reality is reality and it dosent actualy exists in meanigful sense outside of 
constelations of mater (for exaple brian) capable of forming a concepts of 
"existence" and "meaning"

brian-local format (BLF) is wat information about reality is stored in inside a 
specific brian, it exists outside the realm of verbal languge and so is not 
gompatible with any other brians, so even if u and someone else had elon musk 
chip u cant transfer this information directly betwen brians

verbal languge (from now on "languge") is the bigest puzle peace of a 
imperfect, eror prone, low bandwidth means of converting betwen brian-local 
formats
languge as it exists inside a brian is a big bal of words where the words 
inside the bal are simply defined in terms of other words ("fruit = 
aple,babana,orage.."), and then the words on the surface of the bal, the root 
words, have direct conections to something in this brians BLF ("aple" = 
unspekable internal concept of a aple)
ther are of cours no cycles, imblying that if u folow the definitions of any 
word u always end up at the surface 
its a bal cuz its in fact embeded in the BLF (how else), and its surface 
conects it to other stuf in the BLF

finaly there is physical devices for rx/txing languge, ear and mouf respectivly

so if A wants to tel B something, there is information stored in brian A in its 
brian-local format BLF-A, that A wants to make B construct for himself an as 
close a match as posible for in BLF-B
so they set up the half duplex (data/ack/pls retransmit/pls clarify/questions) 
transmision line BLF-A - lang-A - air - lang-B - BLF-B
this process is not infinitely precise and in fact quite unprecise for various 
raisins not limited to:

1. brian-local formats are never entirely compatible, cuz they are personal 
software, consisting of a very large number of abstractions (most of which are 
also not easily translatable into words), veloped by the individuals, mostly 
during the earli life human bootstraping procedure, ie. not part of the common 
hardware, such as for exaple pure emotions are (ignoring the relatively smal 
difrences in hardware) - there is no guarante that ppl will come up with the 
same exact software, and one shouldent expect it either. however most of the 
time it will be close enuf to make many cooperative task's fesible (and this is 
inded the test that enables u to later on velop a useful internal version of ur 
mother languge - dose the lang apear to enable u to sucesfuly transmit and recv 
information)

2. languge, the means of conversion, can only easily (using a simple dependency 
chain of few and fairly general nodes) represent a smal subset of the 
abstractions found in the BLF. imagine trying to construct and use a langugage 
that enables u to gommunicate precisely the exact muscle movments required for 
riding a bicycel that enables someone else to learn it without ever physicaly 
riding one

3. altho theoreticaly u can have perfect agrement acros brians on the 
"proximate" definition of non-root words (but in practice even for these u 
dont, most of the time), no such agrement can ever be had for the root words, 
which means that the thing ppl perceive as a shared structure is built on a 
inescapably greasy foundation

4. certainty is greasy - deserves seprate book but in sumary theres no such 
thing as 100% certainty, u can only aproach it, and often its way below. this 
includes for exaple the certainty of ur own clasification of physical objects 
for exaple aples

5. even inside a single BLF the root words are not precisely defined since the 
BLF content itself is greasy, it sufers from certainty problems and can also 
change from day to day, imagin performing exaple 1 down below on just urself 
multiple times in a row

6. information is routinely omited to save time cuz it is expected that the 
counterparty wil be able to infer it from the context, which it dosnt always do 
corectly

7. potetial for al kinds of other subtel misunderstandings that never get 
gorrected - the source of many disagrements

exaple 1 - aple is greasy
even the simplest words like aple dont mean the same thing in ppls heds, if a 
guy have in hand somthig that another guy also agre is a aple, then take a 
bite, do they stil agre, take another bite etc. in the end u have nothig left 
in hand - did they agre on the exact moment it stoped beig aple
literature and philosophy DEBUNKED? probably not, it doesnt mean aple is 
useles, rather that thers a limited usefulnes to concept of "aple" which 
depends on the required level of compatibility of the aple BLF representations 
for a particular purpose - if u tel someone go buy 3 aples in store they wil 
probably come bak with wat u wanted

exaple 2 - numbers is greasy
since we dont agre on wat a aple is, i can have 3 aples in a basket that u 
think contains 4 aples
mathematics and science INVALIDATED? not neceserily, but their useful 
aplication is at least limited simliarily to the other exaple

dont let anybody tel u things are not as greasy as they arE