So gnu you are saying that everything subjective is in the consensus category? So why did you posit a new seperate category. I would have just said that when it comes to subjective things, there are some things where there seems to be more agreement, compared to other things, and some where there is almost 100% agreement. The reasons for this may be genetic or cultural/learned. Why did you feel the need to posit a new category. And if you still want 3 categories, how do you decide what goes into each category. It seems to be a continuous variable, so it would need an arbitrary cut off point at which we would call something consensus reality rather than subjective reality. Why would this be useful?
It wouldn't, prof, but there is no arbitrary cut-off between consensus and subjective reality, it's clearly defined...
And the model itself is
useful, because one can use it as a measuring instrument to make true statements concerning the relative beauty of everyone on the planet accurate to 9th decimal place, whenever you like.
(Only theoretically, of course; in practice it'd be a bit difficult to measure everyone, but it could be done.)
I'm sorry, Prof, I'm still obviously being unclear. I've defined with precision the boundaries between the categories I'm using. (
EDIT - Whoops, no, I didn't - see correction below)
As I said :
subjective ........................: one observer
inter-subjective/consensus ..: all observers (of a given selection)
objective .........................: no observers
the consensus category therefore ranges from 2 people to 6 billion - any particular reading of the instrument will apply only to the sample selected.
So, the numbers are 1, anywhere between 2 and 6 billion, and zero, ok ?
(
EDIT - I need to make a correction here - yesterday I claimed that one person might constitute a consensus experience, on the grounds that they can observe themselves. They can observe themselves, yes, but this still isn't someone elses's experience. Agreement with oneself, yes, but not with anyone else. So still subjective, not consensus. So the minimum requirement is two, not one. Apologies).
And the fact that one can by choice vary the sample between 2 and 6 billion gives the instrument extreme sensitivity. The higher the sample, the more accurate the reading.
The instrument is calibrated usings SE's - Subjective Experiences. The SE is the unit of currency of the consensus experience. More SE's, more valuable CE.
The starting point for everybody is our subjective experience, which no-one else can experience.
As Flim-Flam said, most people at this point make the assumption that other people do actually experience things the same way they do, and therefore
shared experiences become a possibility. (Not 100%, not identical experiences, but enough to be meaningful).
As it's a bit depressing to imagine that you're a brain in a jar, isn't it ?
So, when Edith and I laugh at a comedian, or cry during a film, we assume that we're both alive, we're both having similar experiences, and we both agree that the comedian is funny, and the film is sad. It then becomes a
shared experience.
Imagine that I take a single reading on the instrument - maybe that will help explain.
The instrument consists of a photo of AJ and Edith, and a counter for each of them.
I start with me. I look at each photo, and I experience beauty in each case.
I add one to each counter.
I show the photo of AJ to Edith. I ask her if she experiences beauty when she looks at it. She says she does.
Immediately she says that, my subjective reality changes. My experience of looking at AJ is now altered, and indeed enhanced, by the knowledge that Edith also experiences the same feelings. It becomes a shared experience.
So, we have complete consensus in a sample of two. Edith and I both look at the photo, both experiencing beauty, and each now aware that the other is experiencing it as well .
(And we could, theoretically, use all kinds of other measuring instruments to confirm that the physiological changes associated with the experience of beauty are indeed taking place).
I add another 1 to AJ's total.
I then ask Edith if she considers herself to be beautiful, which she does, so I add 1 to her total. 2-2.
At this point, the counter says that AJ and Edith both have qualities capable of eliciting the experience of beauty, both with 100% success in the sample selected.
Edith wants to claim that she must be as beatiful as Angelina, on the evidence of the instrument, but (rather ungallantly) I insist on increasing the sample size for a more accurate reading.
Armed with my two photos and my counter , I pop outside and ask all the other people in the world if they experience beauty when they look at AJ or Edith, adding one to each total for each positive response.
With each additional response in favour of AJ, the consensus reality that, in short-hand, "AJ is more beautiful than Mrs O", becomes wider and therefore more meaningful.
So I ask everyone, thus concluding the first part of my measurement, and I examine the counter, which now reads :
AJ : 4,840,682,884
EO: 2
Which, if you knew what Edith looked like, would accord with common-sense.
Without needing to specify the exact qualities involved, we can now state as certainly as we can (because we've used the maximum sample) that "AJ possesses certain physical visual qualities which elicit the experience of beauty
more than the physical visual qualities of Edith do, in a ratio of 2,420,341,442 to 1".
(By the way, I'm ignoring a irrelevent variable in this argument, as I'm pretending that the beauty experience is either on or off, when obviously there's a spectrum, and one could have the experience of " she's a bit beautiful", or "quite beautiful", and so on).
I go home, have a quick cup of tea, replace the photo of AJ with one of Sharon Stone, and repeat the process. Assume no-one changes their mind about Mrs O, I might get a ratio of 2,023,871,034 : 2, accurately reflecting the fact that Sharon is older than AJ, and the fact that youth is an important variable in the perception/experience of female beauty (Sorry. Men are superficial. I don't make the rules).
Repeat process for all women.
I've just realized that I don't need to take two photos each time, as I'm not asking people to make a comparison between the photos; sorry if that was confusing.
By taking two, one of which is always Edith, I'm using Edith as a standard. But it's not necessary for the measurement, I could take Sharon's photo alone and get the same result.
The end result is a list of all the women in the world with a number next to their name, which could be arranged in ascending order, and subjected to other statistical analyses.
That's a single measurement of the instrument, professor, using the maximum sample size.
It's valid for the moment it was taken.
Let's say we wait a month, and take another measurement; the results/scores will be different, accurately reflecting the fact that over time, the physical qualities of women change, reducing the number of times they elicit the experience of beauty.
Beauty fades, in short-hand.
Let's say we re-measure AJ at 20 year intervals; I predict her scores would decline with each measurement, until eventually, when she is 114, only her loving husband will experience her as beautiful....
Just like Edith and me.
And so only at that point will Edith be able to say that she's as beautiful as AJ.
There you go.
I hope I've answered your points (and mojo's); I still find this a coherent system, meaningful and useful, which is helpful to me in understanding life, the universe and everything, to coin a phrase.
Can I also say that I've never ever had a discussion on this topic before, either on the web or in 'real life', and it really has been very interesting. Read about it, obviously, but never discussed it.
I first came across the idea of consensus reality about 15 years ago, and more or less adopted it immediately as a working model in the format I've already described, but without formulating it precisely.
This discussion has forced me to be precise. So thanks to all.
And as I said, after everybody's questions so far, I still find this system coherent, indeed more coherent than a two-category system, subjective/objective, which produces internal contradictions such as requiring one of the definitions of 'objective' to be 'subjective', as I've pointed out.
Gnu.
