Richard Feynmann in his description of his childhood points out that his father said that even if one knew the name and physical structure of a bird or flower one did not know the bird or flower.

We have eyes that see at a distance, hearing which works at a shorter distance, smell even shorter, touch on the surface and taste which is internal. That's all we need to survive as a species.

We can measure, we can find corelations, we can do far, far more with our brains and the tools we are able to create than we need to survive. In fact, our brains will lead to our extinction.

That there is much we don't understand and can never understand is as clear for humans as it is for birds, or flowers.

Our understanding of "reality" is empirically accurate enough for our purposes. And it is real, though subjective, in the sense that it can be predictably measured within our limitations and manipulated.

I believe the bottom line is that we have a consciousness which interprets and responds to data from our surroundings with the purpose of keeping our bodies alive. Both the data and the instrument of interpretation are "real". Disregarding the data results in death of the organism.

That some other form of consciousness may interpret the same data in a different way is obvious. Crocodiles interpret swamps differently that I do. Flowers interpret dirt in their own, unique way.

Are flowers conscious? We'd have to define "conscious" for that determination, and it's irrelevant. What is real for them is often irrelevant to my consciousness.