The word running the mind: Neuroscientific research uncovers how language is the most formidable tool to control the human mind.

For more information on how the brain works, please visit the Scientific Brain Theory Of The Mind at TheScientificBrainTheory.org. 

Contrary to the neuroscientific consensus that humans basically operate on "autopilot", anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wengrow affirm in their publically acclaimed "The Dawn Of Everything" that humans are self-conscious beings. These eminent scholars in the humanities rely on their superior reasoning skills to sustain that human beings' self-awareness is proof that there is indeed some intelligent pilot driving our choices and decisions. It is however generally the case that when someone goes about singing the praises of the superior human intelligence, he is actually driven by a profound fascination with the glory of his very own intellect. It is certainly rather unknown of anybody, who has exhibit any genuine belief in the remarkable intelligence of the unwashed masses. A nightstand favorite read among the intellectual elite, the core message of the Dawn Of Everything is that human beings are social creators, who have historically experimented with and reimagined their political structures. The authors contend early societies were not blindly driven by linear Evolution; but human beings chose, altered and debated their own social arrangements. Once more, however, when elite intellectuals speak of human agency, it is generally the case that they are actually just thinking about elite individuals taking decisions and dictating terms on everyone else, rather than the unwashed masses ever having a say . Definitely, it is the capital principle of civilized societies, that the average folks will never be given a chance to provide any input on how they would like the society to be organized. We do not even need to look deep in the past, as much as the upper class deceitfully call it Democracy, it is not like the founding fathers ever consulted with their social lessers what should be the rules of the new nation. For just one thing, there can be little doubt that the common folk would have viewed with horror that, from then on out, those privileged individuals owning enough money to afford hiring a private attorney will enjoy a decisive advantage in any legal dispute brought to the crooks system. Evidently, the founding fathers' concept of equality under the law is as macabre as the upper class' concept of justice is repugnant. Furthermore, if it were not sinister enough that the common folk has never had any say in how a democratic system should look like, it speaks to the diabolical nature of the oligarchy to which we are captive, that no true mechanism to change the System is allowed. If by any chance anyone manages to escape upper-class' indoctrination and realize we do not live in a democracy, they will find it is not even possible to vote against the System. Rather, all that the privileged deceitfully offer is to petition the privileged to give up their privileges. Admittedly, it is understandable to sustain the common folk lacks the knowledge to devise a political system and take complex decisions on how to steer society, but it is then nothing less than playing us all for fools to say that we are self-conscious beings living in a democracy.

To make a long story short, whether it is "all men are equal under the law" or "humans are self-conscious" beings", we just cannot take at face value any affirmation about the human condition coming from the elite, but we must read between the lines: One benign interpretation would clarify that the authors actually meant, respectively, that "all wealthy men are equal to the law" and that "elite individuals are self-conscious beings". Alternatively, a more sinister reading would conclude that the authors consider black people and average folks, respectively, to fall short of the human condition.

* Just like scientists in the research community, the neurons in our brains cooperate and compete following a scheme analogous to the scientific method to identify the causes of the stuff we observe. Once there is such a model of the world, all there is to intelligent behavior is to take whichever plan of action is predicted to yield the sought-after stuff.

Privileged minds' false narratives aside, neuroscientific research strongly indicates that our sense of consciousness is only a construct. The dominant view among computational neuroscientists is that the brain's objective is to learn a predictive model of how stuff comes about. Moreover, according to the new Scientific Brain Theory Of The Mind, the brain implements a scientific model of how the world works. Not unlike scientists in the research community, the neurons in our brains cooperate and compete following a scheme analogous to the scientific method to identify the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the stuff we observe. Yes, the brain's genius strategy to intelligent behavior is best described by the scientific method: that is, learn a model which replicates how stuff comes about and then take whichever plan of action is predicted to yield the sought-after stuff. The key question then becomes: how such predictive model is built? That is, how does the brain learn what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the stuff we observe? 

* At a lower level, the brain's model of the world includes a probabilistic model, where neural patterns code the probability (intuition) of stuff

As a matter of fact, Scientific Brain substantiates that it is actually more precise to speak of two superimposed models, each meant to code different - but complementary - aspects of information: at a lower level, what we can understand as our instinct - comprising both innate and learned 'automatic' behaviors - constitutes a probabilistic model, where neural patterns code the probability (intuition) of stuff. For instance, the Pavlovian Dog's brain follows reinforcement learning to learn that the bell is the cause of the food it is about to receive: that is, once the bell rings, what is the probability that food will be served? 

* At a high level, complementing our low-level probabilistic model, what we can conceive as our conscious knowledge constitutes a logical model, where natural language description spell out some sort of established knowledge of how stuff comes about or what things do we need to do to bring stuff about.

Now, direct pattern associations of this kind are clearly not a suitable coding scheme to represent complex data structures such as long sequences of sophisticated events (e.g., how do we make nice, lofty bread?). Thus, the evolution of a mechanism whereby complex information can be retained, would constitute a formidable evolutionary advantage for any species; even more so if - as is the case with natural language - such a coding scheme is shared among all members of the species. As a matter of fact, a good case has been made that the human brain exhibits the most advanced cognitive capabilities, because it is in humans that the most sophisticated language evolved. We generally see language as a method of communication, but it is first and foremost a knowledge coding scheme. Indeed, it stands to reason that, at a high level, complementing our low-level probabilistic model, what we can conceive as our conscious knowledge constitutes a logical model, where natural language description spell out some sort of established knowledge of how stuff comes about or what things do we need to do to bring stuff about. In the same way that a recipe book represents a logical model of how to prepare foods, our (language-coded) conscious knowledge acts as a logical model for accomplishing all those tasks we carry out consciously (e.g., a bread recipe constitutes the set of causes, reasons and intervening factors for a nice, lofty bread). In fact, the construct responsible for our sense of conscious thought is the best indication, that natural language is the brain's coding scheme for complex knowledge structures.

* Given that phenomena in this world generally occur on a spectrum of shades of gray, our instinct's probabilistic model is better suited to represent the kind of uncertain pattern associations we observe in real life.

Taking together the probabilistic and logical models, the complete design could not be more marvelous, as it combines the best of two worlds: Given that phenomena in this world generally occur on a spectrum of shades of gray, our instinct's probabilistic model is better suited to represent the kind of uncertain pattern associations we observe in real life. For instance, if for once the Pavlovian dog does not get fed after the bell rings, it would not make sense to unlearned the conditioned salivation response altogether (as the discovery of a counterexample requires in formal logic). Rather, it would be smarter to simply adjust the probability that food is served whenever the bell rings.

* The strings of words of our logical model represent a richer, more versatile and powerful framework to code how stuff comes about or what do we need to do to bring about stuff.

However, evidently, raw pattern associations are too basic a coding scheme to efficiently represent complex data structures. Instead, if for example we need to spell out well-proven cooking recipes, strings of words certainly offer a far richer, more versatile and powerful framework. Admittedly, to the extent that words have clear-cut meanings, our language-based logical model does not reflect as colorfully the wide range of hues in the real world as our probabilistic model. For instance, if we are not certain what exactly causes bread dough to rise, it will be rather tortuous to spell out a bread recipe. However, we should all have to agree that it makes little sense to commit a plan of action to paper, before we have it well defined. Definitely, the language-coded logical model constituting our conscious knowledge is meant to represent well-tested, established knowledge.

Now, the critical caveat is how do we know if a piece of information is actually reliable and correct? Indeed, we will only be able to discover that something does not work exactly as described once we stumble upon a counterexample; but just because we have not yet found such a counterexample, does not mean one does not exist. In other words, we can never be absolutely certain that something will always work as described. This matters immensely, since most of our (language-coded) conscious understanding of things is not built on personal experience, but passed down from others. Civilization, intelligence, democracy, basically all abstract concepts and countless other words in the Dictionary, the mere process of learning the language installs in our mind the conceptual framework, through wich our perception, interpretation and understanding of the world will be shaped for the rest of our lives. Since there is no way our minds can tell whether something works as described without some experience with it, our minds are instinctively very cautious before trusting someone else's word. Absolutely, our minds will instinctively reject any idea from others, unless we feel they care about us and we recognize them as stronger, more knowledgeable or, all in all, more powerful. Not unlike everything else in the brain, it makes a whole lot of sense: if they love you, they will want the best for you, and, if they are more knowledgeable, it is only smart to take the wise advice. That is why children follow their parents' guidance and the populace listens with great attention - if not all the way fall for - all what the Press, as a whole, has to say. Now, once we have assimilated a language-coded concept, we will instinctively hold it to be most certain; to the point that we will need to go through a traumatic experience, before we can start questioning it.

According to the Dictionary, Civilization is defined as an advanced state of human, social and cultural development, marked by organized governance, complex social structures, and achievements in art, science and technology. In fact, more often than not, the outstanding development of human civilized societies has been considered clear evidence of our superior intellect. Other species organize themselves in societies of varying degrees of complexity, but definitely do not exhibit comparable levels of artistic, scientific or technological development. In school, we learn that major civilizations throughout History were Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, the Indus Valley and Ancient China. Other powerful empires and societies that shaped human history include Classical Greece, the Roman Empire and The Maya and Inca Empires of the Americas. Each left a lasting legacy on language, architecture, governance and culture. In the past and in the present, many have argued that "the abscence of major civilizations in Black Africa indicates that black people is not as intelligent as White people". As a matter of fact, today it is well known that major advanced civilizations did exist in sub-Saharan Africa. However, this observation is unlikely to effectively counter the widespread white-superiority mindset, given that these sub-Saharan civilizations are significantly less known among average folks. Instead, it would be more conclusive to point out that - contrary to what the Dictionary invites to think - in actuality Civilization is not any sign of "superior intelligence". Rather, Civilization comes about when an elite group of intermarried families rises and subjects the rest of the population to a subservient and exploited status. Hence, if anything, there is a good case to be made that the absence of major civilizations in Black Africa suggests that black people may in general not be as predacious and rapacious as White people.

According to the Dictionary, intelligence is defined as the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge to reason, solve problems, or deal with new or difficult situations. It stands to reason to think that whoever first came up with the word intelligence must have had a very good opinion of himself. The guy for sure thought he had been gifted with a truly formidable brain. Given the Dictionary's definition of intelligence, it is natural that those who are highly learned and wealthy are generally seen as more intelligent than average. On the flip side, those who barely received any education will often have to struggle with the thought that, in all likelihood, they are not precisely the sharpest pencil in the drawer. Hence, since those born to wealthy families have always obtained better education than folks from modest backgrounds , it is safe to say that the former will generally hold their own intelligence in high regard, whereas the latter will have to struggle with the thought that, in all likelihood, they are not precisely the sharpest pencil in the drawer. In other words, it will be natural for upper-class individuals to deduce that their high social status is the logical consequence of their superior intelligence, whereas lower-class folks will have to struggle with the thought that their low social status is the logical consequence of their subpar intellect.

Democracy is the name by which we recognize our political system. According to the Dictionary, democracy is a system of government, where power is held by the people, who exercise it directly or through elected representatives. Since presidential and legislative elections are held regularly, there seems to be nothing wrong with saying that ours is a representative democracy. True, there is no guarantee that our political representatives will carry out the will of the people; however, given that we elect them, one would think that this would be the case. Still, it appears most people today feel our representative democracy is not working very well: Not only do we see chilling inequality all over the place, but our system does not even offer a good balance of opportunities. Admittedly, however, considering that it is the people who elect the government, it seems natural to think that we only have ourselves to blame for our representatives deplorable conduct. As those who benefit of the System like to repeat: "Our democracy is not perfect, but it is better than nothing. We are therefore left with no other option, but to continue praying for the day our representatives will finally implement the policies we demand.

Yes, it would probably be wiser to consider how,, regardless of the fancy name the intellectual elite chose for the monster, our political system may actually not be a true democracy. Definitely, given their superior knowledge, it would be really awesome if our intellectual leaders would bring to light, that the point of a democracy is not whether elections are held regularly, but whether power is held by the people; that is, whether the government implements the policies demanded by the people. It is certainly reasonable to argue that the unwashed masses are not nearly as knowledgeable as the intellectual elite about the right policies to pursue; ; however, if such is the logic, we should not name it a democracy, but an epistocracy, a sophocracy or, plain and simple, an oligarchy. Still, considering those at the top are precisely the ones who benefit from the System's inequality, it should not come as a surprise to anyone, that they will never want to do or say anything to upset today's unjust status quo. Rather, the people should go on praying for the day our political representatives will stop taking orders from the wealthy and start implementing the policies the people need.

Up until the Great Depression, America, for the white majority, was not only the land of opportunity, but it's remarkable prosperity was proof that its political system was the best ever conceived. Needless to say, this was not everyone's view. However, if they had been pushed to the bottom of the social hierarchy, it was precisely because whatever the non-white minority thought or felt was of no concern to all others above them. There is no built-in mechanism in the brain for judging an idea's soundness without prior experience on the topic, and many hours of study will be needed before we can form for ourselves an educated opinion on a political system. Thus, at the en of the day, we judge our system by how well it keeps us fed. If other folks are not doing quite as well, it is just natural to think they are dumb, lazy or both.

America was founded on the capital principle of individual liberty: basically, the government should not restrict the individual's liberty to pursue happiness of their own accord. As the narrative goes, this does not mean that the strong is free to abuse the weak, though. Rather, the law marks the boundary between what is fair game and what is off limits. Furthermore, the narrative also states all "men" are equal under the law; however, by a tragic stroke of bad luck, the narrative forgot to mention that not all "men" are considered fully human. Thus, much to the strong's delight, it is after all fair game to abuse all those poor folks who are not considered fully human.

This article is part of Chapter XIII of "The Scientific Brain Theory of the mind: From Instinct to Reason, How Does The Mind Work". 

If it makes sense to you, please share it with your network of friends. It will mean a lot.