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

[B0R5]

Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful response — I’ve learned a lot from it, and I feel we are approaching some key points that I’ve been trying to articulate and clarify within myself for some time.

I’m gradually coming to terms with the fact that my theory — which I call the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR) — cannot be fully proven in the strict scientific sense. Too many of its foundations touch on the very roots of our cognition and the way we create models of reality, which makes it impossible to fully capture within the empirical-scientific framework that itself is just another model.

Still, I don’t intend to stop exploring and developing it, because I have a strong intuition that this kind of model — seeing reality as a dynamic, multi-layered consensus among conscious beings — better reflects the true nature of what we actually experience and what the "world" really is. I also have the sense that if we begin to see reality in this way, we might start treating it with greater responsibility: as something we are co-creating and for which we share accountability, while also learning to make wiser use of its benefits without falling into mere exploitation.

And if, in doing so, this consensual model brings us even a little closer to the true image of absolute reality — the reality that exists beyond all our models and perceptions — then we gain twice over: both practically and ontologically.

So I find myself at a point where I’m less concerned with “proof” and more interested in developing a coherent, meaningful, and responsible model that helps people better understand themselves, each other, and the world. And I have the intuition that this is a path worth walking.

[Good_Egg]

''Core Idea: Naive realism posits that what we experience is a faithful and unmediated representation of reality. When we see a red apple, for example, the redness we experience is the actual redness of the apple, not a mental representation of it''.  - Google AI] 

But contemporary science suggests the redness of the apple is constructed in our brains.  And its opaque solidity is too.  And when I hold that apple closer to my eyes, does it get physically bigger, so it becomes bigger than the tree it fell from a moment ago?    Third person  observers would say no.  (See 'Russell's Table').

The scientific consensus relies on third person inter-subjective falsification like this, for creating a shared ontological model of the observable and measurable (physical) world. 

Yes, we depend on intersubjective falsification to distinguish what is objectively there from what our minds might subjectively imagine. And to some extent it works.

I may not see the apple as exactly the same shade of red as you do. But if there's one red apple in a bowl of green ones, there will be a consensus as to which is the odd one out.

Noting that "consensus" does not mean 100% agreement. There may be damaged individuals who cannot perceive the colour difference. There may be people from cultures that have no word for the difference, and/or who do not attach significance to the difference.

Google's idea of Naive Realism is a bit of a straw man- a concept that may be useful as an extreme example but not what people actually believe.

Slightly-Less-Naive Realists would say that if the consensus perceives a physical object then there is a real physical object there to be perceived. Accepting that we perceive it through the filters of our biological limitations and our cultural frameworks. But whilst filters may obscure and distort, they do not create.

So the process by which individuals develop a shared culture which then filters their perceptions is real, and I would encourage BOR5 to think about and study this. Without ever confusing such a shared consensus with objective physical reality.

However, when it comes to the non-physical realm, it's perhaps a different story. On another thread I'm encountering a quasi-religious conviction that certain groups of people are the victims of prejudice. Those who believe such a narrative can apparently "see" prejudice where others would say that none exists.

But that's a non-literal sense of "perceive", where people infer mental phenomena from what their biological senses tell them (e.g. about words used, tone of voice, body language etc.) and infer explanations for statistical facts.

[popeye1945]

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.

Welcome BORS!  Interesting project you've taken on. And I appreciate your openness to critique

It assumes that what we consider “real” emerges from a kind of ongoing consensus between conscious beings — not just socially, but ontologically.

I'd say this isn't that controversial.  Tho Naive Realists would disagree. [ ''Core Idea: Naive realism posits that what we experience is a faithful and unmediated representation of reality. When we see a red apple, for example, the redness we experience is the actual redness of the apple, not a mental representation of it''.  - Google AI] 


But contemporary science suggests the redness of the apple is constructed in our brains.  And its opaque solidity is too.  And when I hold that apple closer to my eyes, does it get physically bigger, so it becomes bigger than the tree it fell from a moment ago?    Third person  observers would say no.  (See 'Russell's Table').


The scientific consensus relies onthird person inter-subjective falsification like this, for creating a shared ontological model of the observable and measurable (physical) world.  And extrapolates inter-subjectively testable theories about how the physical world works from such observations.  


Note the types of language science uses of 'models' 'accounts', 'hypotheses' and 'theories' -  this is appropriate imo.  Because if we accept that :


1.  Humans create experiential models of their interactions with ontological reality, and


2.  Humans are flawed and limited observers, then


we can't rely on the accuracy of our shared model as a true representation of ontological reality.  We simply might not have the perceptual and cognitive toolkit to overcome our inherent human flaws and limitations.  Evolution theory prioritising utility backs up this framing imo.


I'd personally go a step further, and suggest that our notions of Reason, Logic and Causality are themselves part of our models (rooted in how we flawed and limited humans observe the world to work).  And therefore, while they are useful in creating an internally  coherent and useful model, they  are similarly unreliable  in testing our models against ontological reality. (QM, as a new framing of resolution as to the nature of the stuff of the world and how it works, is posing a challenge to such notions)

So if our shared observation of the stuff of the world, and also how it works, are models - how far off is our shared model of ontological reality from the real thing? 

Barring our ability to step outside of our tools of perception and thought and gain an omniscient 'god's eye view' of reality, I don't think we have the toolkit to assess that.  But we can continue to create ever more incredibly detailed and coherent shared models - which work.  For some, that's strong evidence that we're close to the truth, and just have to fill in some anomalies.   I remain open minded on that.  And I don't believe we're in a position to be dogmatic on questions which seem to lie beyond our human toolkit to grasp.  


As for 'social' and 'psychological' models - I think we're more open to seeing the subjective experiential factors at play there.   

I am convinced that apparent reality is a biological readout, but I think it should be understood that biology is imperfect, and so is that which biology is trying to interpret, so even apparent reality is an entangling of models of imperfection that give us apparent reality. Alter biology and you alter apparent reality. In this imperfect world and cosmos, the imperfections which are to entangle themselves to produce a subjective reality are an infinite trial and error. Apparent reality must always be relative to the nature of biology in its imperfections and relative to the survival and well-being of its standardized duration of imperfection. There must be some steady state between the imperfections of both subject and object and a spill off of the unsensed, that which perhaps is irrelevant to the well-being of a biological subject.

[B0R5]

That’s precisely where the joy lies. If reality were perfect and complete, there would be no room left for experience. Perfection is a final state — and we are called to movement, to searching, to endless becoming.

The essence of existence is not to catch the rabbit, but to chase it — with joy, curiosity, and the awareness that it is the journey itself that shapes and transforms us.

Our biological imperfections, our cultural filters, our cognitive limitations — these are not flaws, but the very conditions that make the adventure of life possible. Without them, there would be no consensus, no meaning, nothing to discover. The genius of creation reveals itself in this: reality is imperfect not by mistake, but out of love for the process.

[popeye1945]

That’s precisely where the joy lies. If reality were perfect and complete, there would be no room left for experience. Perfection is a final state, and we are called to movement, to searching, to endless becoming.

Yes, if perfection were possible, life and its evolutionary development would not be.


The essence of existence is not to catch the rabbit, but to chase it — with joy, curiosity, and the awareness that it is the journey itself that shapes and transforms us. [/ quote]

LOL!! Under all this **** there has to be a pony. Your attempted projection, I must admit, is the healthier one.

Our biological imperfections, our cultural filters, our cognitive limitations — these are not flaws, but the very conditions that make the adventure of life possible. Without them, there would be no consensus, no meaning, nothing to discover. The genius of creation reveals itself in this: reality is imperfect not by mistake, but out of love for the process.
[/quote]

There would be meaning as long as there is life, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. You're quite right, imperfection was not a mistake; that would imply intent by someone or something. Your intention here is to produce something uplifting; you need to be aware of that. I am afraid I am more pessimistic but wish you success.

[B0R5]

Thank you—this is beautifully put. I agree: as long as there is life, there is meaning, because life itself is the measure of all things.

As for intention—I see it not as a rigid plan imposed from above, but as a kind of primordial generosity, a letting-be, where imperfection is not an error but the very ground of freedom, relationship, and growth.

I appreciate your honesty and your realism. Perhaps our perspectives differ, but I’m convinced that even in imperfection, or perhaps especially in it, there is a spark worth following. Thank you for the good wishes—I send the same to you.

[Gertie]

B0R5

Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful response — I’ve learned a lot from it, and I feel we are approaching some key points that I’ve been trying to articulate and clarify within myself for some time.
I’m gradually coming to terms with the fact that my theory — which I call the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR) — cannot be fully proven in the strict scientific sense.

Yes I tend to agree with you there. But many people consider it compelling that the scientific physicalist model has such unimaginable breadth and depth of detail which all coheres around a few simple fundamental premises, along with the fact that it can make testable predicttions. And fair enough, that implies accuracy in the ways we can test. I'd say at the very least that the scientific model is latching on to something true about the nature of ontological reality. Tho notably the science of consciousness (our epistemological toolkit, how we know anything) has very little to say. Conscious experience isn't third person observable/measurable in the ways the scientific method requires for third person falsifiability.

Too many of its foundations touch on the very roots of our cognition and the way we create models of reality, which makes it impossible to fully capture within the empirical-scientific framework that itself is just another model.

Still, I don’t intend to stop exploring and developing it, because I have a strong intuition that this kind of model — seeing reality as a dynamic, multi-layered consensus among conscious beings — better reflects the true nature of what we actually experience and what the "world" really is. I also have the sense that if we begin to see reality in this way, we might start treating it with greater responsibility: as something we are co-creating and for which we share accountability, while also learning to make wiser use of its benefits without falling into mere exploitation.

I can see the value in that, as long as you're clear about your untestable assumptions. Of course in a world where even red apples are ultimately unknowable, it's hard to find a solid basis for framing sociological and psychological issues like 'responsibility' I think.

But I'd say you're onto something when you talk about the other aspects of conscious experience like Meaning , Value, Purpose and Mattering. These are what being a living, experiencing being is all about.

You could invoke some external or teleological factor like 'God' as the source of such important aspects of being human (or conscious entities generally), and that would be a major assumption. Or you could simply say we don't know, or even need to identify a source, because that doesn't diminish their importance. Whether it's God-given, evolved or whatever. Regardless, it still Matters that we take care of ourselves and each other, that we encourage thriving rather than harm. Precisely because these things are Meaningful to conscious experiencing critters like us.

And if, in doing so, this consensual model brings us even a little closer to the true image of absolute reality — the reality that exists beyond all our models and perceptions — then we gain twice over: both practically and ontologically.

So I find myself at a point where I’m less concerned with “proof” and more interested in developing a coherent, meaningful, and responsible model that helps people better understand themselves, each other, and the world. And I have the intuition that this is a path worth walking.

It's easy to fall into lazy cynicism and nihilism when we look at the state of the world - so hats off to you.

[B0R5]

Thank you — I completely agree. For me, the ideal situation would actually be to find a scientific justification for the core ideas of this concept. That’s one of the reasons why I’m planning to pursue a Master’s degree in philosophy: to deepen this exploration in a rigorous, structured way, and to see how far these intuitions can be refined or even grounded scientifically.

That said, after the debate I sparked here, I already feel so fulfilled by the exchange itself — by the simple fact that such topics can be discussed thoughtfully and respectfully in an academic spirit — that I think it’s worth pursuing this path even for its own sake, regardless of whether it leads to definitive “proof.”

[Gertie]

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.

Welcome BORS!  Interesting project you've taken on. And I appreciate your openness to critique

It assumes that what we consider “real” emerges from a kind of ongoing consensus between conscious beings — not just socially, but ontologically.

I'd say this isn't that controversial.  Tho Naive Realists would disagree. [ ''Core Idea: Naive realism posits that what we experience is a faithful and unmediated representation of reality. When we see a red apple, for example, the redness we experience is the actual redness of the apple, not a mental representation of it''.  - Google AI] 


But contemporary science suggests the redness of the apple is constructed in our brains.  And its opaque solidity is too.  And when I hold that apple closer to my eyes, does it get physically bigger, so it becomes bigger than the tree it fell from a moment ago?    Third person  observers would say no.  (See 'Russell's Table').


The scientific consensus relies onthird person inter-subjective falsification like this, for creating a shared ontological model of the observable and measurable (physical) world.  And extrapolates inter-subjectively testable theories about how the physical world works from such observations.  


Note the types of language science uses of 'models' 'accounts', 'hypotheses' and 'theories' -  this is appropriate imo.  Because if we accept that :


1.  Humans create experiential models of their interactions with ontological reality, and


2.  Humans are flawed and limited observers, then


we can't rely on the accuracy of our shared model as a true representation of ontological reality.  We simply might not have the perceptual and cognitive toolkit to overcome our inherent human flaws and limitations.  Evolution theory prioritising utility backs up this framing imo.


I'd personally go a step further, and suggest that our notions of Reason, Logic and Causality are themselves part of our models (rooted in how we flawed and limited humans observe the world to work).  And therefore, while they are useful in creating an internally  coherent and useful model, they  are similarly unreliable  in testing our models against ontological reality. (QM, as a new framing of resolution as to the nature of the stuff of the world and how it works, is posing a challenge to such notions)

So if our shared observation of the stuff of the world, and also how it works, are models - how far off is our shared model of ontological reality from the real thing? 

Barring our ability to step outside of our tools of perception and thought and gain an omniscient 'god's eye view' of reality, I don't think we have the toolkit to assess that.  But we can continue to create ever more incredibly detailed and coherent shared models - which work.  For some, that's strong evidence that we're close to the truth, and just have to fill in some anomalies.   I remain open minded on that.  And I don't believe we're in a position to be dogmatic on questions which seem to lie beyond our human toolkit to grasp.  


As for 'social' and 'psychological' models - I think we're more open to seeing the subjective experiential factors at play there.   

I am convinced that apparent reality is a biological readout, but I think it should be understood that biology is imperfect, and so is that which biology is trying to interpret, so even apparent reality is an entangling of models of imperfection that give us apparent reality. Alter biology and you alter apparent reality. In this imperfect world and cosmos, the imperfections which are to entangle themselves to produce a subjective reality are an infinite trial and error. Apparent reality must always be relative to the nature of biology in its imperfections and relative to the survival and well-being of its standardized duration of imperfection. There must be some steady state between the imperfections of both subject and object and a spill off of the unsensed, that which perhaps is irrelevant to the well-being of a biological subject.

Yes I agree this is about as good as we can get at coming up with a persuasive Physicalist account of ontological reality, based on our current understanding. What we consciously experience is a representation/model of the interaction between subject and object.

And our internal narrative linguistic voice which we use to Reason with and continually adjust our model to maintain useful intelligible coherence, uses the 'grammar of physics'.

Subject (I) ---> Verb (see) ---> Object (the apple)

[popeye1945]

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.

Welcome BORS!  Interesting project you've taken on. And I appreciate your openness to critique

It assumes that what we consider “real” emerges from a kind of ongoing consensus between conscious beings — not just socially, but ontologically.

I'd say this isn't that controversial.  Tho Naive Realists would disagree. [ ''Core Idea: Naive realism posits that what we experience is a faithful and unmediated representation of reality. When we see a red apple, for example, the redness we experience is the actual redness of the apple, not a mental representation of it''.  - Google AI] 


But contemporary science suggests the redness of the apple is constructed in our brains.  And its opaque solidity is too.  And when I hold that apple closer to my eyes, does it get physically bigger, so it becomes bigger than the tree it fell from a moment ago?    Third person  observers would say no.  (See 'Russell's Table').


The scientific consensus relies onthird person inter-subjective falsification like this, for creating a shared ontological model of the observable and measurable (physical) world.  And extrapolates inter-subjectively testable theories about how the physical world works from such observations.  


Note the types of language science uses of 'models' 'accounts', 'hypotheses' and 'theories' -  this is appropriate imo.  Because if we accept that :


1.  Humans create experiential models of their interactions with ontological reality, and


2.  Humans are flawed and limited observers, then


we can't rely on the accuracy of our shared model as a true representation of ontological reality.  We simply might not have the perceptual and cognitive toolkit to overcome our inherent human flaws and limitations.  Evolution theory prioritising utility backs up this framing imo.


I'd personally go a step further, and suggest that our notions of Reason, Logic and Causality are themselves part of our models (rooted in how we flawed and limited humans observe the world to work).  And therefore, while they are useful in creating an internally  coherent and useful model, they  are similarly unreliable  in testing our models against ontological reality. (QM, as a new framing of resolution as to the nature of the stuff of the world and how it works, is posing a challenge to such notions)

So if our shared observation of the stuff of the world, and also how it works, are models - how far off is our shared model of ontological reality from the real thing? 

Barring our ability to step outside of our tools of perception and thought and gain an omniscient 'god's eye view' of reality, I don't think we have the toolkit to assess that.  But we can continue to create ever more incredibly detailed and coherent shared models - which work.  For some, that's strong evidence that we're close to the truth, and just have to fill in some anomalies.   I remain open minded on that.  And I don't believe we're in a position to be dogmatic on questions which seem to lie beyond our human toolkit to grasp.  


As for 'social' and 'psychological' models - I think we're more open to seeing the subjective experiential factors at play there.   

I am convinced that apparent reality is a biological readout, but I think it should be understood that biology is imperfect, and so is that which biology is trying to interpret, so even apparent reality is an entangling of models of imperfection that give us apparent reality. Alter biology and you alter apparent reality. In this imperfect world and cosmos, the imperfections which are to entangle themselves to produce a subjective reality are an infinite trial and error. Apparent reality must always be relative to the nature of biology in its imperfections and relative to the survival and well-being of its standardized duration of imperfection. There must be some steady state between the imperfections of both subject and object and a spill off of the unsensed, that which perhaps is irrelevant to the well-being of a biological subject.

Yes I agree this is about as good as we can get at coming up with a persuasive Physicalist account of ontological reality, based on our current understanding. What we consciously experience is a representation/model of the interaction between subject and object.

And our internal narrative linguistic voice which we use to Reason with and continually adjust our model to maintain useful intelligible coherence, uses the 'grammar of physics'.

Subject (I) ---> Verb (see) ---> Object (the apple)

Object, verb, subject-- apparent reality. All being is cause to the being of all other things.

[B0R5]

I’d like to propose a slightly new perspective on the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR) that has emerged for me in recent reflections. It’s not a departure from its foundations but rather an attempt to clarify and deepen its meaning. I’m happy to offer this for shared discussion and further development.

Consensus is not meant to establish truth
Consensus—meaning the shared agreement on what reality is—did not come into being in order to discover absolute truth.
Its purpose is not to serve as a “true image” of reality.
Rather, consensus functions more like an interface or an operating environment that allows different beings to coexist and to experience anything at all.

The function of consensus is to create space for experience
If we assume that beings (e.g., souls, consciousnesses) have a need for existence and for learning, then they need a stable framework within which they can do so.
Consensual reality is precisely this agreed-upon ground on which beings can experience, learn, grow, and create meaning.

The highest aim of consensus is to evolve toward a state without harmful experiences
The idea is that reality should evolve toward harmony—a situation where no experience is unnecessarily painful, damaging, or senseless.
In other words: the goal is not merely survival or playful experimentation with experience, but a conscious and collective striving toward the fullness of goodness, beauty, and meaning. This is the axiological horizon of TCR.

Truth is not the product of consensus—truth is its source
This is an essential reversal:
Truth (understood as God’s design, the order of being, the primordial meaning) was not created by consensus.
It is Truth that created Consensus—because only Truth was coherent and meaningful enough to make the existence of any reality possible.
In other words: Consensus is a reflection of Truth, but over time—through various choices, tensions, and contradictions—that reflection may have become distorted and drifted away from the original pattern.

Practical conclusion
If we want to rebuild a world closer to Truth, we must:

Consciously participate in the consensus (not take it as something fixed or given once and for all).

Strive to minimize suffering and misunderstanding.

Seek meaning that transcends language and local narratives.

[Good_Egg]

Consensus is not meant to establish truth
Consensus—meaning the shared agreement on what reality is—did not come into being in order to discover absolute truth.
Its purpose is not to serve as a “true image” of reality.
Rather, consensus functions more like an interface or an operating environment that allows different beings to coexist and to experience anything at all.

The function of consensus is to create space for experience
If we assume that beings (e.g., souls, consciousnesses) have a need for existence and for learning, then they need a stable framework within which they can do so.
Consensual reality is precisely this agreed-upon ground on which beings can experience, learn, grow, and create meaning.

The highest aim of consensus is to evolve toward a state without harmful experiences
The idea is that reality should evolve toward harmony—a situation where no experience is unnecessarily painful, damaging, or senseless.
In other words: the goal is not merely survival or playful experimentation with experience, but a conscious and collective striving toward the fullness of goodness, beauty, and meaning.

You're talking about Intent (expressed as purpose, aim, goal, etc).

Only a mind can intend anything.

So it would clarify your meaning if you could spell out who intends. Rather than using the passive voice "the purpose of X is Y" and leaving us to guess whose purpose you mean. Whose mind intends Y and brings about X with that intent ?

Nothing wrong with believing in a creator God and speculating as to what His intention in creating the universe might have been.

Or in making claims about what humans characteristically do.

But a consensus is not a mind.

In other words: Consensus is a reflection of Truth, but over time—through various choices, tensions, and contradictions—that reflection may have become distorted and drifted away from the original pattern.

Humans' ability to arrive at truth by consensus could conceivably increase over time. The scientific method is an example - the more minds that experimentally verify some proposition within different cultural contexts, the more likely that proposition is to express an underlying truth. Is that not the logic ?

But you seem to be suggesting the opposite. That in some primordial Eden the consensus of the human tribe was an accurate perception of reality, from which we have somehow fallen away.

It's not obvious that this is a reasonable axiom...