system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What is "reality"? How much do we really "see", and how limited are we by our senses to the true nature of the universe

It seems that what we experience as reality is only a product of how our brains interpret the information received by our sensory devices. But this interpretation of information can vary from person to person, be affected by disorders or chemicals, and in some aspects the information received is limited. Is technology and math the only way to know true reality? And what is reality anyway?

Edit: Thanks for the replies and I understand how you may think I'm meandering into philosophy. (I happen to think philosophy is pretty much unnecessary now, but that's only my opinion) Let me try to clarify, or perhaps just make my question more confusing for you :)

I guess what I was really trying to get at is if there is a genuine 'standard' as to what reality is in a scientific sense. If in trying to understand what is 'real', how nature really works, do scientists always consider the limitations of our senses and processing abilities. Is our perception of the world around us generally dismissed and replaced by other methods due to the limitations of our brain and senses and their potential to distort what may actually be going on. I guess what I am ultimately trying to ask is if scientists consider the human perception of the universe as an accurate way to ultimately understand what is true about it, or is our perception generally understood to be flawed, and therefore replaced by other, more accurate methods of understanding. How distorted, if it really is at all, is human perception of the natural world. Is this something that is investigated and taken in to consideration when trying to understand the true nature of reality?

I understand this inquiry may be a bit 'out there', I just often wonder about how accurately, or inaccurately we perceive the universe

**Edit2**: I wanted to post this comment as it he seemed to best understand my question.


**MauganRa** 
*I know that at first glance AmericanMustache's comment seems pretty philosophical, but I think there is a scientific element to it. Do we have any scientific tests to ensure that what we detect is the "complete picture" of what is around us? For instance, we can only see a limited range of the spectrum of EMR, and detect only a small group of mechanical vibrations as "sound", but there is a lot more there than that.*


**Edit3**: It seems I was not notified of a lot of your replies, which I apologize for not getting back to.

**Edit4**: This is a conversation with Richard Feynman that helped me question how we see reality.
gpt
**Warning.** You are standing *dangerously close* to a perilous cliff, off of which many a would-be philosopher-king has tumbled to an ignominious death. Take about four steps back *immediately.*

The short and direct answer to your question is that none of that could possibly matter less, and thinking about it is a complete waste of time.

That sensation you're feeling right now, that slight feeling of disorientation like a sort of dizziness? It's not deep philosophical profundity. It's just the mind's natural response to near-toxic levels of vapidness.

That's not an insult. Learning to distinguish the vapid from the profound is one of the hardest things young scientists struggle with, and a skill that the typical non-scientist has never had need to master. But rest assured, you're not on untrodden ground. The world is full of people who, at seventeen, had a thought that shook them to the core, then at twenty-seven looked back and realized it had just been silly.