The senses play a small part. If we are born with no eyes we have no eye consciousness to add to our landscape. Do it with all senses, no sense consciousness. However, we are still left with brain/mind consciousness which plays a bigger part because if you remove the brain/mind, then we have no consciousness. Thus the brain/mind gives rise to the entire consciousness.
I apologize Dominic, but my mind cannot follow the question. If you like, please rephrase it.
What I was trying to get at is, it seems the consensus reality operating for most has the brain put down in a space designated as the world or reality, with the senses bringing what is deemed to just be out there, to the brain, as if there was someone watching television, and seeing the exact same thing, in the one and only way possible, alongside everyone else, as set against energy which only gets configured as a specific thing when an observer has it as an observed it is. So the observer is an active participant, rather than a passive consumer.
I just thought to post this link which is the discussion Krishnamurti held with Walpola Rahula, author of What the Buddha Taught
Yes, quite so. So we arrive at objective reality, something that exists out there that is independent from the mind. Excellent conversation, where do you suggest we go from here?
Thank you for the link. I am familiar with that dialogue, it is an excellent conversation. Once K speaks, he covers a lot of ground on his take.
We could leave aside the exact nature of physical matter as perceived by the brain generally for a moment and consider the psychological content of the brain, which Krishnamurti has said is based on thought, as a material process in the brain.
Might the apparent solidity of a physical, material, world as apprehended by a brain embedded in that process, play a part in strengthening the illusion of self, when it too is contained in matter as a material process?
Is this a useful line of enquiry?
Let’s consider your inquiry. We never know where it can move us.
I’ll spice your inquiry with thoughts on dream states. The brain is the engine for our reality. In dreams the creation engine works at its best without the interference of the senses (or the thought of one objective reality). Both the dreams states and the wake states appear very physical. The engine appears physical and the process of creation (consciousness) as K says is physical. Thus, I agree, by its very nature of it being of a materialistic essence, it strengthens the content to appear solid.
Generally we don’t consider dreams to be as solid as wake states. But why not? If there is an objective reality, then dreams would also be accounted for as many different objective realities you come and visit. The dream and the self seem real, physical and you are a participant of a prefabricated physical world that is out there.
Another key factor that strengthens the illusion is the repetition of certain parts of consciousness.
How can we explain the appearance of a shared reality?
Yes I agree with you on the dream state and the wake state. The notion of a hierarchy in states is unfounded, since the dream state is real when it is, and the waking state more fluid than supposed.
Yes quite so. And an aspect of the wake state, is the way in which the abstractions of the illusionary self express themselves, within the rest of matter, such as in the churches, mosques or cathedrals, or the elements of the false security it pursues such as the the mortgage, the rent, literally set in stone as the bank, like an exoskeleton of itself on the surface of being.
Which parts did you have in mind?
That’s a good question! What makes it shared? Is it simply the conditioning, or is it something else, and is it connected to the self’s seeming concern with control? The control it tries to mount over its myriad fragments?
Thinking about this further, is there the particular conditioning of the background, the parents, the upbringing, schooling, religion etc, but the conditioning bringing about the view of an objective, external, reality is deeper than that, since it is universal in nature, and much more persistent, and resistant to change?
Here we are again or are we? 
I think I am, therefore I am here.
Another key factor that strengthens the illusion is the repetition of certain parts of consciousness.
I was pointing to the repetition of certain sense/mind consciousness. (As you stated above-the elements of false security, churches, ideas etc.) For instance the uninterrupted reproduction (day/night) of me waking as a separate entity with the same name, gender, body, ethnicity, time expiration, etc. It is persistent and more real as the days pass. It seems that this pre-built world with its landscapes, sounds, foods, etc., is specially engineered for my senses. The repetition of the sense experience not only seem alive-physical but mind addicting. Thus solidifying the reality and resistance to any type of change.
How can we explain the appearance of a shared reality?
For this one I would approach it with the following question, do we all begin with the same brain? Say we all have the same identical brain and we establish the brain is the creator of realities. Then the brain has an original blueprint. This would be the same for everyone. Subsequently, the brain heir gets to participate in the adding/modifying to the blueprint via senses/mind. Thus creating a different reality for everyone but sharing a similar base.
By the mere act of being here I am altered 
Yes I’m not sure if the brain may be considered addicted to sight, or to touch or to sound, but it is very heavily invested in it, and as you say there is a considerable accumulation in the experience if it all. I have a lot of experience of colour, sound, shape, smell which I ordinarily take for granted.
By one brain do you mean one common format, as in genetic make-up, that promotes one experience, or one actual brain, with the many brains conceived of in reality as a visualisation of something unitary in nature? Or is it like the eye only apprehending part of the visual spectrum?
Try one more time with me, if not we abandon it. Consider this, the brain generates the content in such a way to keep you chasing experiences and in turn accumulating more content. The more content, the deeper and more solid the illusion. It’s a brilliant thought strategy. It can keep you in a cycle chasing desire, experience, and then accumulation. The resistance to stop the cycle can be easily seen with addicts or within ourselves.
What do you think? Let’s abandon my statements on shared reality for a moment and restart with your question about the brain format and move from there. We can explore each one slowly as true if they seem plausible.
I am sorry Dominic but I could not follow this one. If you like, would you please rephrase it?
Yes I see what you mean about mind-addicting in that it is all seemingly geared to keeping me going. But there is the element Krishnamurti addressed a great deal, which is the death of self, the ending of thought, the wiping of the accumulation now, rather than at end of life, at which point, until the death of the biological organism, there is still the senses at that time? registering sensory sensation in a brain, in a way which is seen as non-problematic, so I am wondering is it the senses and sensory sensation which is the issue, or the accumulation, or something else?
All I was trying to get at here is the fact the human eye is set up around perceiving a certain bandwidth of the visible spectrum, other animals it is felt can see differently, or with greater acuity, and then there is the human brain extending its capacity to see more via its instrumentation, as infrared etc.
I’m unsure how to move because I’m not sure in what format you are looking at the brain (many brains, one brain, etc.). I’m not sure if it this is relevant. It’s quantum, we can’t be sure of anything. 
I’m going to superposition 
myself inside my brain/mind and look at their functions. The brain gives rise to the mind. The mind gives rise to the content-consciousness. (The mind is what K is referring to the end of thought and time.) The mind is the entire consciousness. The senses included-the greatest illusion trick.
However, if you place the senses connected to the brain and you have pure observation operating, the senses are present, but there is no experiencer, accumulation, etc.
Which issue are we looking at? I see the creation issue. It creates time, space, identity, separation, etc. and keeps us in a cycle and in turn strengthening the illusion.
I consider it all uncertain and indeterminate, because as long as the psyche is in existence it will create too much confusion about everything. There are as many notions potentially of what is as there are centres or selves in psyche. The psyche has in effect made its own inferior copy of everything, including space, so nothing inside of its boundaries is actual, or what is. I sense one can only infer by its mad idea of a brain receiving information from something outside of itself as part of an objective reality it is in contact with, that there is possibly something of the kind in actuality, but the psyche’s presentation of that is as skewed as the rest of itself 
Psyche has to end for any truth there may be to the brain or anything else to be perceived. It’s a mad, mad, world basically, and the psyche makes it so.
Yes quite so.
Thank you @Dominic 
for the pleasant, respectful, and friendly atmosphere you created for us around a truly abstract idea. I appreciate your time, patience, and intellect.