Reality

 There are two types of reality.

The objective reality is the world outside the mind. It exists regardless if someone is watching or not.

Then there is the subjective reality. It is a continuous model that each brain creates based on input from the senses, memories, and predictions. It’s a useful representation of the external objective reality.

The model is decorated with useful representative attributes like color, sound, heat, cold, texture, taste, feelings, etc. That is the only world you will ever experience, and you yourself are a part of that model. You will never directly access the objective reality.

The subjective reality is subjective, and slightly different between different people, but similar enough for groups of people and societies to function.

The objective reality can only directly be accessed in science fiction movies, like the Matrix, though the representation is still in the subjective reality

KJ q

A

What you’re describing is close to a major position in philosophy of mind and cognitive science: indirect realism (also called representationalism), mixed with ideas from neuroscience and predictive processing.

A lot of your framing is coherent and aligns with how many scientists and philosophers think about perception, but there are a few distinctions worth sharpening.

1. Objective reality

You define this as the world that exists independently of observation.

That’s a common realist assumption: there is a mind-independent world whose state does not depend on whether anyone perceives it.

In physics and ordinary life, this is often treated as the baseline view. A rock exists whether anyone sees it.

One caveat: some philosophical traditions challenge this. For example:

• George Berkeley argued reality is fundamentally mental.
• Some interpretations of quantum mechanics are sometimes (often overstatedly) interpreted as making observation fundamental, though mainstream physics does not usually conclude “reality requires consciousness.”

Still, your “objective reality” maps closely to philosophical realism.

2. Subjective reality as a brain-generated model

This is strongly supported by neuroscience.

Your brain does not passively “receive” reality. It constructs an internal model from:

• sensory signals
• prior knowledge and memory
• expectations and predictions
• attention and emotional state

Perception is more like inference than recording.

For example:

• Color is not “out there” in the world as a property in the same way wavelength distributions are. Your experience of redness is a neural construction tied to how visual systems interpret light.
• Sound is not literally in the air; pressure waves are. Sound is the brain’s interpretation.
• Heat, taste, texture, pain, emotional salience—these are constructed experiences.

In that sense, you are right that the world you experience is a representation, not raw reality.

3. “You will never directly access objective reality”

This is the philosophical pressure point.

Many philosophers would agree in a qualified way:

We never access reality unmediated; we access it through perception and cognition.

But there are different interpretations.

Strong interpretation (closer to what you wrote):
You only ever experience an internal simulation, never reality itself.

Weaker interpretation (common in philosophy):
Perception is mediated and imperfect, but it is still a reliable interface with reality.

An analogy:

• A desktop icon is not the transistor states in a computer.
• But it still genuinely connects you to the computer.

Likewise, your perception may be simplified and transformed, yet still directly informative about the external world.

This avoids slipping into excessive skepticism (“maybe everything is illusion”).

4. Similar-but-not-identical subjective worlds

This is also plausible.

Humans share enough biological structure that our models overlap significantly:

• similar sensory systems
• common evolutionary pressures
• shared language
• cultural calibration

But subjective experience varies:

• perceptual differences (e.g., color blindness)
• emotional interpretation
• attention
• memory
• personality
• neurological differences

Two people can witness the same event and genuinely experience different realities while still referring to the same underlying world.

5. “The objective reality can only directly be accessed in science fiction like The Matrix”

I’d slightly revise this claim.

The Matrix actually still depicts subjective experience. The characters experience a constructed world through perception.

Even if someone “left the Matrix,” they would still experience reality through a nervous system and brain model. They would not encounter objective reality raw and unfiltered.

So a stricter version of your argument would be:

No conscious being can experience objective reality directly; all experience is mediated through a model.

That position resembles aspects of:

• Immanuel Kant (phenomena vs. noumena)
• contemporary cognitive neuroscience
• predictive processing theories of perception
• some forms of phenomenology

The strongest challenge to your view is this question:

If subjective reality is only a model, what justifies believing objective reality exists at all?

Most people answer pragmatically: because the model reliably predicts a stable world shared with others.

So I’d summarize your framework like this:

There is likely an external, mind-independent reality. Brains construct an internal experiential model of it using sensory data, memory, and prediction. Conscious experience occurs inside that model, which is private but sufficiently aligned across humans to enable shared behavior and science.

That’s a philosophically serious position—not fringe—and it overlaps with several mainstream ideas in neuroscience and philosophy.