> "Consensus" already has all the meaning in the phrase. If one then
> chooses to define "reality" as that which has consensus, then the
> phrase becomes an empty tautology. If "reality" has a different
> meaning, apart from consensus or any other consciousness, then it
> becomes something meaningful and interesting to look for.
"Consensus" here is a qualifier, pointing to a type of reality. Much in
the same way that "objective" and "subjective" do. No one has claimed
that "consensus" is the only way of viewing reality, quite the opposite.
If you think that ideas are only interesting if they serve as points of
debate and not points of mutual understanding, what, may I ask, do you
hope to accomplish with these "interesting" ideas? (I'm all for conflict,
but only if it is a tool to reach a new understanding)
-Prof. Tim ( not to be confused with Tad )