This is where your train of thought went wrong; you assumed the conclusion. Thoughts never can correspond to the real world because to our species the real world is composed of models and beliefs. Even if we could make such a demarcation we can not communicate it because EVERY observer hears a different message.
Although I’m sure it was not your intent, you are actually illustrating my point.
We do not consider the real world to be composed of models and beliefs, we consider the real world to consist of matter with certain properties (on the most basic and primitive level) and we form models and expectations about the material world in our mind. There is a difference. Expectations we hold with confidence we call knowledge.
We have confidence that our abstract mental representations of real things correspond to real things because our expectations are continually met. Where we get into trouble is when we try to understand things beyond the limits of our current perspective, our current ability to experience and create informed mental representations. Any real world limitation on our perspective does not place restrictions on our imagination however, and hence the need for clear demarcation between abstract thoughts and concepts that are actual corroborated abstractions that correspond to real things and events, and those that are not.
… there is a single reality.
Perfect. A point of common ground from which to build from.
All other consciousness exists within and is part of this reality.
As there is only the single reality this would be true regardless of our definition of consciousness. Your past use of this term, however, would give me some pause as to whether I know exactly what you mean when you use it.
Every single observer holds different beliefs …
This is too vague. Many can come to agreement on specific points, share the same conclusion on a specific matter. I certainly agree that every human being is subjectively unique, the culmination of a wide variety of events and experiences. I would also stress that we are imperfect creatures, each with our own unique combination of strengths and fallibilities.
Only we think and only we are each different in terms of our perceived realities.
Only who thinks? In my view, there are plenty of other species that think, though not to the level of Homo Sapiens or other, now extinct human species.
Many people today share a very similar reality called "science". Some are devout and others know the limitations of their knowledge.
Here would be an example of blurring or failing to maintain a clear demarcation between reference to the real world and references to non-real abstract constructs. We just agreed above that there is only one reality that everyone shares. Why slip into figurative and imprecise language usage? Perhaps you are instead trying to refer to an individual's subjective perception of the one shared reality. If that is so, then you seem to have a fundamental misconception as to what science is. The whole point of a scientific approach and outlook is to expressly get beyond one’s own individual subjective perceptions that can be adversely affected or influenced by a whole host of factors. To eschew or reject scientifically gained knowledge means to surrender or lose one’s self in imagination untethered to reality.
I would also stress here that having strong confidence in the scientific process does not indicate a lack of understanding or failure to appreciate the limitations inherent in the scientific process, inherent because the whole endeavor is carried out by imperfect and fallible human beings. That obstacle cannot be overcome, simply mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
I personally believe science has yet to even scratch reality.
Great. Personal opinion noted. But does it have any meaning? How can one say what remains to be known that is beyond one’s limited perspective and ability to know? The only avenue available to us is to continue to build our objective understanding incrementally, with each incremental advancement improving our perspective from which to continue to build our understanding. Simply reviewing the historical record is sufficient to provide confidence that this process is working.
When you use abstract language to think then every thought is abstract.
And as should be clear from my explanations above, we can and should differentiate between which of those abstract thoughts correspond to phenomena and events in the real world and which do not. It is also interesting to note that with the advent of written or symbolic language, we are no longer limited in the ways in which we store and transmit our abstract thoughts, this post being an example. This ability to transmit and share our thoughts is counterpoint to your implication that each of us is stuck within our own subjective reality, when in fact there is a quite robust amount of intersubjective corroboration that is continually taking place.
