Subjective Reality

Because of the way our senses can interpret the world around us, some people may insist that this creates a subjective reality. Some people see colors as being different than what other people see, or taste the same food as having a different taste. There are many examples of this, but I will focus on the following examples re: taste.

Some people cannot tell the difference if something is sweetened with an artificial sweetener. These people will also insist that there is some sort of prior knowledge bias if someone says they can tell the difference, as well. However, in no fewer than three instances, I have received soda with artificial sweeteners where I had no reason to believe I was receiving one. All three times, obviously in restaurants, where everyone's glass looks the same and all the sodas are the same dark brownish color. In one instance, both my husband's step mother and I, receiving each other's drink by accident, noticed our drinks tasted strange. Now, does this mean reality is subjective? As some people can taste artificial sweeteners and some cannot, would that not mean that the taste of artificial sweeteners is subjective, subject to change based on the individual mind that is experiencing them?

It does not. It is in fact a concrete objective reality, wherein for all people, at all times, it is true that I, personally, can taste the difference between an artificially sweetened soda and one that is sweetened with HFCS. If this were not an objective reality, then there would exist a reality for another person where, upon tasting an artificially sweetened soda, I would not realize the difference. That person would presumably watch the same scene unfold where I am noticing something is amiss, but for them I would appear to have not noticed a thing.

It's impossible for this to be "subjective" as for everyone else around me, it is still true that I can taste artificial sweeteners. As another example, I enjoy cilantro. It does not taste like soap to me. My father, however, tastes soap when he eats something with cilantro and he dislikes it, obviously. Does this mean the taste of cilantro is subjective? No, but rather, it is simply the way we are interpreting its taste. It is true for both me and my father, as well as everyone else ever, that my father tastes soap when he eats cilantro. There is an objective reality to the compounds and make up of cilantro, and it is merely my father's senses interpreting it in a way that is different from the way mine interpret it.

Even if every piece of cilantro created a different taste for different people, this would all still be objective. It would merely depend on which pieces of cilantro made it into whose mouth, for us to clearly see who tastes what. Whatever each person tastes is an objective truth, as, for it to be subjective, it would have to be untrue that another person tastes anything a certain way, to anyone other than that person. When you say, "I don't like the way this tastes," another person does not hear you say "this tastes wonderful!" When your body interprets a taste as being disliked, another person does not somehow magically understand that you, actually, enjoy that taste. So it is perhaps arguable that what a person tastes when they eat a food is subjective, so far as "taste is subjective (due to the interpretation of the taster)", but that resulting reality of how it tastes to the taster is not a subjective reality.

Even if a person is lying about how something tastes, there is no subjective reality where the food actually tastes, to this person, the opposite of what the person has claimed. The objective reality in this case is that the person actually enjoys/does not enjoy the taste and has lied about it, and now you believe a falsehood unknowingly. This is why "subjective reality" has such a foothold on people. What people's understanding of "subjective reality" is, is merely a misunderstanding of what objective reality is. For subjective reality to be true, two people would have to be viewing a situation and that situation would have to actually perform differently to each person. What the truth is, is that one, objective thing occurs, and each person may, in their own imperfection and different perspectives, interpret the situation as having occurred differently from what objectively occurred.

If you see a bird fly from a tree and believe it was a cardinal, but it was not, there is not a subjective reality in which a cardinal really did just fly from that tree in front of you at that time on that day, but rather that another bird flew from that tree, and you, incorrectly, believed it was a cardinal. It is now true, for everyone, that you believe you saw a cardinal fly from the tree. It does not change the actual reality that it was not a cardinal. Whether anyone knows about it or not is irrelevant.

There is just as much evidence that each person's interpretation of an event literally changes reality for that person and each person is living out a different reality as there is that I, myself, am the only person who is real and everyone I see and interact with is a creation of my own interpretation and understanding of reality.

This is obviously ridiculous and the fevered dream of science fiction writers. There is no reason to believe, no evidence for the claim that reality actually changes and warps to fit each person's interpretation. Any attempt to make this claim could be equally applied to literally all hypotheses that all of existence is a simulation, or that no one is real, or that the world exists for only you, the protagonist alone, and is yours to shape and manipulate. Most of these beliefs are rightly considered sociopathic and the final conclusion of rampant narcissism and have not only no reasonable evidence, but no evidence at all.

Bonus content: A good example of objective reality.

If someone incorrectly believes they are allergic to something, is it their actual reality that they are allergic? No, because in reality, if they eat this food by accident, without knowing it, they would have no reaction. It's true they may have a reaction after learning they have eaten it while thinking they are allergic, but this is an understood scientific affect where, surprise, our own interpretation of the situation changes how we feel. It is still true that this person had a reaction after eating a food they thought they were allergic to, and it is true to all people, but the reality that they are not actually having a physical allergic reaction, but a mental one, is also true.

In the same way, you can't believe your way out of being allergic to something, regardless of how you feel about it. If you are allergic to peanuts you cannot will reality to change by believing you are not. If you want to argue that it's impossible for someone to truly convince themselves they are not actually allergic to something and they will always have that doubt, thus negating any attempts at proving this objective reality, consider that most people find out they are allergic to anything by unknowingly eating something they are allergic to with no reason to believe they are allergic. Some people even come across new allergies to foods they have always eaten, experiencing allergic reactions over and over, sometimes being unable to pinpoint the issue properly, as the idea that they are allergic to this thing simply does not register. Clearly this only applies to mild allergies, since a deadly allergy would be readily apparent after the first incident.