Talk:Consensus reality

message: "(It should be noted Alan C. Walter uses the phrase "reality enforcers" in a highly idiosyncratic way..." Who is Alan C. Walter? GangofOne 07:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (Alan C. Walter)

message: Wikipedia talk pages shouldn't be abused, but nothing wrong with livening things up a bit...  I came upon an excellent comment on slashdot.org about this type of thing:
 I offer this argument to those who state "You create your own reality." 
 I kick them in the shin. 
 Then say, "Why did you do that?"
Just thought it was funny :) - JustinWick 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't tend to hang out around the sort of people who kick me in the shins. So I guess I am smart enough to not do that. :) 87.158.66.83 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spot of humor 

message: Since I wrote the main body of text for this entry, I guess I should offer an explanation for why it lacks references.  I did not, BTW, write the paragraph that talks about Objectivists or any of the material below the Contents box.
This explanation of consensus reality reflects my own personal understanding, though informed to some extent by the various concepts I gave links to within the text.  As I hope I made clear, there is no overall agreement about what the term consensus reality refers to, and I tried my best to present the different POVs that I'm aware of without prejudice against any of them.  However, since I am merely an unpublished 'freethinker,' so to speak, I can offer no reference or validation for my definition.  In fact, my own understanding of the nature of reality is sufficiently different from mainstream thinking that I wouldn't expect it to appear in any publication.
I suppose, in a way, if there is lack of enthusiasm for this definition of consesnsus reality, then that in itself helps support my premise that one group's consensus reality might not be valid for everyone, even if that group includes 99% of the people. 
:It equally supports the idea that there is one reality and people just have different ideas about it. We can characterise varying viewpoints as different "realities" -- the question is whether we must or should.1Z 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While your contribution is, I think, interesting and valuable, Wikipedia does not allow original research. I am tagging it appropriately.Skomorokh 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Lack of References)

message: "Just as a person's personal view could be Idealist internally so can a society's view be Idealist externally and just as a persons reality can change so can a society's reality change. Is the world flat? Is it round or oval? Does the sun revolve around the earth, the center of the universe? We currently have new beliefs but are they true today? Is Pluto still a planet? Social and personal realities are in constant change and as such can never be real, the only reality is change.Change as reality"
This seems to be WK:OR, is vague, and unsuitable for an encyclopedia article as it asks questions instead of answering them.1Z 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change as reality 

message: Shouldn't the template be ? I considered changing it myself with a pithy edit summary like "that the other template was false is self-evident" but decided it's best, as a non-admin, to be careful around administrative tags like that. --Random832(tc) 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: This distinction, mentioned at http://www.hubbuboo.com/index.php/2006/06/21/human-consensus-reality/ should be included in article, but I'm not sure where.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Consensus Reality and other

message: I can't emphasize enough what a disaster this entry is. Consider just the very first sentence:
Consensus reality (rarely or mistakenly called "consensual reality")[1] is an approach to answering the question 'What is real?', a profound philosophical question, with answers dating back millennia; it is almost invariably used to refer to human consensus reality, though there have been mentions of feline and canine consensus reality.[2
1.
So-called "consensus reality" is not an "approach." Rather, that there is such a thing as CR is a theory. One might have an approach to something (e.g. answering or addressing a question) that included a reference to CR, but CR itself cannot be an approach. Compare: reality is an approach. 
2.
The sentence is a run-on
3.
We get two utterly trivial bits of fine-tuning right off the bat--the correction about 'consensual reality' and mentions of dog and cat CR. Seriously: if we're discussing "feline consensual reality," this is a sign that the entry in question belongs in Uncyclopedia or somesuch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Knorpp (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Dump It: A Look at Section 1 

message: The confusion at the core of this article is due to the fact that the phrase is used with different meanings by different people, and  no proper effort has been made to nail down the different senses of the phrase. Some seem to think that human agreement on what is real somehow "creates" reality, or underpins it; others (including myself) consider this a preposterous idea, promulgated by the wishful thinking of folks who want to live in Matrixland, or readers of such volumes of self-help fantasy as "The Secret." 
However much I may deprecate that concept, it is, nevertheless, one of the common ways people use the phrase, and should be covered in the article. 
Others, however, would regard people who use the phrase in this way as mistaken; they would say that "consensus reality" is not reality at all, but is the culturally-accepted map of what is deemed real (often including the decidedly unreal, like the geocentric astronomical model), subject to change as culture changes, whether through geographical exploration, scientific method, or religious conversion [and lapse]. In this sense, "consensual reality" is neither an "approach" nor mere theory; its existence is easily demonstrated in the comparison of cultures, or shifting convictions within a single culture.
The basic work of defining the concept needs doing, first of all. Perhaps nominating the article for deletion will motivate people to do the work required. Bustter (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  core confusion 

message: DELETED:
(rarely or mistakenly called "consensual reality")
and the absurd citation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqb_DyRzdy4
The phrase "consensual reality" is not so very rare nor is it demonstrably mistaken, and the cite offers support of nothing. 
This does little to rescue the horrendous opening graf, but it's a start. Bustter (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  parenthetical remark, absurd citation 

message: I kind of liked the dog and cat remarks, regardless of the necessity for omission from the beginning.  Its a simplistic yet prime example of a human consensual reality that denies animals (or even insects) the same rights as humans.  As Reality would have it, all beings created evil (equal i mean), never denied from the competition for dominance, but really simply survival for most, but certainly not perceived dominance through ignorance.  Excluding animals is a prime example of the consensual "racism" or is it "species-ism" of humans, or humanism, which has its place between cultures of humans or countries but little else.  The fundamental problem with culture is their all too willingness to accept the consensual realities presented on television, that are little more than marketing tactics enforcing a maladaptive way of life for someone else's profit... forcing what would be perceived as good for the whole, on everyone, regardless of its actual necessity, supposed benefit or not... while ignoring all harm... something like the groove on a record being defined as the only music possible, and forcing everyone to listen to it, and then, a few people puke that everyone is just nodding along mindlessly (tangent: heaven forbid blow something up), and this concept is born, or at least very real, along with a lot of resistance that reality gets classified as unrealistic in spite of existing.  The purpose of the term is to seek a better understanding of actual reality by providing a means to distinguish between popular belief and the pursuit of actual knowledge or ultimate consequence of action.  It is unfortunately a catch all insult, because almost anything can be dissected as simply an ignorance of conformity (ie: acceptance of a consensual reality AS Reality, a very basic sin, to toss "accepted truths" around like a manipulative toolkit).  One example is that the economy is actually important to our future being enforced as a consensual reality, when meanwhile there are economies of waste, and economies of pollution, of questionable ultimate value to survival of humans'ism or life at all.  It's arguable that these simple displays of dominance of humanity (ie: making a lot of "noise", or consequence) are accepted as real or actual power.  -SaLa(vb)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.144 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The feline example 

message: Name a problem, this page has got it. It *appears* to be reffed, in the sense of being sprinkled with little numbers, but ha;f the refs are to very non-notable personal; websites and the rest are to solid works by notable authors that aren't actually about Consenus Reality in any sense that would pass muster (ie it is WP:SYN to say that they are). 1Z (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing notability, synthesis, OR...

message: Can someone rewrite this article. Pref. someone who understands what the hell the author was trying to say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.130.10 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite plx 

message: I don't understand how a heading could need one, let alone two, cite tags.  There's no claim being made, therefore there's nothing to need a citation for.  I'm going to remove the tags on the heading now, and if there's a good reason to change it back, let me know on my talk page.  --Tathar (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of "citation needed" 

message: While I'm the last to defend any popular consensus as granting a legitimate claim to truth, I also know from direct personal experience that this page will never really know peace. I am starting a page on my Wikia titled (badly?) "Social Epistemology", and it would seem that the subject is likely to include the issues raised here (and others as well). The problem with this page is that it almost directly addresses the problem of how knowledge, completely true or completely bogus, must first originate with an individual before it can ever be critiqued by a larger body of persons, or society at large. 
I've previously pointed out that historically, the Original Research of various persons now form a part of the lore of our modern society, sometimes as an examination of people who were well out of their depth in just about every way possible, to those who were wrong for all the right reasons, those who were right for all the wrong reasons, and those who were right at the time, but everybody since has forgotten the expiration date and attendant caveats. To cite one example, Freud was trained in Medicine, failed to be able to hypnotize his patients as many of his contemporaries were wont to do, and improvised a method of verbal association to make up the difference. In other words, other than in the field of Medicine, Freud was a third-rate hack. The value of the field could only have gone up, as it could not have descended any lower. 
Consensus reality can also address institutions' Monopoly on violence, and the ability to demand that individuals must act according to a knowledge that is politically or ideologically convenient to various established interests, rather than the knowledge that is plainly available to any conscious person of the time. 
In short, consensus reality is social rather than personal, linguistic rather than experiential, and a muddied average of the many different beliefs of a culture and society. If I remind you here of Arrows' Theorem, you get just the barest idea of how unlikely it is that CR is to be internally consistent, coherent, etc. in any way but that the more intelligent people in such an august body overwhelmingly agree to ignore CR however they like, keeping only the parts that do in fact seem rational and factual. Now excuse me while I go ride my unicorn. P:D -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page is Troll Bait P:D 

message: Why is this article separate from argumentum ad populum? Doesn't it deal with exactly the same phenomenon? At the very least there should be a mention of the argument from popularity in this article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While there may indeed be a need for a link between the two pages, this page highlights that some socially preferred intellectual positions are protected from criticism, reality-testing, and being overturned, which goes far beyond the nature of AAP. We could also refer here to Argumentum ad baculum, but that's just another reference to methodology. I think the bigger question being asked here is "Why, and what are we to do about it?" --TheLastWordSword (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argumentum ad populum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Consensus reality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928103508/https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=659 to https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=659
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest moving this page to Consensual Reality as "consensual" is the adjective form, therefore making it easier to read and comprehend. Thank you. --Ciphers (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Consensual" has a very different meaning from "consensus". "Consensual" refers to permission for a mutual activity (such as two people having sex). "Consensus" refers to a large group of people agreeing that something is true (as used here). This article title is not at all confusing to people who speak English fluently. Your proposed change would make it confusing. Magic9Ball (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree, "consensual" implies that the understanding of "reality" is wanted and preferred, whereas this page is entirely about the opposite proposition. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move Proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Consensus reality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407043059/http://dali.uffs.net/ascii/napsali/1990eyer.html to http://dali.uffs.net/ascii/napsali/1990eyer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625161444/http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/papciak.html to http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/papciak.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Am I right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.197.4 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Wikipedia's principles from the very beginning were founded on the understanding that describing so-called objective reality is an unfeasible goal and that consensus reality is the best we can do. MarshallKe (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia = Consensus reality 

message: Is Consensus Reality adequately explained by Lifeworld page? 
:"In whatever way we may be conscious of the world as universal horizon, as coherent universe of existing objects, we, each "I-the-man" and all of us together, belong to the world as living with one another in the world; and the world is our world, valid for our consciousness as existing precisely through this 'living together.' We, as living in wakeful world-consciousness, are constantly active on the basis of our passive having of the world... Obviously this is true not only for me, the individual ego; rather we, in living together, have the world pre-given in this together, belong, the world as world for all, pre-given with this ontic meaning... The we-subjectivity... [is] constantly functioning." Edmund Husserl
Obsteve (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifeworld