You've somewhat answered it. In the first sentence of your reply, you said "Sounds like you are saying that reality is not(thoroughly) comprehensible." Which I am. That's miles apart from saying reality only exists because of our perception...My question wasn't referring to the common-sense reality of objects and weather. I was interested to know your idea of the underlying nature of what you call objects and, in case you are a naive realist, what about GR, QM and cosmology?
My point is not that we're right about our interpretations or that we have a complete view, but that something exist independent of our observations. I don't deny that our human observations are a result of the interaction between us and that something. We may very well have a skewed concept of what we're measuring, but we can consistently measure it, and we can construct a world view that allows us to operate in reality. (I'm calling reality the thing that we're interacting with by the way, not our interpretation of it).
For instance, I don't think waves are real. I think the phenomena that gives rise to what we measure as waves are real. It would be impractical to say "the phenomena that gives rise to" in front of ever physical concept we discuss, and furthermore, it's irrelevant when you're discussing it in the context of physical science. There are many physical concepts that are (more or less) a mathematical trick, such as the magnetic vector potential. I can't tell you whether one exists or not, I can hardly understand what it is! But it helps me to understand my observations (or interactions, if you will) in a consistent way.
IIRC correctlly, in QM, even a mirror can be an observer.