Theoretically, if I were to take a number of people, one at a time, to look at a tree and asked each one what they see, they would all say, "A tree." I can know this would be the result without actually taking people to look at a tree through inductive logic. For example: Based on simple observations, I can reason that most, if not all people have learned to call a tree a tree. I can therefore assume that it is highly unlikely a person, asked to look at a tree and tell me what they see, would say, "A fish!"

However, if I were to then ask each one what they mean by "A tree." I would get all kinds of different answers. I can know this through deductive logic. For example, here's a simple syllogism:

Each individual possesses a unique idiopathic nature.

This unique idiopathic nature is a filter (if you will) through which a person experiences reality.

Each individual has a different interpretation of reality.

My point is, while everyone may say "A tree." I cannot be sure what they actually mean by that. The only thing I can be sure about are words and their assigned definitions, which are just more words. If this is true, and reality really is in the "I" of the beholder, how can it even be possible for people to truly agree on anything? If it is impossible for people to truly agree on anything, what are the implications?

A great topic.

My epistemological position is that no one will agree upon the conclusions reached. What we have to understand is the inevitable subjectivity of these conclusions, and instead of trying to objectify them with our philosophy, we should target the actual source of objective universality in experience. Because the conclusions reached are so entrenched into prior histories, contextual information and most of all the big 'P' word -- Perspective -- that there is little one can do to reconcile with his own conclusions the conclusions of someone with a radically different worldview. I've found that in many debates, you must take on the perspective of your opponent as best you can in order to fully understand and therefore sufficiently oppose his argument. This rarely happens, and debates never reach a satisfying conclusion because it descends into a game of intellectual catch, and the ball being thrown is "perspective." With that said, I think people in general are too dogmatic to shift perspectives in debates, much less in everyday conversation; and in everyday life one shouldn't have to -- For the variety that comes with subjectivity is glorious, and part of what makes the world that great big exciting ball of adventure it is.

The way I see it is that the universal aspect of human experience is one of epistemological concern--that is, there is universality in the ways by which we come to know objects, but never in the objects in themselves. In debates we should shift our focus from the conclusions to the ways in which we reach conclusions. We must search for and find our humanity before we can transcend it.

The universal aspect of human experience is the form... Inside the form we relate, and agree...If you do not accept the predicate, or the rules of the form, you do not have a relationship... Having the relationship means you agree in advance to work things out...

I have no idea what you mean.

My point is, while everyone may say "A tree." I cannot be sure what they actually mean by that. The only thing I can be sure about are words and their assigned definitions, which are just more words. If this is true, and reality really is in the "I" of the beholder, how can it even be possible for people to truly agree on anything?

Reincarnation is possible. Eventually, if the universe lasts long enough, a being with your exact DNA sequence will reappear somewhere in the universe.
Perhaps, a bit more likely, the exact same neurons will fire in two people's brains at the exact time.
Thus, they have the same image of something.

Point of post: It's extremely unlikely.