Intelligence Inversion

What causes intelligence?

Assuming most thinking and intellectual processes involve memory access, what element of accessing memories, theoretically causes a higher intelligence?

Perhaps comparing animals thinking process to humans, could be a good way to distinguish the difference in the process, which causes higher intelligence. As animals seem to access many fewer memories involved in any subconscious action they make, compared to a human which is taking into consideration any given decision, consciously analysing the variables and factors involved, the difference very well may be the means of remembering the effect of relevant factors involved in the decision.

This seems like a fairly rational cause of intelligence, since with more access to memories of factors involved in any circumstances requiring a decision or action (which should be… quite a few), the individual can determine more accurately the outcome of their circumstances including various optional routes of choice. With a more accurate estimate, the individual can realise an effective preference for outcome, and more effectively cause it. Effectively estimating outcomes, and causing them, is basically the description f effect of higher intelligence. It allows superior problem solving, including survival, and progressive development and accomplishment.

So, if intelligence is just accessing more memories, does that mean simply having a better memory makes you the most intelligent? I think not necessarily. When it comes to accessing memories to most effectively understand the outcome of circumstances, there is accuracy of recall of select memories, but there is also number of memories accessed, in order to more accurately comprehend the cause and effect of factors which are involved, and also comprehend a higher quantity of factors.

This seems to suggest, accessing a higher quantity of memories increases intelligence, but accessing relevant and effecting memories is important in order to accurately determine the cause and effect of factors which are involved in the decision.

As a bit of a complex example, if an individual was to comprehend a sub-set concept of the function and benefit of intelligence itself, they could theoretically turn the concept on itself, and apply the concept of intelligence more often and more accurately. Just as the concept of intelligence functions itself (by comprehending the interaction of factors and accessing relevant cause and effect), in this example, it’s accessing memories of this function of intelligence plus the factors of: memory access, and comprehending cause and effect, then apply the concept to general circumstances, by relating the relevance of factors (being memory access and cause and effect of factors, related and relevant to basically any circumstances and decision).

Unless this concept is too confusing and complex to comprehend, then I guess the cause and effect of these factors of factors just won't be related by relevance...

Conscious Application

With the potential comprehension of the function and process of consciousness, how can this be applied beneficially to use of consciousness?

By understanding the operations of consciousness, it is plausible to extract the beneficial effects of the factors within the concept (just as the function of the concept itself operates), and apply them more effectively and efficiently to regular use of consciousness (which happens to be fairly often).The factors of consciousness would be; memory access of factors (of generally any information), memory access of the effect of interaction of those factors, simultaneous memory access of both, and circulation of memories, using that simultaneous memory access.

The beneficial effects of this process would be; the ability to access memories of the effect of factors by accessing memories of the interaction of the factors relevant in a concept, simultaneously to the concept itself. Without this simultaneous access, a mind is not able to access memories of factors present in any concept. The mind is only able to access memories of the general concept itself, and the feedback triggers linked to it. But with this simultaneous memory access, the mind can access the individual factors (which have cause and effect of any concept), at the same time as accessing memories of the concept. Once the mind can access the factors and their cause/ effect, it can remember the result of the concept based on the interaction of the relevant factors, rather than just the closest resembling general concept. By accessing memories of the interaction of factors present within a concept, the individual is able to much more accurately predict the result of the concept. Once able to more accurately predict the result, they can react accordingly to their benefit.

So knowing these beneficial effects of having a conscious mind, one can basically apply this concept of consciousness more often. Consciously, someone should be able to be conscious more often, therein benefiting them, by result of predicting circumstances more accurately throughout life, and reacting accordingly to their own benefit.

In order to apply consciousness more often, someone would have to take into consideration (or consciousness) their circumstances more often, by access of memories of the factors and their interactions (which are present in any given circumstance). Generally, the more often someone applies (with at least minimally complex circumstances) this conscious concept, the more often they will have a beneficial result.

Another application in life, besides attentatively remembering the effects of relevant factors, would be the ability to comprehend the benefit of a specific concept (based on the result of its interaction of factors), and save that newly compiled concept as a memory, based on the positive feedback by comprehending its benefit.

It seems that the useful application of the comprehension of the concept of consciousness, is application itself of consciousness…

Am I Insane?

How does somebody know if they are sane?

Technically, sane is a legal term, used to describe whether someone should be held responsible for their own actions. So a more accurate term might be crazy, or delusional. By that, I mean whether or not someone can know if that which they perceive and comprehend to be reality, is accurate, correct, and aligned with reality itself.

Perhaps, you could argue that everyone has a different perspective of reality, and since everyone’s perspective is different, then every person would perceive reality to be at least slightly askew from what is reality. To have a perfect perception of reality, might be, to be aware of every single aspect of reality, and to be aware of every bit of information and bit of knowledge within the universe and reality. Since it seems likely that any individual human is far from that awareness, that means every person does not have an accurate perspective of reality.
But, as imperfect as our awareness is, so is our vocabulary and communication. So, in an attempt to keep things simple, graspable, and “sane”, we’ll use the term “delusional” to refer to a state of mind, where someone perceives the state of reality to be incorrect enough, to the point that it causes significant conflict, and impedes the functioning of their attempted accomplishments within general life. This is yet still an incomplete (and indefinite:) definition, but so it seems is everything in this world (unless I’m delusional about that...), so imperfect should be accepted as sufficient.

As a hypothetical scenario, if somebody is indeed delusional, and perceives (to a certain degree) the world around them to be different than reality, they do not believe they are delusional. This is true by definition of being delusional, because if they were aware that they were delusional, then they would be aware that they are incorrect about what they perceive as being reality. If they were aware of that, then they would actually be aware of reality, and therefore not delusional.

This begs the question that, if a delusional person does not believe they are delusional, then how can anyone know that they are not delusional, if they believe the same thing that a delusional person would believe? Maybe you would have to consider what differences there are between the 2 scenarios. If someone is delusional, they would have those conflicts between their perspective, and reality. The conflicts would be a result of them believing certain things function 1 way, which is incorrect, and when they act on that belief (of method of function), it does not result as per their beliefs. This sounds like it describes basically any mistake which the average person could make any day, yet I wouldn't consider that to mean they are delusional. The difference between being mistaken about something, and being delusional about it, is perhaps the continuation of belief (of the incorrect function), after becoming aware of evidence proving otherwise.

So, 1 notable difference to look for, in order to determine if an individual is delusional or not, would be whether or not they accept evidence which suggests they are incorrect about a belief.
So basically, being open-minded to reasonability is a good sign that someone is not delusional. But that openness, includes being open to the possibility that they are delusional, so perhaps another good sign that someone is not delusional, is if they ask the question; “Am I insane?”
But, there is a fair chance that all my reasoning here is incorrect, if I’m delusional...