How Does One Know If They Understand Reality Correctly

Yes, I agree they both have essential utility, and remain equally valid. Though, sometimes it may be required to choose one perspective over the other due to practicality. I may choose subjectively and buy my friend a gift based on their subjectively most beautiful color, while I may choose a material objectively, such as an oven pan that will not melt given the objective melting point of the material. I believe even when through the objective lens a material is devoid of beauty that from a subjective view an object can be filled with beauty, and I do not believe these two contradict one another and they remain simultaneously true. The one statement says the object has no beauty the other says I see beauty, these do not support or conflict each other and can remain simultaneously true.

#7.

Spot on.

Well, I think that FLRW accurately summed up subjective reality.

So we all experience a subjective reality.

I think that "whatever that means", refers to the wide scope of subjective possibilities.

Therefore, can anyone pin down reality correctly.

Do you think an interpretation of reality that cannot predict or determine the future is a correct interpretation? I would think not, so there must be a standard for what is judged as correct. I think the standard for what is determined as correct is how accurately it can predict outcomes in the world. This leads me to believe anyone can pin down reality correctly to the degree of which their interpretation can accurately predict the world.

Accurate prediction or accurate guess.

No real difference I suppose.

Perhaps awareness and collective agreement is confirmation of a reasonably accurate external reality.

(Assuming that everyone is honest......Hmmmmmmmm?.....I'm not sure that the species possesses a hive mind).

Because I haven't yet got my head around how predicting the future confirms reality per se.

Collectively, we can work towards a shared outcome, but this planning rather than predicting.

And we can guess, based upon ongoing knowledge.

Though:

In the simultaneous and ongoing moment of past/present/future we have awareness.

And therefore we continually experience the future has it occurs.

Which brings me straight back to awareness and collective agreement.

As in, a collective agreement of the simultaneous moment.

I think of understanding like a game of chess. If you are a new player and no one tells you the rules you will never know what will happen next because you don't understand, but once you understand the game, you can predict what the opponent may throw at you and can prepare for it, meanwhile controlling the opponent with a better understanding of the game. I ask myself the question, do I control reality, or does it control me. Sure, we may be set within the bound rules of the game, but we are in control of our moves. Similarly, we can compare the understanding of chess with the ability to control its moves to whether you understand reality to the degree you are able to predict and control the future. When I pick up a spoon, I move the spoon, and I know I understand reality enough to move the spoon. The more that I can control the world the better I believe I understand it.

Don't pay your bills and quit your job.  Reality with no delusions, no alternative perspectives.

Hey.

Sometimes it's just easier to conclude that what one perceives is an accurate representation of an external reality.

Collective experiences and repeated experiences would seem to confirm this.

I too have played chess and moved spoons.

And why would sensory receptors and internal imaging evolve to be inaccurate or deliberately misrepresentative of reality.

We would be implying an unknown, devious external influencer........Which for sure, would excite peoples imagination.

Nonetheless, we still live a human existence where we rely upon converting signals into sensory perception. So accurate or not, perceived reality can only be a simulated experience.

Sort of,

Sitting outside the cave all day and saying to hell with hunter gathering.

Why do we bother.

Which begs the question,

Were we fitted with a survival gene?

What leads you to believe this is what people should do?

Yes, it is always simpler to conclude our perception of reality is correct. This is what children do all the time as they mentally develop. They lack the necessary experience to understand the world, yet their brain drives them to pursue answers, so they make inaccurate conclusions about how the world works to avoid the fear and anxiety of the unknown. This is because a world that is unknown is a fearful one. This is also why people tend to avoid taking new chances and opportunities. They wish to stay in a world that matches what they believe is true, and the more they explore the more likely they are to discover the world is more complex than they thought.

This is why so many people get PTSD from going to war. They developed a mental structure that the world must act in a specific way and then that foundational principle to almost everything else they know becomes shattered. This causes their world to become chaos as nothing they thought they knew was true and so everything around them becomes unknown and frightening. As a result, they then start to question all their other core beliefs, which leads to the phenix transformation of metal rebirth as they rebuild their understanding of reality.

"What leads you to believe this is what people should do?" I don't want to lead anyone to do anything. I simply said quit your job and don't pay your bills and you will find there is no alternative perspective on what reality will bring to you.

What you said was without much context, so I had to interpret a bit. I believed you were presenting the idea as a positive means to escape delusions, but I now understand.

What would happen if one decided to live as a nomad without the responsibilities of a job or bills?

Being in control of one's reality implies a lack of constraints and the ability to shape one's life according to personal choices. On the other hand, a life without control or knowledge of the players involved may lead to a lack of understanding and limited control over one's circumstances. Considering the absence of a job, it may initially seem liberating as it frees an individual from the obligations and constraints associated with traditional employment. However, this newfound freedom comes with its own set of limitations. Without a job, one may find themselves constrained by limited options to influence or control their reality effectively. Thus, a person without a job can be simultaneously perceived as free in certain aspects, such as being unburdened by work-related responsibilities, while also being enslaved in other respects due to their limited control over life's circumstances. Both perspectives hold truth and relevance, highlighting the lack of a job and bills can have alternative perspectives of truth.

In essence, a nomad may be considered free in the aspect of employment obligations, while enslaved or constrained to a certain fate as they have little to no means of control.

"What would happen if one decided to live as a nomad without the responsibilities of a job or bills?"  Do it and find out, you will have no delusions about the outcome. Most  who would try would die of starvation within a month is my guess.  

Do you not believe depending on the perspective a nomad could be considered free and enslaved given my last comment?

I would add to your comment that there should be a common ground in such experiences so to say we're interpreting the reality "correctly". 

I believe that is correct, to interpret reality correctly you must have a standard which you are judging. This coincides with my understanding of truth as a metric of alignment with an external system.