We all perceive things differently. I say the 'table' and you see one object and I see another. But we both agree that it is a table. When one considers communication (formulating a thought, expressing a thought (writing, verbal, texting, etc), the medium (air, electrical, mail, etc), the receiver (visual, hearing, feeling -- braile, etc), then the understanding of the message; it is amanzying that we communicate at all. (old story about 9 (7) blind men and an elephant).

Define "real".

Abstractions are not "real" in the sense that they are physical objects with weight and mass, but they are "real" in the sense that they exist in and act upon our minds. Some are way more useful than others of course. Most abstractions of religion seem real only because of confirmation bias, agency inference, dread of mortality, etc. But they don't reliably predict or explain experienced reality either. On the other hand, computer software is a total abstraction but can be exceedingly useful (e.g., I'm communicating with you right now by inconveniencing electrons under the direction of software).

So this deepity that reality is "not what we perceive" is actually specious. Just because there are abstractions doesn't mean there is nothing concrete underlying the abstractions.

This one has been around and keeps coming back with a vengeance....same comnent as always... Is a quick in the nuts real?

Semantics.