The Standard Model distinguishes fermions from bosons, although the principle of distinction allows that composites of fermions can be bosonic and vice versa. But so per elementary fermions and bosons, the former roughly equate to "matter" and the latter to "energy" (or force, rather).
The fields at issue can also be differentiated by whether they are vector fields or scalar, with e.g. the weak force being "vectronic" (so to speak) whereas the Higgs field is (so far as we are aware) uniquely scalar. Quite roughly, a vector field involves excitations whose locations are mapped by vectors, while a scalar field's excitations are mapped by crests and troughs.
The photon field decoupled from the other elements of the weak field long ago, so photons are fairly similar to weak vectrons in various ways. (I apologize again for using that word "vectron" but I don't remember the mainstream name, I think they usually just say "weak bosons" because the emphasis is on the weak-force example.) Still, photons have no internal mass (they can "assume" mass in concert, as with kugelblitzes) whereas there are massive weak vectrons. Gluons have no internal mass but can, ex hypothesi, form massive glueballs. Gravitons are typically assumed to be massless although I think this is a technically open question.
Leptons have mass, but this varies from elementary lepton type to type. So leptons can be distinguished by their mass, for example.
Now, theoretically, all the fields were at some point fused as inflatonic. I don't know if the decoupling is supposed to have been absolutely universal or whether there might be primordial inflatons that survived the initial expansion, but at any rate, per the decoupling, we can differentiate the separated fields from the concept of the inflaton field.
The problem of quantum gravity, or gravitons as excitations of a dedicated quantum field, is unsolved as of yet. Insofar as gravity has the more definitive relationship with the overall manifestation of spacetime (per relativity), the question, "Does spacetime exist apart from perception?" would, as a quantum-theoretic question, be equivalent to, "Does gravity exist apart from perception?"
On the philosophical side of things, Immanuel Kant argued that we have an inherent concept of a generalized scalar field (not his terminology, but you'll recognize the overlap) filling all space:
If all reality in perception has a degree, between which and negation there is an endless sequence of ever smaller degrees, and if, nevertheless, every sense must have a determinate degree of receptivity for sensations; no perception, and consequently no experience is possible, which can prove, either immediately or mediately, an entire absence of all reality in a phenomenon; in other words, it is impossible ever to draw from experience a proof of the existence of empty space or of empty time. For in the first place, an entire absence of reality in a sensuous intuition cannot of course be an object of perception; secondly, such absence cannot be deduced from the contemplation of any single phenomenon, and the difference of the degrees in its reality; nor ought it ever to be admitted in explanation of any phenomenon. For if even the complete intuition of a determinate space or time is thoroughly real, that is, if no part thereof is empty, yet because every reality has its degree, which, with the extensive quantity of the phenomenon unchanged, can diminish through endless gradations down to nothing (the void), there must be infinitely graduated degrees, with which space or time is filled, and the intensive quantity in different phenomena may be smaller or greater, although the extensive quantity of the intuition remains equal and unaltered.
I.e., a perfectly empty space/time would be empty of causality, of all energy/force as well as all matter, and so it would not be able to cause us to perceive itself or its emptiness. If we have been caused to perceive some space/time, then, the source of that perception has at least some nonzero "degree of reality" (scalar excitation).
If human brains, with all their molecules, are what perceive spacetime, then for spacetime to depend on perception would seem to mean that spacetime depended on brains. On the other hand, what is called "the hard problem of consciousness", being unsolved to date (or: there's no stable consensus about whether it can be or has been solved), keeps open our inquiry into whether brains or indeed any physical matter-and-energy/force arrangement is absolutely required for perception as such. For example, Kant thought that transcendental apperception is simple in a way inconsistent with space being an absolute foundation for reality (since he said that nothing substantially existent in space is transcendentally simple).
