I realize that I am assuming that what my consciousness perceives is connected to sensory receivers such as eyes and other nerves. You are right that this assumption is based on information derived from sensory data and cognitive synthesis. I guess I should really start with "I think therefore I am."You can't reach a conclusion on this topic without a set of assumptions, which are the foundataions of science. Even your proposition that consciousness is something unknown and separate to the body and creates the mental image we call 'objective reality' is based on a few assumptions(even if you don't realise that).
What makes the assumptions of modern physics about the ontology of existence any more valid than any other approach? Just because physics can explain and predict observations well in terms of dimensions doesn't mean that the dimensions are more than cognitive constructs, does it?Unfortunately for our state of understanding of reality, most of the assumptions are challenged by modern physics. The ones i can list off the top of my head:
You need to explain your reasoning for each of these instead of just stating them.Free will
The assumption that the human mind is the right tool to comprehend reality
The assumption that solipsism is wrong
The assumption of there being true randomness
If you choose to make philosophical axioms the basis for your ontological assumptions, more power to you - I don't believe more is possible.We can't hope science to answer the big questions without these assumptions. As there is no way to verify any of them, although unlikely, there is some percent chance that they could all be wrong and this would cause a collapse to the castle in the sky.
Still, I build my science-philosophy on the axiomatic principle of empiricism, which leads me to accept first as foremost that what is perceived or observed is the basis for doing science, not synthetic assumptions about whatever reality I may suppose is generating those sensory data.
Will I assert that there are objective artifacts that correspond to my empirical observations? Yes. Do I believe that I can make such an assertion on the basis of empiricism alone? No. Every assertion or claim to knowledge is necessarily an active assertion that can only be critiqued at the discursive level. Empirical testing, deductive reasoning, etc. are all reasonable methods of engaging in discourse, but it is fundamentally wrong to claim that reality is directly accessible. Reality is the resource-pool from which discursive negations are empowered. It is not simply "there" for observation and testing. It is constructed (in discourse) through observation and testing. If it exists outside of that, no one can truthfully claim to have better access than what they perceive and believe through sensory perception and cognition.