind-independent remainder is left standing anywhere to stop the collapse. Only that further move reaches idealism; granting that felt qualities are perceiver-dependent, on its own, is Locke, not Berkeley, and does not yet concede anything this section needs to answer.

*Berkeleyan idealism.* Berkeley (*A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge* (George Berkeley, 1710); *Three Dialogues* (George Berkeley, 1713)) holds that all reality is mental, what seems mind-independent being sustained by God’s perception. Grant it. God must then perceive, and to perceive is to hold a perceived-this apart from a perceived-that, borne across the standing of the perceiver: a T/S/Φ event at the level of the divine mind. The conditions hold inside Berkeley’s own ontology; the idealist has renamed what bears them, not removed them. The framework-invariance argument at [§6.1](<6.1 Greatness.md>) develops this, showing that the inversion of classical theism holds under an idealist picture as readily as under a physical one.

*Transcendental idealism.* Kant (*Critique of Pure Reason* (Kant, I., (1781) 1998)) gives the family its most disciplined form. Space and time are forms of intuition, substance and causation categories of the understanding; the conditions are necessary for any possible experience precisely because the subject contributes them, so they disclose the form of experience rather than the character of things in themselves. This is the version worth slowing down for, because it does not deny the conditions — it grants their necessity and reads it as a fact about us. The reply, developed at [§2.2.3](<2.2.3 Witness's Reach.md>) (where Stroud’s substitution objection (Stroud, Barry, 1968) and Langton’s *Kantian Humility* (Langton, Rae, 1998) are worked through), turns on what is left on the far side of the veil. The book argues that a purported thing in itself with no ordering, differentiation, or bearing is indistinguishable from ∅ ([§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>)). Kantian humility can resist the inference: absence of predicates available to us need not be absence of noumenal character. The ∅ fork is therefore the book's substantive metaphysical challenge to the noumenon, not a result Kantianism concedes merely by restricting our knowledge. The parting from Kant is over the status of that result. His verdict is a limit on knowledge: the thing in itself is real but cognitively sealed off. The claim here is not epistemic but metaphysical — a fundamental with no temporal, spatial, or substantial character is not unknowable but nothing, and the sealed-off remainder Kant preserves is, pressed for content, ∅.

The retreat to imagination does not reopen the escape. To imagine a form is to instantiate the field within which it is the form it is: the act opens a region of placement (distinguishable loci, a relational order, distinctions that hold across the act), and the imagined form takes a position in that region by being imagined at all. *Merely conceptual* names S relocated to the cognitive register, at a finer grain, rather than S's absence. Two cautions keep the point honest. What the imagined region instantiates is structural S (distinguishable loci in a traversable order, [§2.4.7](<2.4.7 Distinction Requires Spatiality.md>)), not a metric manifold, so no imagined Euclidean space is smuggled in. And the claim runs opposite to Kant’s: the imagined form is structured because the imagining is itself a T/S/Φ event on the substrate side ([§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>)), not because extension is the necessary form of any intuition — the line that would concede the very transcendental idealism the noumenon-collapse at [§2.2.3](<2.2.3 Witness's Reach.md>) is built to block.

*Phenomenology.* Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology (*Logical Investigations* (Husserl, Edmund, 1900–01); *Ideas I* (Husserl, Edmund, 1913)) generalizes the Kantian move: the world is constituted in consciousness through intentional acts, and the conditions of constitution are the conditions of any world-for-a-subject. Heidegger (*Being and Time* (Heidegger, M., (1927) 1962)) recasts it existentially, Merleau-Ponty (*Phenomenology of Perception* (Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1945)) embodies it. Grant the whole program: constitution is still a temporal, spatial, substantial process, and the constituting ego is still a being of T, S, and Φ. Husserl’s own genetic phenomenology (passive synthesis, the time-consciousness of the *Lectures on the Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness*) rediscovers the conditions inside consciousness, which is the argument’s claim located one level down rather than refuted. The reduction does not escape the conditions; it arrives at them. The engagement runs in full at [§2.2.3](<2.2.3 Witness's Reach.md>).

*Analytic idealism.* The contemporary form is the one the earlier chapters do not already carry, and it is the strongest, so the section spends its own argument here. Bernardo Kastrup (*Why Materialism Is Baloney* (Bernardo Kastrup, 2014); *The Idea of the World* (Bernardo Kastrup, 2019); *Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell* (Bernardo Kastrup, 2024)) holds that consciousness is fundamental and matter is its appearance from within a particular cognitive perspective. Unlike Berkeley he needs no personal God: the cosmic field is impersonal, neither omniscient nor creator. Unlike Kant he makes a positive claim about what reality is, not a boundary around what can be known. The engine is dissociation — individual minds are dissociated alters of one cosmic consciousness, and the outward face of the physical world is how one alter’s mental contents look from without. Adjacent, by a different line, is Philip Goff’s cosmopsychism (*Galileo’s Error* (Philip Goff, 2019); *Consciousness and Fundamental Reality* (Philip Goff, 2017)), which starts from a single cosmic mind and treats individual minds as its decompositions; David Chalmers (*Reality+* (David J. Chalmers, 2022)) is sympathetic to neighboring views without taking on analytic idealism as such. The position has real defenders and real opponents (Frankish’s illusionism (Keith Frankish (ed.), 2017) is the contrary pole; Stoljar’s type-B physicalism (Daniel Stoljar, 2001) the standing alternative), and it earns a real engagement.

*Why the ground is still called mind.* One question precedes the structural reply and sharpens it. Every mind the theory can exhibit, each alter it sets out to explain, is personal: it is someone’s, undergone from a point of view, a subject to whom its contents are present. The fundamental field is none of this, being impersonal, subjectless, without a perspective from which anything is had, so the word *mind* is made to span a discontinuity as wide as the gap it was introduced to close.

Pressed on what entitles the label, the position is caught in a pincer whose jaws close from opposite sides. Make the field impersonal, as Kastrup does, and the word *mind* thins toward an honorific. A ground stripped of subject, of perspective, and of any unity a self would bring keeps the name by bare experientiality alone, and owes an account of why that is a mind rather than a posit the word merely flatters. Make it personal instead, a genuine subject with a point of view, and two bills arrive at once: the plural alters collapse into the contents of a single subject, which is Coleman’s problem (Sam Coleman, 2014) and not the plurality the view needs, and a personal ground of all reality stands most of the way to God.

That second cost is the one worth pressing. A personal cosmic mind need not be divine by stipulation, since one might posit a limited cosmic subject, neither omniscient nor creator. But the impoverishments that would keep it short of divinity are hard to sustain for a mind in which every other mind is contained and from which all reality is said to dissociate. What knows all contents looks omniscient, what all appearance issues from looks creative, and the idealist now owes an account of why this universal personal ground stops short of the divine one the view defined itself against.

The jaws are connected, which is what makes the pincer bite: personhood is what rescues the field from the honorific charge and just what delivers it to the divine one, while the retreat toward a blind, instinctive ground that escapes divinity is the retreat that drains the word *mind*. The band between them, personal enough to be a mind yet impersonal enough not to be God, is a narrow one, and whatever is set in it must still be a distinguishable, persisting, successive ground.

This is the section’s structural point wearing its conceptual face. What makes an alter a mind and not a stretch of the field is that a distinguishable someone (S) persists as that someone (Φ) across a succession of states it undergoes (T); subtract the three and the personal mind is not rendered impersonal but unmade. The contrast with theism is then exact, since the two positions share the word and invert its content: classical theism makes the ultimate mind by making it maximally personal, a knower and willer, while analytic idealism makes the ultimate mind by making it sub-personal, a field that is no one’s. The shared term names contraries, and they meet only where the argument says every ground must, in the conditions that let anything be a knower or an experience at all.

The lineage runs through Schopenhauer, whom Kastrup cites directly (*The Idea of the World* (Bernardo Kastrup, 2019), ch. 1). Schopenhauer (*The World as Will and Representation* (Schopenhauer, A., (1819) 1969)) reads the Kantian thing in itself as Will: a blind, impersonal striving, not cognition but sheer drive, individuating into organisms as its appearances. This is the template at its most austere — not cosmic mind but its non-representational twin, a ground neither mental nor material in any phenomenal sense. One observation answers it. The Will strives, and striving is a process. To strive across resistance is to have a before in which the resistance stands and an after of movement against it (T); to strive against something distinct is to individuate, and individuation is non-identity within a manifold (S); to remain the particular Will-form whose striving marks it across its encounters is to persist (Φ). Schopenhauer’s Will is phenomenally undifferentiated (without qualia, that is, without any felt qualitative character, without representation, and without a subject), yet it is structurally constituted in the very act of being the kind of ground that individuates into organisms and holds those individuations through time. It does not escape T, S, and Φ by being blind; it instantiates them in the mode of blind striving rather than conscious representation.

Three forms of the analytic-idealist move show what each commits to.

*First, dissociation.* Individual minds are dissociated alters of cosmic consciousness; the world’s outwardness is the look of one alter’s contents from without. Kastrup’s own model for this is clinical: dissociative identity disorder, in which one psyche presents as several alters that do not share access. The analogy is exact enough to use, and it is where the reply lands. For alters to be distinct rather than identical to the field, the field must differentiate (S); for the ground to be stable enough for alters to form from it, it must persist (Φ); for dissociation to be the dynamic process the view needs (alters forming, holding, dissolving), it must run in time (T). Even a single case of dissociative identity is a structured process in a structured psyche; nothing weaker produces alters. So the cosmic field is not the absence of T, S, and Φ but a vast instance of them under another name. On this reading Kastrup’s view is a panentheist relabeling (panentheism: all reality is within the cosmic mind, which yet exceeds it) of the structural account rather than its rival.

The dissociation model also faces a pointed objection of its own, and meeting it strengthens the reply. Coleman (Sam Coleman, 2014) argues that subjects do not sum or divide: a single consciousness cannot host genuinely separate points of view, so the clinical analogy either describes one subject with partitioned contents, which is not the plurality idealism needs, or helps itself to the very plurality it was meant to explain. The objection is real and it tells against Kastrup’s use of the analogy. It leaves the structural point untouched and in fact sharpens it. On the first horn, partitioned contents within one subject are distinguished from one another (S), held apart across the partition (Φ), and sustained through the dissociative dynamics (T); on the second, genuinely plural subjects require a field able to individuate and bound them, which is those same conditions read at the substrate. Coleman’s is a problem about how a mind divides, and every candidate answer to it is stated in T, S, and Φ.

The sharpest version of Kastrup’s reply targets the level at which the conditions are claimed, not the fact that dissociation is structured. Grant, he can say, that the alter’s world is structured — that is just the appearance. What the argument calls Nature might be exactly that appearance: the world as experienced from within a dissociated alter. Then the necessity of Nature is a necessity of appearance, not of the substrate; T, S, and Φ are features of the alter’s experienced world, which he happily grants, while the substrate (undifferentiated cosmic consciousness prior to any dissociation) is bound by none of them. This is the best objection in the section, and it has a clean answer: dissociation is substrate-side. A substrate that produces an alter possessing T, S, and Φ must, at its own level, be able to differentiate (to have this alter rather than that), to hold the differentiation across the stretch in which the alter keeps a separate perspective (Φ), and to have the producing be an event rather than a timeless fact (T). Those are not features of the alter’s appearance; they are conditions on the substrate’s power to generate an alter at all. The appearance/substrate distinction is therefore not structured-versus-unstructured but two levels of structure: the alter’s experienced conditions and the substrate’s productive ones. Kastrup’s substrate is undifferentiated in the phenomenal sense (no qualia, no point of view), and the argument does not contest that; it is not undifferentiated in the structural sense dissociation requires, and that is all the argument needs.

*Second, cosmopsychism.* Goff reaches nearly the same place from the other direction: bottom-up panpsychism faces the combination problem (how do micro-experiences combine into a macro-experience?), so start instead from one cosmic experience and treat individual minds as its decompositions. Cosmopsychism sits closer to the structural account than either physicalism or bottom-up panpsychism, but its modal scope decides its fate. If the cosmic consciousness is contingent (able to fail to exist, or to exist without structure), then absolute nothingness is possible, a possibility foreclosed at [§2.8](<2.8 The Whole Line.md>). If it is necessary, it must meet the structural conditions, and the cosmopsychist now owes the very modal argument the structural account supplies. And the combination problem returns inverted: a cosmic mind that decomposes into alters decomposes along lines of distinguishability (S), persistence (Φ), and temporal differentiation (T), so the *Triconditional Cross-Entailment* ([§2.6.7](<2.6.7 Triconditional Cross-Entailment.md>)), that T, S, and Φ require one another, applies to whatever the cosmic mind is. Decomposition confirms the conditions at higher resolution; it does not step around them.

*Third, information.* Chalmers’s later work (*Reality+* (David J. Chalmers, 2022)) and the simulation literature (Nick Bostrom, 2003) press a related thought: perhaps the world is a simulation and what is fundamental is information or computation, not matter. Taken from the information-theoretic side, this is engaged at [§4.1.5](<4.1.5 Information-Theoretic Foundationalism.md>); what this section adds is that information is itself a structural notion. It requires distinguishable states (S), transitions between them (T), and a substrate that carries them (Φ). A simulated world exhibiting T, S, and Φ is a world exhibiting T, S, and Φ, and the simulator’s own substrate is structured in turn. The regress ends at the conditions, not before them.

*What the position actually buys.* Analytic idealism’s deepest attraction is that it dissolves the hard problem of consciousness: if experience is fundamental, the question how non-experiential matter generates experience cannot arise, there being no non-experiential matter to do the generating. That dissolution is genuine — taking experience as primitive is no more illicit than any account’s taking its own ground as primitive. But the hard problem doesn't retire here — it trades, and the trade is asymmetric in kind. Physicalism owes a cross-category derivation, the experiential from the non-experiential, which is the hard problem proper; idealism owes only an intra-category one, the structuring of what is already experiential. That asymmetry is the one place the comparison stops mirroring, and it falls to idealism: unlike a parsimony tally, which runs both ways, this debt is lighter on the idealist side.

How much lighter is worth pressing, because the intra-category debt is not small. Idealism must say why the fundamental consciousness is differentiated and structured at all, dissociated into alters and articulated into a lawful world, rather than an undifferentiated field. Set beside the hard problem this looks like the easier question, an internal shaping rather than a category crossing, and it is easier only in category, not in force. The move from an undifferentiated substrate to a structured world of alters is a move from no T, S, or Φ to all three; it is the appearance of articulated structure from a ground said to have none, which is a structural analogue of the hard problem run one level down. The analogy should not be overstated: both terms stay within the experiential, so this is not the phenomenal-generation gap itself, and to that extent idealism’s dissolution of it is genuine. What recurs is the gap’s form, not its content: an unexplained passage from the homogeneous to the differentiated, and that formal debt is discharged only in T, S, and Φ. Idealism has not dissolved the problem of how structure arises; it has renamed the terrain on which that problem is posed, from matter-and-experience to substrate-and-differentiation. And its own answer, when it gives one, must credit the substrate with the power to differentiate, to persist, and to unfold in time — with exactly T, S, and Φ. The generation question is won; the differentiation question is inherited; and the differentiation question is answered only by the conditions whose fundamentality the position set out to deny. What experience positively is, the identification with self-modeling structure, is Chapter 8’s work, resting on the substrate-neutral ground supplied at [§7.8](<7.8 Life.md>); the point here is only that the differentiation debt is structural.

The same lineage makes a second appeal, to parsimony: idealism posits only experience, where physicalism posits experience and non-experiential matter and still owes the passage between them. The general reply is at [§5.1.4](<5.1.4 Argument from Simplicity.md>) — comparative parsimony cannot adjudicate between structure and an alternative to it in either direction, because the count presupposes the very conditions (distinguishable posits set against a common measure) it would use to decide. Here the count that makes a single field look simpler omits the differentiation the field must undergo to appear as a world of alters, and that differentiation just is T, S, and Φ at the level of the cosmic mind. Entered on the ledger it is no saving: the apparent economy is bought back exactly where the work is done. Parsimony cannot select idealism over the structural account, because what it would economize on is what idealism must keep.

*One objection cuts across all four forms.* The reply to every idealism has the same shape, that whatever is made fundamental turns out to be structured, and that very uniformity invites the charge that the argument is unfalsifiable: no matter what the idealist names, the section will declare it structured enough, so the thesis rules nothing out and says nothing. The charge would land if the conditions were imposed by stipulation. They are not, and the section accepts the burden the charge identifies. There is a way for idealism to win: specify a fundamental that hosts a world of appearance while instantiating none of T, S, or Φ (no distinction among its contents, no order to their succession, nothing that persists to bear them), and the argument fails. The claim is not that such a posit is forbidden but that every attempt to specify it collapses into ∅, the state that on examination is no state at all ([§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>), [§2.8](<2.8 The Whole Line.md>)). The idealist is owed that opening and has it; what the idealist lacks is a filling for it. Conceded, then, is just what the symmetry objection concedes against the cosmological tradition elsewhere in the book ([§5.1.2](<5.1.2 Cosmological Argument.md>)): the reply earns no victory by fiat. It earns it only because the unstructured fundamental, pressed for content, keeps turning out to be nothing.

*The dispute is downstream of the conclusion.* Step back from the four forms and the shape of the whole engagement comes into view. Idealism and physicalism are two redescriptions of one skeleton. Subtract the words *mental* and *physical* from each, and what remains on both sides is the same thing: distinguishable items held in an ordered succession by something that persists — T, S, and Φ carrying the explanatory load. Their dispute is over which vocabulary the skeleton wears. The book’s positive conclusion is a claim about the skeleton, not the vocabulary, and it is therefore settled before the mental-versus-physical dispute is even joined. This is why the argument need not defeat idealism to reach its end. It need not choose between idealism and physicalism to establish its positive conclusion (that conclusion holds whatever the ground’s metaphysical character turns out to be, as established at [§2.2.3](<2.2.3 Witness's Reach.md>)); and it need not defeat idealism to overturn classical theism (the inversion holds under idealism as readily as under physicalism, as established at [§6.1](<6.1 Greatness.md>)). What it requires of idealism is only what idealism, on examination, always grants: that whatever is fundamental be structured.

*What converges.* Idealism in its four forms (Berkeleyan, transcendental, phenomenological, analytic) shares with the structural account a single refusal: it will not derive consciousness from antecedent non-conscious matter. The four part company over what is fundamental (divine perception for Berkeley, the conditions of possible experience for Kant, the constituting ego for Husserl, cosmic consciousness for Kastrup), and the book’s reply is one and the same across them, distributed over [§2.2.3](<2.2.3 Witness's Reach.md>), [§6.1](<6.1 Greatness.md>), and this section: whatever is put at the bottom, if it is structured enough to do the work the position needs, it instantiates T, S, and Φ. The conditions are conditions on anything that hosts process, and a mind is one kind of host. So the structural conditions are mind-compatible without being mind-derived: consistent with consciousness being widespread and substrate-independent (the substrate-neutral ground is supplied at [§7.8](<7.8 Life.md>), life as multiply realizable closure-plus-throughput, and the consciousness identification that rides on it is carried in Chapter 8), and consistent with its being fundamental in a sense the argument need not adjudicate. What the argument is not consistent with is the one claim idealism would need and never establishes: that what is fundamental is unstructured, that it lacks T, S, and Φ. That claim, examined, identifies nothing.


---

← [4.3.4 Cosmopsychism](<4.3.4 Cosmopsychism.md>) | [4.3.6 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics](<4.3.6 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.md>) →
