I don't know what you mean by "accurate" here. Our various sense organs do not in fact relate all possible data to the brain. We can only see in a particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can only hear in a particular band of sound wavelengths. And so on.

Moreover, this relating of data is not perception. It is mere impinging on our sense organs. Perception is a process, and is bound up with how the brain interprets the data it is given. We don't see James' "bloomin' buzzin' confusion," but rather shapes and faces and the link. We smell odors, but not with the richness of meaning that accompanies olfaction among canids, for example.

To get back to my original point, "accurate" requires you to assume some meaning that just isn't there in the raw data, and then assess how closely our sense organs and our brain receive and process that meaning. But that doesn't make any sense.