I think there's a distinction between how we
perceive reality and reality itself. It's possible that we have a conscious or unconscious role in creating how we perceive reality, but I doubt we actually create it as it actually is. It's also possible that in some circumstances (the use of psychoactive drugs, NDEs etc.) we perceive the world differently from the consensus view; but who is to say which view is real? Maybe no perceived view represents what is actually there: there are just consensus and other views, and they're all at best approximations of reality.
That said, the consensus view (where it's based on empirical experience as opposed to hypothetical conjecture) is, by and large, very useful as a collection of icons (a la Donald Hoffman) of reality in helping us survive. It's definitely useful to understand that if I fall off the edge of a cliff, I'll end up as a bloody pulp on the ground; so if I want to survive, I'll avoid going too near to the edge. What a cliff, what height and gravity actually are, it doesn't really matter (though it helps if representations of various "things" are consistent with one another). They're icons of something, and we have to take them seriously, albeit not literally.
If we created reality, there'd be no meaning to the term
discovery; we'd never discover icons like DNA, for example. Somehow, we'd have to have created them, all unbeknownst to ourselves. I find this idea highly improbable. No: I believe that there
is reality, "things in themselves" as Kant might have said, but that, for whatever reason, we don't perceive them as they actually are. Mind At Large doesn't
create its order and regularity, but intrinsically
is ordered and regular. That's just how it is, and our science is (or at least should be) about interpreting how we perceive, in iconic terms at least, reality.
Under the influence of psychedelics, in deep meditative states, etc. I doubt that reality changes; however,
perception of reality definitely changes, and maybe that includes perceiving aspects of reality that we usually can't; includes perceiving new/unfamiliar icons that we interpret as spirits, ghosts, ETs, various "psychic phenomena" and so forth. And such interpretations are and have long been present in various cultures and may, consciously or unconsciously, help shape our perceptions. Please note that I'm not saying that "ghosts","spirits" and "ET"s aren't icons of something that actually exists, only that our interpretations are susceptible to influences from various consensus opinions (which may or may not be the view of minorities) about their nature.
For survival purposes, the everyday interpretation of reality (especially where it's based on experiential empiricism) is good enough, and science at its best has its role in continually refining that interpretation. What never ceases to amaze me is that, as we have refined our interpretations, and been able to go more and more deeply into the fine structure of reality, we have been able to discover empirical facts that seem consistent.
We see green grass (BTW, there is at least
one grass species that is purple), and over time have come to "understand" that in terms of the structure of the chlorophyll molecule, Quantum mechanics and so forth. Note the quotes: we don't actually "understand" what's going on, but have been able to construct fairly consistent narratives over a wide range of scales of the icons of reality, albeit not reality itself. Where science tends to stray into dangerous territory is when it asserts that the narratives
are reality and can't ever change, and also when it excludes empirical evidence coming from significantly large minority groups because it dogmatically asserts they can't be based on icons of the real.
Because science has closed its mind to the possibility of the existence of things outside its usual scope, it has shut itself off from lots of evidence, and can't possibly hope to refine its understanding of reality; indeed
prevents its refinement. Luckily, I think this attitude is becoming less and less tenable; people like Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman are increasingly being taken seriously by the mainstream.
I suspect this is because science has progessed to the point where it is realising its interpretations, its narratives, are inadequate. What it needs for a breakthrough is enough people with the courage to challenge the status quo to come forward and be counted. This is already happening with respect to the Darwinian interpretation of evolution -- there are already
over 1,000 scientists who have added their name to a list of dissenters. They aren't all ID people by any means; just people who at least agree that Darwinism has become untenable. At some point, the numbers will become so large that lots more will come out of the closet and the paradigm will begin to shift. At last, we'll be able to freely and unashamedly investigate new icons of reality and to refine our interpretations of them.
Edit: Just after posting this, I watched Jeffrey Mishlove's fourth and latest video interview with Bernardo Kastrup. Bernardo touches quite a lot on issues relevant to this thread and to a few elements of my post, so I thought I'd add it: