If only I knew that you actually understood. But that's another philosophical topic entirely.

Have you ever looked into phenomenology? Many phenomenologists would describe actual BEING as a bit similar to your idea. They have a fundamental respect for the subjective experience, and treat each individual person as a radically different existing world/reality. Due to the varying biology, historicity, and current situations of each person, we are each inherently experiencing alternate realities. Your idea would simply be reincarnation, as if any of us reincarnated into any other animal, we would radically have a different perspective of reality.

That is the mode of thinking in which phenomenologist attempt to avoid. Most people assume that one objective reality exists somewhere, but in reality, what's truly real are these multitudes of subjective perspectives, which in turn constitute radically different worlds. It is hard to explain in one post, however, I will just add that the whole phenomenology movement rejects the totality of modern scientific empiricism, and attempts to develop a more descriptive science that looks at what is truly foundational (human experience) as what to build any knowledge upon.

As Maurice Merleau-Ponty would put it: "We must not wonder whether we really perceive a world, we must, therefore, say the world is what we perceive."

If each person is, therefore, perceiving different worlds, there are in fact many existing alternate realities existing right now.

It's just a different way to look at things.

They may attempt to avoid it, but what does that matter unless they cannot do so? Obviously, the world is not what we perceive because, in that case, there would be as many worlds as there are perceivers, and that is absurd. Every time a new perceiver is born there would be another world.

It is not only a different way to look at things. Since it has absurd consequences, it is also an absurd way to look at things. I thought the idea was to "bracket" the world, not to collapse it into phenomena.

The idea is to avoid brackets. Modern tendency is to attempt to bracket consciousness, which in the opinion of phenomenology is the truly absurd task.

I would also argue that the current perspective which most hold concerning the objective world has created its fair share of consequences as people have become reducible to their biology and observed behavior, thus rendering consciousness merely an effect of what others perceive as reality.

Whether or not something may seem absurd at first glance doesn't entail anything about its validity. Evolution once seemed an absurd construct; however, now it is all but scientific law.

The current decline of social morality and the lack of classical meaningful experience is what the phenomenological movement is arising out of. It is not a choice that leads to the belief of such an existence; however, it becomes phenomenologically given once a traditional perspective of understanding human experience is uncovered.

They don't claim to be creating a new way to look at the world, but feel they are in line with the traditional philosophy concerning human experience, and it is through the curse of modern science that the majority of people have come to perceive an objective reality where none exists.

If you claim we are all perceiving the same reality, then through who's perspective are we perceiving it? We can't pretend we can experience the world from a God on the mountaintop perspective, because no one person experiences such a reality. The only realities that exist are those individual experiences, and we tend to try to objectively merge them all into one thing.

Reality isn't a thing at all, it is only what it is, and that is experience.

Phenomenology sounds very similar to what I have developed independently. Namely, that there is no way to know anything besides what you yourself perceive. Therefore, you cannot have a distinction between perception and reality, meaning perception effectively IS reality. As an extension of that, everyone has different perceptions of things, from the very basic things, like a color blind man next to a woman who is not, down to very subtle things like how I experience a familiar piece of music like Vivaldi whereas you may not be at all familiar with Vivaldi and experience it very differently.

Thus there are many realities, none of which can be said to be THE reality. We may collude and attempt to construct a common objective reality but even this is in the context of our own perception.

Have you ever personally experienced another planet? What you have experienced is others interpretations of their own cognitions concerning planets.

An age old problem facing the philosopher is how to discern that what we experience is real. You say you experience a computer or stars, but all you really experience is a representation of those things.

Immanuel Kant recognized this dilemma, thus made a split between phenomena and noumena. What we experience when we experience is merely the phenomena of the representation of the object. We can never truly understand its true noumenal existence, as the human senses can only perceive so much.

Imagine if humans had eyes on each side of their head, and somehow were endowed with infrared vision. These differences in perception would create a very different phenomenal experience of the same noumenal object that we can experience through our current senses.

Senses are not very good indicators to test objectivity, they tend to be quite faulty. Phenomenology realizes this problem, thus makes the simple claim that reality is what we experience. Reality must be the phenomena since we can never reach the true noumena. Science, as it exists now, attempts to study the noumena using human senses; hoever, this creates an immediate dilemma due to the circumstance I've already described.

You are assuming the existence of computers based on what you know of them, but your experience is not the same as others experience.

Therefore, for the phenomenologist, reality is what we experience.

Phenomenology sounds very similar to what I have developed independently. Namely, that there is no way to know anything besides what you yourself perceive. Therefore, you cannot have a distinction between perception and reality, meaning perception effectively IS reality. As an extension of that, everyone has different perceptions of things, from the very basic things, like a color blind man next to a woman who is not, down to very subtle things like how I experience a familiar piece of music like Vivaldi whereas you may not be at all familiar with Vivaldi and experience it very differently.

Thus there are many realities, none of which can be said to be THE reality. We may collude and attempt to construct a common objective reality but even this is in the context of our own perception.