Chapter 1: Understanding Truth and Language

The notion of truth serves as a cognitive link. Philosophical interpretations of truth often fall short, with concepts like the correspondence theory proving largely impractical. When we attempt to establish connections between theoretical constructs and the assumed objective reality, we face significant challenges. However, if we consider this correspondence as occurring among human minds—an area we can access through collaboration—then the dynamics shift. Words serve a purpose: they trigger specific reactions in our brain. By eliciting similar responses in different individuals, we create a type of communication that fosters a sense of interconnectedness.

The title "Words Aren't Real" is a playful nod to the humorous "birds aren’t real" movement that gained traction in recent years. I find it amusing because it highlights a crucial insight: while words exist as virtual constructs in our minds, they lack tangible references in the physical world.

The central focus of this discussion is the interaction between the words we experience and the neural activities within living organisms. It’s crucial to recognize that no two instances of higher-order processes—whether they are memories or enduring perceptions of a word—activate precisely the same neurons. Even in cases like color perception, where experiences may seem identical, distinct neurons in the primary visual cortex respond to specific elements of the visual field. Researchers categorize these direct responses as first-order processes, contrasting them with more complex, higher-order ones.

Higher-order processes can be classified into various levels. For instance, the hunger of a judge before lunchtime may be seen as a lower-order influence compared to the rational deliberation that justifies a verdict. Despite their different levels of operation, both processes are part of the same cognitive entity—one influences the other. A similar cognitive framework underlies the different processes we each experience.

A speech act represents the application of a word by a higher-order process. This is observable when it activates the subprocesses and network associated with its meaning. For the speaker, this activation occurs implicitly; for the listener, successful communication involves similar processes. Now that we grasp the basics of psycholinguistics, we can delve into the core question: What is the purpose of speech? Words, while not tangible, serve a critical function in our cognitive processes.

The way we utilize our vocabulary is fundamentally akin to how our cells generate proteins. Energy is directed toward creating functionality. Just as a cell's primary role is to produce proteins for environmental interaction, our brains generate words to facilitate communication at a much more complex level.

Consider a forest path—animals use it to reach their destinations. Over time, people might expand or improve that path, increasing its capacity and usage. Similarly, a word can emerge when someone consistently uses a specific sound to convey a concept. If this usage becomes widespread, the word can become part of a language.

Languages are complex systems to quantify. New words enter daily, yet many fall out of use, resulting in a lexicon that reflects only the most popular terms. We cannot measure a language's lexicon with precision, and ordinary speech acts are often not documented, leaving our understanding inherently incomplete.

The paths that words create for us are not real; they are better thought of as recipes for our conscious processes to convey information. For example, if I describe a street to someone on the phone who has never seen it, much of the context is lost. However, when speaking to someone beside me, the shared experience enhances communication, allowing for a richer exchange of information.

If you've ever felt that a photo fails to capture a breathtaking view, you understand the limitations of our devices in conveying full experiences. Fortunately, modern technology allows us to store many images, and our memories can be triggered by them, enabling personal recall that was previously inaccessible.

Yet, words do much more than evoke memories or describe visuals. Science itself is a construct of language, a written dialogue spanning thousands of years. Similarly, philosophy and religion have deep verbal roots. The emergence of such intricate verbal systems profoundly shapes our lived experiences.

Modern theorists increasingly recognize the nuances of this relationship. Cognitive neuroscience supports computational functionalism, suggesting that mental states are computationally determined. This insight is significant, as neuroimaging reveals that distinct neurons activate even when the same process is repeated. For speech acts, this means different neurons respond each time we process a specific word. This variability occurs because neuron activation relates to the chosen word, its context, and the individual interpreting or producing the speech.

While I do not claim to fully understand this process, my goal is to continue exploring until I gain deeper insight. It seems that one way consciousness can influence neuron states associated with specific words is through verbalization, activating the word and its related processes. If computational functionalism holds true, this could function as a query system that our consciousness employs to retrieve and store information.

But the question remains: Why does this matter?

Cognitive control pertains to intentionally guiding thoughts. More broadly, it represents the interplay between a mental model and an external system. Thoughts and feedback from the environment create a closed system with both real and virtual attributes, consisting of unique physical sequences of events within and outside the conscious organism.

I suspect there’s a way to articulate neural processes using the mathematics and logic of cybernetics. For instance, reward prediction error might be seen as a breakdown of a virtual control unit that our brain constructs to represent environmental entities and predict their future behaviors. However, I must focus on my PhD and the development of PageDAO, so this concept remains a work in progress.

In summary, we feel secure to the extent that we are part of an integrated process that efficiently connects us to our surroundings. When we lose control, we become vulnerable, as our cognition is designed to extend our existence through time, facilitating the protection of our bodies. By extending this notion of control to higher-order cognitive processes like speech, we can propose that one function of our relentless cognitive modeling is to create and evaluate control relationships with external objects.

The first video titled "5 Common Words That Aren't Words At All" explores misconceptions about language, illustrating how certain terms have gained acceptance despite lacking real meaning.

The second video, "The FAKE Words in the Dictionary," delves into the phenomenon of fabricated terms that have surprisingly made their way into our lexicons, highlighting the fluid nature of language.