Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[B0R5]

Hi everyone,
I'm new here, and I joined because I’ve been working on an idea that tries to bring some structure to how we think about reality. It’s not a finished system or rigid theory — more of a framework in progress, open to critique and refinement.

I don’t have a formal degree in philosophy yet, though I’m seriously considering starting a Master’s program in the near future. For now, I treat philosophy as a discipline of honest thought and shared inquiry — and I’d really appreciate thoughtful engagement from people who see things differently.

The core question driving my thinking is:
How can we meaningfully talk about “reality” when everyone seems to experience it a bit differently?
Is there a minimal shared ground we can stand on — without falling into relativism or rigid dogmatism?

The working name for the framework is The Theory of Consensual Reality. It assumes that what we consider “real” emerges from a kind of ongoing consensus between conscious beings — not just socially, but ontologically. I’m still working through the implications, and I’d be grateful for any feedback, challenges, or questions.

Thanks for reading — looking forward to the conversation.

[Sy Borg]

The reality is that we are part of a planet that is travelling through space at almost four million kilometres per hour. Everything else is probably up for grabs.

However, we are not evolved to perceive reality, we evolved to be most effective at surviving passing on our genes. Thus, we see the coconut tree as separate to ourselves. It's not actually separate, just as cells in your hand are not truly separate from cells in your liver. We all contain chemicals that were once part of trilobites and dinosaurs, but seeing everything as separate allows us to operate in such a way that we survive.

Given that we don't know what triggered the Big Bang, we don't know how life emerged, and don't know what consciousness is or how it works, we have little choice but to tend towards practicalities.

[Good_Egg]

Three thoughts you may wish to consider:

1) if your theory deals with reality, then presumably it distinguishes reality from unreality ? Allows a category of apparent phenomena which don't really exist ? Imaginary beings, illusions etc ?

2) Language is social - the meaning of words is by consensus. And we can only communicate using language. So in discussing the merits or otherwise of a theory, we have to distinguish between, just for example, a dog and the word "dog". If you encounter a friendly, hairy, slobbery, pet quadruped, then your society may or may not use the word "dog" to describe it. But that social act of naming does not - within my naive realist philosophy, at least - bring the dog into existence or change the reality of the creature in front of you. The act of naming a thing presupposes a thing to be named. And that thing just may bite you if you try to ignore it or define it away.

3) Our common experience is that we encounter at least 3 categories of stuff:
- objects that have physical existence,
- social structures and conventions that exist only because people agree that they do, and
- interior concepts and emotions that seem to exist only for so long as we pay attention to them.

Naive realism has three realms, if you will, that form the subject matter of respectively the physical sciences, sociology and psychology. "Consensual reality" sounds reductive - in some way seeking to explain the objective and the subjective in terms of the inter-subjective.

"Theory of reality" sounds like it's setting out to explain everything. If your theory covers all of the above ground (rather than paying selective attention to only parts of it), it may be worthy of that title.

Good luck...

[B0R5]

1. It's true that the human mind wasn't "designed" to perceive reality as it is, but rather to survive effectively. Our senses and mental models are simplified and pragmatic – not absolute. But that doesn't mean we have no access to truth at all. It simply means our knowledge is partial and conditional.

In the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR), reality is understood as a dynamic consensus between conscious beings. Consciousness is not merely a byproduct of the brain, nor is it a sovereign creator of the world. It is a medium for receiving, interpreting, and co-creating reality – based on principles that may have been defined beforehand (by God or a higher meta-level).

So the question “Does reality contain consciousness, or is it contained within it?” cannot be answered simply. The two are co-dependent. It's like asking whether language exists independently of meaning – one only exists through the other.

You're right: we see the "coconut tree" as something separate, even though we’re materially and historically connected to it. But this functional separation is what enables experience at all: in order to be ourselves, we must be able to say "I am not that."

TCR doesn’t deny the evolutionary usefulness of perception, nor the fact that we don’t know the origin of the Big Bang, life, or consciousness. On the contrary – it embraces these unknowns as part of the path toward deeper understanding. We don't know everything – but that doesn't mean we can’t learn anything. The key question is: how do we negotiate that unknowing – with each other and with God?

In this way, reality shows its dual-layered structure:

on one side – a shared, stable, and predictable world (consensus),

on the other – a personal path of experience leading us to uncover what that structure truly is.

2. Thank you for your thoughtful remarks — each of them touches on crucial questions that the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR) takes seriously, though not always in the traditional way.

1. Distinguishing reality from unreality — Yes, TCR draws such a distinction, but not based on absolute ontological criteria (whether something “exists” in itself). Rather, it defines reality in terms of how stable and acknowledged a phenomenon is within the consensus of conscious beings. Illusions, fantasies, fictional entities — these are part of “internal realities” with limited scope, yet they can affect shared reality if they gain recognition. So something being “unreal” doesn’t mean it’s powerless — it just lacks validation in the broader network of shared experience.


2. Language and reality — I agree that naming something doesn’t make it real. TCR does not claim that a dog exists because we call it a “dog.” What it does say is that our ability to mutually recognize that something is a dog — and that we should fear it or not — is key to functioning in a social world. In other words: words don’t create beings, but they allow for shared experience of them, which gives them practical presence in our lives. And yes — if you ignore the dog, it may still bite you. TCR doesn’t deny realism — it emphasizes that operational realism is grounded in shared recognition, not just pure perception.


3. Three levels of reality — That’s an insightful classification: the physical world, the social world, and the inner world. TCR builds directly on this triad — but rather than seeing them as separate domains, it sees them as interwoven layers of one experience, each with different degrees of consensus and stability. So the aim isn’t to reduce everything to intersubjectivity, but to recognize that everything we can know involves shared meaning — even if that meaning refers to something outside or beyond us.



As for whether this is a “theory of everything” — TCR doesn’t claim to explain everything from above. It tries instead to offer a framework where different disciplines (physics, sociology, psychology, theology) can engage in dialogue using a shared conceptual language. The point is not to trap reality in a system, but to shape a structure that helps us understand it honestly, in motion.

Thanks again for the inspiration — and warm regards.

[Pattern-chaser]

3. Three levels of reality — That’s an insightful classification: the physical world, the social world, and the inner world. TCR builds directly on this triad — but rather than seeing them as separate domains, it sees them as interwoven layers of one experience, each with different degrees of consensus and stability.

Interesting. I am partial to a holistic view of things, where everything is seen as being — and is — connected to everything else. This meshes nicely with what you say here.

Just a thought...

[B0R5]

I truly value the holistic approach — in fact, it’s the perspective I hold in the highest regard. However, the idea that everything — even time itself — emerged as a result of a primordial contract between conscious beings leads me to a deeper conclusion: that only an eternal, all-knowing, and all-powerful Being could be the guardian and guarantor of such a foundational agreement.

[Good_Egg]

That sounds like TCR isn't a theory at all - it's just a focus.

So for example it doesn't deny that there is a difference between the reality of zebras and the reality of unicorns - it just focuses attention on the extent to which these concepts are part of our shared culture and can be used in communication. Or not, in the case of tribal cultures that lack these concepts.

If I've understood you right, it doesn't deny the existence of feelings that we cannot put into words. So is not metaphysics. Nor even epistemology - it does not deny that we can know that we have such a feeling in the absence of shared perception of it. It's just more interested in the social aspects (and how these influence our perception and experience).

[B0R5]

That's a very insightful interpretation — and yes, TCR is less of a traditional "theory" in the metaphysical or epistemological sense, and more of a shift in perspective. It doesn’t aim to prove that zebras are real and unicorns are not, but rather asks: how does something become real for us? What makes a concept enter the shared field of meaning and experience?

TCR does not deny private feelings or ineffable inner experiences. However, it holds that shared reality — the one we live in together — arises from consensus. That is, from what can be communicated, understood, and recognized between conscious beings.

So in that sense, TCR is primarily interested in the relational space — language, gesture, ritual, cultural memory — through which reality is stabilized and negotiated.

We don't discard metaphysics or epistemology, but we pass through relationality as the organizing principle. It's a reframing: from reality as something given, to reality as something co-constructed.

[B0R5]

What’s the difference between a theory and a focus of attention?

1. A focus of attention is a perspective — a cognitive orientation.
It’s a choice: “this is what I want to explore; this is where I place importance.”
It doesn’t have to explain, prove, or systematize anything. It’s like a lens — it helps us see the world in a certain way, but it doesn’t build a structured model of that world.

> Example: I can focus on emotions in a conversation, but that doesn’t mean I have a theory of emotions.



2. A theory, on the other hand, is an organized system of concepts and assumptions that:

explains why something is the way it is,

identifies underlying mechanisms,

allows for prediction and interpretation of phenomena,

and is open to critique, revision, and development.



---

So what is TCR in this context?

TCR begins as a focus of attention:

> “I’m interested in how reality emerges through shared conscious experience.”



But it develops into a theory because it:

formulates axioms (e.g., “reality is a dynamic consensus of conscious beings”),

builds a conceptual structure (e.g., three levels of consensus: physical, social, and inner),

explains phenomena (e.g., war as a clash of competing versions of reality),

and engages metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical questions (e.g., the nature of Truth, being, language, knowledge, and moral foundations).



---

In summary:

> A focus of attention is where thinking begins.
A theory is how that thinking is shaped, structured, and communicated.



TCR takes the initial intuition — that “reality is co-created” — and builds a philosophical framework that can engage in dialogue with other theories, traditions, and disciplines. It’s not just a point of view.
It’s a language for expressing and testing a shared world.