The first thing of note that I always think when I hear this is what is reality? Is it perception? Are these two concepts even the same thing? Is there a difference? After much thinking and analysis, it became clear to me that there is no straightforward, let alone, “right” or “wrong” answer due to various influences from philosophy, science and various other schools of thought that all overlap. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the word reality was first recognized and used in the year 1550 and can be defined as the quality or state of being real. Furthermore, it goes on to say that reality is something that is not unoriginal or dependent but does essentially exist. And for perception, the Merriam Webster dictionary tells us that that this word was first acknowledged in the 14th century and can be defined as consciousness, be it in the form or observation, conception or any school of thought. Looking at both reality and perception from the aspect of philosophy, which has been debating topics such as this for longer than we can remember, much of the discussion centers on the contrast between these two elements. For instance, when we perceive something as it actually is (appears) and when we perceive something as we think it is (not appearing as it is). What is of interest to me though is how people can perceive and mis-perceive things, especially if they are looking at the same object or seeing, that is to say experiencing, the same thing (at the same time). Let’s say, for example that I go to the beach with my friend and I see blue water and she sees blue-green water. We are both there seeing and experiencing the same thing at the same time, however, we are not seeing exactly the same thing. Some philosophers have responded to this by assuming that our perception of material objects is facilitated by our awareness of what they term sense-data, ideas or impressions, and that these supposedly act as a type of substitute for external objects. So, just as we have people who believe differently in terms of religion, culture, ethics, etc., so too do we have people who see things differently in the world around us – states of being that appear to be “correct” or “incorrect.” This is why I think there is no reality only perception. I mean, how else can one account for the fact that we see things differently? So in my opinion, it’s clear to me that the perception a person has is dependent on their worldview (s). And this then, creates a certain "real-life" experience which translates into “reality” for the person or persons experiencing what is happening. That is to say, reality is in actual fact perception. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as reality (only perception). Sources: 1) Definition of REALITY https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality [accessed January 14, 2021]. 2) Definition of PERCEPTION https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perception [accessed January 14, 2021]. 3) Perception - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/perception/v-1 [accessed January 14, 2021].

I understand that perception defines our way of life and how we see things. However, I strongly believe that perception is not reality per se. This debate goes way back to even before the eighteenth century and the Enlightenment, when this discussion was re-directed towards perception as a way to define what is around us. I believe that reality exists outside of perception and pertains to what is around us. Perception, on the other hand, is our way of perceiving and understanding reality. We can also see this through the way Oxford dictionary defines reality and perception respectively. According to the Oxford dictionary, reality is 'Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena'. The same dictionary uses the words 'consciousness' and 'understanding' to define perception. It defines perception as 'The process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing or things in general; the state of being aware; consciousness; † (spiritual) understanding (obsolete)'. Understanding reality is what perception is all about, and of course defines our course of life. The reason there are different ways of perceiving things and ideas proves this point, because the alternative (reality being non-existent in itself but only through perception) would mean the strong possibility of disconnection from the world. Perception definitely defines reality, but reality is the focal point that can create a sense of meaning and condition perception as well. According to psychologist Jim Taylor, the close connection between reality and perception is an 'alignment' that 'is essential for us to live in the real world, find consensus with others, and maintain the individual, governmental, and societal structures that are necessary for life as we know it to exist'. It is through the interaction between the two that we manage to function in society and coexist. Works Cited 'Reality', in The Oxford English Dictionary [online] <https://www-oed-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/view/Entry/158934?redirectedFrom=reality#eid> [accessed 15 January 2021]. 'Perception', in The Oxford English Dictionary [online] <https://www-oed-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/view/Entry/140560?redirectedFrom=perception#eid> [accessed 15 January 2021]. Taylor, Jim, 'Perception Is Not Reality' (2019) <https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-power-prime/201908/perception-is-not-reality> [accessed 15 January 2021].

As someone who recently posted that a falling tree cannot make a sound if no one is around to hear it, I'd like to weigh in. Reality is dependent on perception, so for there to be such a thing as reality, there must be a subject to perceive it. So let me pose this question. Suppose humans never existed in Earth's history. Does this mean Earth still exists? If there is no living organism intelligent enough to classify objects into different subjects. Would the planet technically exist if no one is around to attest to its existence? I suppose, but in the scenario I am presenting there is no one around to verify the claim that Earth exists. In my argument that a falling tree cannot make a sound without a human's presence, I reference Lisa Feldman Barrett's "How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain". On page 212, Barrett states "nothing in the natural world indicates whether a plant is definitively a flower or a weed." She uses this phrase as an example of how a Queen Anne's lace is a flower to one person but a weed to another person. Both parties agreed that a flower existed as they held it but perceived it differently. On the same page, Barrett also quotes Albert Einstein to illustrate the concept of perceiver-dependent reality: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." Sure dictionaries offer concrete definitions on reality, but in order for those definitions to have been made there had to have been at least one person present to perceive reality. Now this isn't to say that reality is unreal and insinuate me might be living in a matrix-like scenario. I may have argued that sounds can only be produced if only someone is present to categorize the sound as a tree falls, but it is inherently subjective on if reality exists regardless of the presence of an organism. That is pretty much why I chose neutral; reality is dependent on being perceived. CITATION: Feldman, Ph.D, Barrett Lisa. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Illustrated, Mariner Books, 2018. Page 212.

I feel like trying to argue that reality doesn't exist is a lot like doing a TED Talk against microphones... Dude, you're literally using a microphone, right now, to make your point.

There's objective physical reality upon which we overlay a subjective social world of meaning. If you see a mirage in the desert, the physical reality is that there's no water there. You may die as a result - illusory perceived water will not sustain your life. But if you return to a social setting, you may be perceived as a hero for surviving the desert or a crazy fool for going there. And being crazy or a hero consists entirely in being perceived as such.

Unless you want to get into the conspiracy surrounding us being in a simulation then I don't believe there is a strong enough argument to say that what we experience isn't real. Rene Descartes saying "I think, therefore I am" means that because we are alive that we know we exist, thus meaning a reality is there. The real question is how each individual's perception of reality changes and whether any one person can truly perceive exactly what reality is.