Are you denying objective reality or not?
I like to say that facts are little theories because, like definitions, they rest on or emerge from conceptual contexts.
Your wonderful phrase "I do not believe that humans can experience anything outside the filter of their being" is fundamentally equivalent to "Man is the measure of all things."
In some strange cases, we know that observations depend on the expectations of the observer.
Though I wait to be disabused of this interpretation by a sufficiently strong argument, of course.
Causation for me is a very loose concept which simply means things are implicated in the creation of other things. So a complicated route which consists of "loops/tangles of influence" is, to me, still a causal one. This somewhat all-encompassing definition is why free will has no traction for me as a philosophical idea. I just don't accept any definition of freedom which could apply to our sense/faculty of will.
So from your understanding, does prediction of events have any bearing on the 'causality' of the events?
We certainly do not know that quantum observations are dependent on an observer.
Perhaps it is better to say that observation affects the event, thereby destroying any hopes of real objectivity. That does seem to be the case in some experiments.
And maybe objectivity is merely shared perspective.
I feel that our cultural background gives us a pretty human-glorifying perspective.
I have yet to be convinced that the impossibility of accurate prediction implies the non-existence of ontic reality.
The complexity of the world we perceive relates to the complexity of that which we perceive it with.