High-valance

Well sure, there are all kinds of dualities, but they are self-dual and collapse in in an absolute perspective. The percieved and the perciever are one. I'm suggesting that what is being percieved is not a mind-external environment, but rather a mental environment, numerically identical to the perciever of it.

The phenomenal experience of feeling and hearing the wall are themselves perceptions. Merely closing one's eyes doesn't actually eliminate all perception, considering that we have 5 senses. So that doesn't really contradict the proposition. I'd suggest that if you're not experiencing the wall through any of the 5 senses then it does not exist as a wall with colors and certain ways it feels. Our sense experience is a representation of the so called 'external universe', but the external universe does not itself have those human-associated experintial qualities and textures such as sounds,colors and so on. That is a representation. It is a representation of trans-personal mental states. In other words, there is the noumena (the thing itself), but the noumena is itself phenomenal/mental, but while phenomenal/mental, not of the qualities in terms of which we experience the world.

What i mean by consciousness is what in philosophy of mind is called phenomenal consciousness, roughly defines as 'an entity is conscious if and only if it is anything it is like to be that entity, some subjective way it feels like or appears for the entity. Alternatively, (and this gets at the same thing i'm trying to Point to) consciousness is 'that which experiences'. Regarding what I take to be a panphsycist view: While I Think that's better than materialism, it still is infering something that is not mental or something that is not mind/consciouness. Why is this necessary? In a dream at night you don't say that objects of the Dream world are themselves conscious, so why would we say that in the waking state? It seems unessesary? We might say that the inanimate universe as a whole corresponds to mental goings on, but not that the atoms on the screen of perception of which the appearance of the inanimate universe is comprised are themselves conscious/minded (assuming that this is what you're suggesting). If we can make sense of our shared basic and not so basic observations of reality in terms of only one thing (mind), then why postulate a second (matter outside mind of which its constituent parts supposedly are conscious? By way of analogy: When looking at the horizen you don't say that there is a shadow Earth beyond it, but rather just more Earth. In a similar way, why say that beyond our minds is a whole different type of thing (matter outside mind)? It seems unessesary. Here is a video of an articulation of a mind-only view of reality in case it is of interest.

Thanks for the reply. I found it helpful and it resonated well.

The key to understanding the walking through walls thing lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena. Meaning the distinction between our experiences of reality and reality itself, or the things in reality themselves. According to materialism reality itself is unconscious matter outside mind. But in a mind-only frameworks the noumena is only mental goings on, from which our personal consciousness that we identify with is dissociated. This explain why we can't walk through walls or do other such things that the world does not comply with. And the thing about particles. In a mind-only framework particles are just what the noumena as trans-personal mind look like and presents itself on the screen of perception. Somewhat analogous to pixels on a screen. And as has already been pointed out by others but I'll put a little differently: there's no evidence for a materilist reality of matter outside consciousness. That is a theoretical abstraction, a concept in mind/consciousness. It's a theoretical inferance, not itself an observation.

This Point about Walking through walls can totally be made sense of within a mind-only framework. The key to understanding this lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena.

This clip also highlights the dogmatic false skepticism of the stage orange materialist paradigm pretty well.