Which came first: matter or spirit?

Well, it seems like we're making a mountain out of a molehill, and I apologize for that... So, since I was asked to define matter and spirit, I dared (perhaps foolishly) to outline my theory on this. If you disagree, feel free to present your own, or don't present anything at all. But there's absolutely no need to create non-existent complexities based on a reluctance to understand the core idea, dear Berserk. Matter is what can be perceived by the senses of a human, animal, or plant – that is, anything I've defined as a subject of consciousness. I hope it's not necessary to explain that animals and plants have their own "sensory organs" or reflexes and desire what humans do – to live. Furthermore, I wrote something that Silvanis didn't pay attention to: things are not just perceptible, but also identifiable (i.e., recognizable) by consciousness as REAL. This also applies to the laws of physics. I hope you don't argue that they really exist, and therefore, according to my (strictly!) definition, they are matter. As for spirit, I'll give a very characteristic example to illustrate what I wrote about it. A certain Community of astral code carriers (i.e., a society) creates a subject entity – a social structure, which is the sum of both positive and negative codes of the Community of astral code carriers. This sum of codes creates its own code (public opinion), which in itself is a "subject code." By generating this code, the Community transitions from "transmitting" the code to "receiving" it, i.e., public opinion begins to encode each subject of consciousness and act on its personal code. For one subject of consciousness, it adds up in a positive way, for another – in a negative way. Here is a rather simple scheme, if you think about it. And it is common to any example, for instance, religion. It's all the same.