I want to be very clear about something that is easy to mistake in what I wrote. I am not endorsing a principle that "all truths are just narratives and we shou

I want to be very clear about something that is easy to mistake in what I wrote. I am not endorsing a principle that "all truths are just narratives and we should give up on the idea that some things are objectively correct or not." Rather, I am speculating that the neurological ability to reason about truth is an emergent property of a system which evolved to do something very different, namely to reason about what other people believe irrespective of if it ultimately matches anything you consider to be true. Once you start reasoning about the fact that its possible for another person to have a slightly different set of facts in their head, you inevitably take the recursive leap of understanding that the version of their mind you imagine has an imagined version of you and so on. Thus we obtain an understanding of others and their actions built upon evaluating nested scopes to as far as we can think. You can say that the top most layer of the stack is in some way privileged, that it is the reality and is treated special in some way. But why add any special exceptions to the rules when you can just evaluate reality as if it were any other narrative scope? Again, this is all just a guess of how consciousness is implemented. It is expressly NOT a statement about truth literally being up for referendum. Assuming such an emergent phenomena is possible, it may be the case that artificial NN can learn to replicate truth semantics without there ever being a clear indicator between "made up story output" and "actually knows what this means" output. In contradiction to the OP, despite there being truth, there may not be a "true understanding neuron". A system of not-bullshit may in fact be built on a system of bullshit.