I think there's a way to know: find an idea that exists independently of anything else... an idea that isn't existing as an activity of a brain, as a communication as an arrangement of characters in a book or whatnot, etc. If an idea is found existing independently of anything else, then we'll know that ideas don't have to be attributes.
I see it kinda like colour: can you show me the colour blue without showing me something that is blue?
Yeah... I know that some people see the world as expressions of ideas... Platonic forms and the like. I geberally don't see these sorts of worldviews as reasonable.
I think it's important to check whether someone is a physicalist, or not.
I.e., do you believe that the existence of matter and energy in the universe and the laws that govern their behavior, is sufficient in principle to produce ... by an unfathomable chain of causation ... all human behavior and experience?
If a person does believe that, then they sort of have to believe that "ideas" do not exist per se. Or, if they do "exist", they must mean ideas "exist" in the same sense that computer software exists, or birdsong exists, or energy exists. It is a large-scale pattern of behavior generated by all the small-scale particles of physics obeying the laws of physics. But, it is a special pattern. It is a pattern that can travel through different mediums and interact in very interesting, complex ways. A hurricane, for example, exists as an identifiable pattern that emerges from the unfathomable interaction of countless atoms in the atmosphere. But an idea is a little different: it can move in time and space in very interesting ways. It can modify the behavior of information-processors (computers, humans, animals) in very interesting ways. All of those ways obey the laws of physics and are - again - a consequence of an unfathomable number of physical interactions.
But, it must be acknowledged that "ideas" are so interesting, and so complicated, that even if you think they "do not exist" you have to acknowledge that the day-to-day experience of apes like ourselves, is exceedingly difficult to explain or understand without pretending they exist. Just as the path of a hurricane is almost impossible to chart atom-by-atom.
From my perspective, as a physicalist / materialist, it is extremely interesting that we live in a universe where it is possible for emergent patterns like hurricanes and "ideas" to come into existence from the operation of uncountable atoms obeying simple laws. It has to be acknowledged, that you would not necessarily expect that to be the case.
Does energy "exist"? Does light "exist"? Does information "exist"? I would argue yes, but, that they come into existence in a very interesting way from the operation of countless particles obeying the laws of physics.
If you are not a physicalist ... then the discussion is less interesting (in my opinion) because you can simply say they exist. And you don't face this incredible (impossible?) counter-intuitive notion that countless particles could give rise to such phenomena.