Is thought is the substance of reality?

Reality requires a certain amount pf culpability on the part of the party establishing such as a state of being. Seemingly obvious, a participant often assumes the sense receptors of their corporal form is a rational basis with which one can grasp the standard model that presents itself as such. Interpretation of said reality is not the question here, rather the very existence of a collection of stimuli purporting to be that which is 'real'. Of course, like most concepts, reality must have an opposite, namely that which is 'unreal'. Clearly, the elimination of that which is unreal should leave us with only that which is real, unless like light and dark (or should I say 'light and not so much?'), varying degrees of each state exist in all situations. This conclusion, though inherently problematic logistically, is fairly sensible in relation to the idea that thoughts determine reality. Still, we are left with the disturbing inconclusiveness of exactly when and where something ceases to be real, or becomes real. Suddenly, the parental catchphrase, "Because I said so" looms large as a reasonable definer of what is, and is not, reality.