It is hard to deny that perception is part of reality. Perception is as real as daffodils. It is also hard to deny that (parts of) reality act on (parts of) reality. It follows that perception acts on (other parts of) reality. This simple logical conclusion runs parallel to the well-known (but unaccepted) proposition that perception is reality, e.g. if we want to point out that the thermometer may read 30 degrees Celsius. However, you still perceive (feel) that you are cold. Your perception has no objective measurement that you can rely on. Still, it is not subjective, as we shall see later.
Quantum perception
Quantum theory (concept) as an explanation of quantum reality and relativity (concept) as an explanation of space-time reality gave scientists the ability to understand what was previously inconceivable (irrational) as rational. We now know that perception at the smallest size of the photon changes what is observed. Perception changes reality. Even ancient philosophy predicted this now scientifically proven truth. Since quantum effects could not be explained scientifically then and until recent times, they were understood to be irrational. Nowadays, such quantum effects become rational by explaining them in mathematical language.
Limitations of perception
Humans are only capable of developing extended phenotypes in perceived reality (rationality). We cannot develop artefacts smaller or larger than our perception allows. With extended perception (towards quantum on one side and space-time), we extend the reality in which we can form extended phenotypes.
Should today’s scientific theories become testable across more than four standard dimensions and the results repeatable, we will develop extended phenotypes in 10+ dimensions in the future. Just as it was irrational for Aristotle to claim that it is possible to evolve extended phenotypes at the level of cell sizes, we claim that 10+ dimensional objects are possible.
Therefore, we should understand that space-time is already an objective reality, even if it cannot be fully mapped. Just as the human eye cannot see the light spectrum outside of ultraviolet (we cannot make an ultraviolet image), we can represent UV by means other than images. We have evolved extended phenotypes that represent UV to us, independent of the fact that we cannot see it.
Reality is perception
It follows that perception has a locality. It has a form, just as the electron has a form. Perception has physical objectivity and is not just a vague psychological concept. It follows that perception is reality, just as reality is perception. Reality is nothing other than perception. Understood from this point of view, it is clear that perception is not subjective. When we say that perception is reality, we are not asserting that anything is possible, as we say that we can go this way or that way. Our perception is co-determined. So, to say that reality is perception decouples perception from subjectivity and relativism.
To illustrate this, consider the case of temperature perception. If one person perceives cold and another perceives heat in the same environment, it does not mean that one is right and the other is wrong. It just means that one (with their perception) is creating a different reality than the other. They are co-creating two different realities that exist in the same time and space. That science cannot grasp these two realities does not mean that science fails. It is scientifically true that there is 30 degrees Celsius in the environment where one feels cold, and the other feels warm. And it is unscientifically true that one is cold and the other is warm, even if both scientifically agree on the measurement. This example is also the most straightforward possible argument for the enormous limitations to which all science is inherently subject. What science explains is a proven fact, but there is much more of the same reality that science by definition cannot explain.
The reality that science cannot grasp
But that does not mean that the reality that science cannot define is irrational in the sense that it is false. The irrationality of perception is as solid objectivity as daffodils. It just cannot be defined by science. In this sense, the irrationality of perception does not resemble irrational numbers in mathematics. Irrational numbers in mathematics are as rational as they are manageable and also explainable by science. As such, they already help us expand the space in which we create extended phenotypes.
Please find some more here: http://bit.ly/ZcA6ad if interested.
