Intelligence Advancement

What are some likely potentials for intelligence to advance in the future?

It seems likely that the function of human intelligence has has been influenced by the environment of humanity throughout the past. The demand of the environment would cause different variations of human intelligence to be more effective than others, depending on the stage of development of human society and technology. I categorized 2 types of human intelligence, based on their function, and further explained the differences in a post from 2 days ago; General vs Memory Intelligence. I also hypothesized which of these functions would have been more prevalent, based on effectivity, relative to 3 categorized stages of human history, in my last post; Intelligence Development. There seems to be 2 major aspects which would likely affect which type of intelligence is more effective for the environment; 1) Demand of independent learning from lifestyle tasks, 2) Total variety of factors and concepts. Considering how human intelligence has developed in the past, how is intelligence likely to advance from this point on?

This will likely be even less accurate hypothesizing than my regular posts, since the general future is very difficult to predict. But, I can make some best guesses, based on the current stage of society and technology. Perhaps the potential future of humanity can be categorized into 2 likely scenarios of outcome, being either a significant world disaster, or continuation of advancement of society and technology. 

A world disaster could play out in many possible scenarios, such as climate change, extreme disease outbreak, a 3rd world war, or a super volcano or asteroid, etc. Assuming that in whichever case of a significant disaster, some humans, infrastructure, and technology survives, but 95%+ is destroyed, this would leave the remaining humans in an environment different than ever before. It could be comparable to the past, when there were far less people, but there could be the difference of information and technology, sustained from what we’ve built up to this point. 

Considering the 2 aspects of environment that affect which type of intelligence is more suitable, there would be a much higher demand for independent learning and adaptation, than there is now. This would seem to prioritize general intelligence (GI), similarly to the Agriculture Age (in the past), and much more than GI is currently prioritized by a typical human environment. But, there could still be a lot of information retained from before the disaster. This available information about factors and concepts in life, would allow memory intelligence (MI) to still have a relevant advantage for surviving in the environment. There would be less priority for MI than currently, but still more than in the agriculture age, since they didn’t have sufficient information to be utilized and memorized. GI would likely still be of more advantage than MI, since after a disaster, factors would be so different than before, demanding people to independently adapt.

In the 2nd potential scenario of the continuation of advancement of society and technology, the outcome of environment which is relevant to intelligence would have a few likely possibilities, based on technology. Since technology is advancing so quickly at this time, and has such a significant effect on human lifestyle, it would likely be the most significant influence. On 1 hand, with humans continuing to advance scientific understanding and sharing that information on a global scale, this would have an effect of MI’s applicable effectivity, progressing. Individuals would continue to specialize in 1 area of task, and have significant aid of technology for any given task, reducing the requirement for GI, with fewer varying circumstances for anyone in particular. Additionally, with information being shared more effectively, everyone would learn mainly through communication from others, rather than problem solving on their own (which is the 2nd component of GI; “carrying concepts”). 

On the other hand, if all work and job tasks are accomplished through production and computer control, people would be opened up to an expanse of freedom. With the change of most daily time, being free for someone to choose their own interests, this may slightly increase the applicability of GI, as each person could change their circumstances more often, subjecting them to scenarios of new combinations of factors. But with extensive information available, MI would likely still hold priority, since any new circumstances chosen to be pursued out of interest, would still mostly be learned through communication (rather than independently carrying concepts).

With the continuation of humanity, the environment is likely to change drastically, whether a world disaster occurs or not. A world disaster may cause an increase of GI, compared to now, but still perhaps less than the agriculture age, as long as information persists. Whereas continued advancement of humanity, seems likely to continue to cause MI to be more prevalent. As unpredictable as the future is, the changing environment will likely have a relevant impact on; Intelligence Advancement. 

Intelligence Development

How has intelligence developed for humans in the past, up to this point in time?

By “intelligence”, I basically mean; ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. And by “developed”, I’m referring to how the function of intelligence has changed and adapted, relative to technology, lifestyle, and humans’ social structures, throughout history.

In my last post; General vs Memory Intelligence, I questioned 2 categories of function of intelligence, and how each type would be more effective, depending on the demanding environment, such as technology and society. It seems that General Intelligence (or GI) should be more effective in an environment involving a lot of new factors and concepts which the person has not learned of or encountered before, since GI requires the ability to incorporate concepts into scenarios involving new factors. Memory Intelligence (or MI) seems more effective in an environment with a lot of information which can be learned through communication, since MI should be more accurate at accessing more specific memories of factors and concepts, but less adaptable to comprehending new combinations of factors.

I’ll categorize the history of humanity into 3 stages of ages, that are relevant to the demand of quantity of factors, and concepts involved in typical human life. Hunter /Gatherer Age, Agriculture Age, and Information Age. It seems there may be 2 aspects relevant to the environment demanding types of intelligence. 1 aspect would be requirement of learning independently, based on tasks of lifestyle, during that time period. Another aspect to take into consideration, would be the total variety of factors and concepts involved in typical life. 

By my theory, in the hunting age and early stages of humanity, at the time before there was agriculture, there would be less information available to learn, and likely be more demand for each person to accomplish a larger variety of tasks to survive. This would seem to give the function of GI, an advantage in adapting to more tasks, since people in this time would have likely moved around and migrated to changing environments, in order to find sufficient food and resources. But, there would also be a lower total variety of factors and concepts. There were fewer material items invented (factors), fewer idealistic concepts which had been thought of or known, and a smaller quantity of people to interact with (as a relevant concept for intelligence to be involved with). Perhaps, in the hunting age, there wouldn't be such a high demand by the environment, for GI, with this lack of total factors incorporated into everyday life. The 1st component of human intelligence, being conscious comprehension, would be beneficial, but the 2nd component required for GI, being the ability to carry concepts to new general situations, may not have been so demanding, with fewer total factors and more repetition of the same concepts.

In the 2nd Age, once agriculture was developed, people were able to settle into societies, with villages, then towns, then cities. Throughout this age, it seems the total quantity of factors and concepts would increase. There would be more inventions, from people having more time to invent, and new problems and obstacles to require inventions. The process of inventing itself, is a very good example of GI, in carrying concepts to new factors. But also, more inventions, means more objects (factors) to take into account in different scenarios in everyday life. In this agriculture age, there would be more requirements to learn independently, and apply concepts to new situations. It seems that people would have more necessity to adapt, and problem solve in a large variety of new circumstances, involving factors which they have not learned of previously. 

In the final age, up to this point in time, of more advanced technology and more integrated society, there has been vast shared information. There has still been an increase in total concepts and factors, with many new inventions, and perhaps even more complex interactions with others in society. But with so many more people on Earth, each individual has less demand to use GI to make inventions themselves, since inventions are widespread much easier, with more integrated society, and an ease of production, and shared information. With so much shared information, the environment has less demand for people to independently carry concepts to new circumstances in a typical lifestyle. Most concepts and details which are required for everyday life, are learned through communication from others. This seems to put a much heavier weight on the practicality of memory. MI seems to allow more accurate recall of details which have been learned through communication. 

In all, my theory seems to be that; in the 1st Hunter Age, the 1st component of human intelligence (conscious comprehension) was developed, but the 2nd component of GI was not significantly demanded by the environment of fewer factors and concepts.
In the 2nd Agriculture Age, GI was much more effective, by demand of an environment of increasing factors and concepts, as well as requirements for a variety of tasks by each individual.
In the 3rd Information Age, the environment has demanded less of a variety of tasks for each individual, with more specialized jobs, and ease of spread of inventions, and aid of technology. MI became more advantageous with the effectivity of accurate memory, to be utilized with vast quantities of information to be learned. From simple intelligence, to GI, to MI, the changes of environments of humanity seem to have a complex influence on; Intelligence Development.

.

General vs Memory Intelligence

What are the differences between, and advantages of, general intelligence vs memory intelligence?

Within the concept of intelligence, there may be many sub-categories, but to focus on the function of intelligence, I’ll divide it into 2 basic sub-categories. 1st of all, for a simple definition of intelligence overall, which I’m referring to, I’ll use the meaning; ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. In my last post; Intelligence; Inherent or Integrated, I questioned the causes and effects of development of intelligence. But what are the different types of intelligence, and how do they compare in function and applicability? I further explored the function and effects of intelligence overall, in a post from almost 2 yrs ago; Intelligence Inversion. I considered that the function of intelligence, seems to boil down to basically, the effective ability to access relevant memories. 

1 sub-category of function of accessing relevant memories, could be considered general intelligence (GI for short). GI has a significant ability to understand circumstances involving new factors or variables. With the ability to adapt to new situations, this allows it to be utilized in more “General” circumstances. I further explained my interpretation of GI, in another post from nearly 2 yrs ago; Generalised Intelligence. Basically, GI involves accessing memories of concepts previously learned, and the effects of interactions of the factors. The unique significance of this ability, requires comprehending the relevant effects (from knowledge or past experiences) caused by the factors involved in a situation, to allow hypothetical application of those same causes and effects, toward a new situation. The difficulty and complexity of this function of memory access, comes from the ability to remember and effectively comprehend the specific causes and effects which are important and relevant to the new circumstances. 

The 1st basic component of this ability, would be conscious comprehension, in the process of accessing memory of the interaction of factors in any given circumstances, and the effects caused by the interaction (as I further explain in a summary post, also from around the time of the last 2 post references; Conscious Comprehension). The 2nd component of the ability of GI, would be the continued use of that component, but in a more generalized process. Carrying the concept (as further explained in post from 1.5 yrs ago; Carry the Concept) of understood cause and effect, from 1 set of circumstances to the new set of circumstances, is the aspect of applying intelligence, “Generally”. It requires analysing accurately, which factors (from concepts saved in memory), are relevant and applicable to the new circumstances. 

The other sub-category of intelligence, would be memory intelligence (as I’m calling it) (MI, for short). This usually requires the same 1st component as GI, being conscious comprehension. Perhaps MI doesnt fundamentally require conscious comprehension, since memories can be saved subconsciously or artificially (if a computer), but for the sake of this comparison, I’m focusing on MI used by people in typical human life situations. Typically people will use conscious comprehension to learn and save in memory, any given data, throughout life, but with MI, the 2nd component being the ability to carry the concept to general new circumstances, is not required or utilized. Someone with advanced MI can learn a lot of concepts and or specific details and data, and can recall the data in memory, very effectively. In modern day life, MI can be a fairly effective method of intelligence function, to advance through life, since a lot of information (including relevant factors and concepts) is shared and learned through technology and interconnected society. 

The function of MI seems it would utilize more distinct routes of neural pathways to access memories more accurately. With ease of access to neurons which represent memories, this should cause accurate memory access of any factors (details of data), or concepts, when new circumstances involving the same factors or concepts arise. GI would have more of an advantage in new circumstances which involve factors (and combinations of factors) that have not been previously learned. Neural pathways for someone with higher GI might have less distinct routes to memories. Cause or correlation between GI and and less accurate memories, may be another question. But considering the function of GI, is to make new connections of neural pathways, between new factor combinations and previously saved data of factor combinations, it seems likely that neural routes have a lower degree of ease of access to saved memories. MI would quickly and easily access memories of the closest resembling factors, while skipping the step of analysing which factors and interactions are most effectively applicable to the new set of factors and interactions (which would be the uniqueness of GI). 

It seems MI would be more accurate in accessing memories relevant to circumstances involving a lot of factors and interactions which are nearly the same as what is already saved in memory. Whereas, GI would be more accurate in accessing memories of concepts, in which to virtually carry the relevant causes and effects, to apply to the new circumstances, in situations involving new factors or combinations, which are not saved in memory. The 2 categories of functions seem to have their own advantages, depending on the relative environment, when comparing the function of; General, vs Memory Intelligence. 

Intelligence; Inherent or Integrated

Is intelligence inherent and based on genetic instinctual capabilities?

Or is it integrated, learned throughout life and based on life circumstances?

This is basically the question of nature vs nurture, regarding intelligence. I’ll venture a wild guess, that it requires both. But if so, what degree of variance is there for either? 

The technical definition of intelligence is a fairly simple 1, which seems to cover the concept well.
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
It should be fairly obvious that an individual must be born with certain capabilities to be intelligent. If something is born without a brain, it has no ability to acquire or apply knowledge or skills. If an animal is born with a more advanced brain than a more simple species of animals, then it has a greater ability to acquire knowledge etc. For eg, if a bee’s brain only has the function and neurological storage capacity to remember the location of 100 flowers, it has less inherent ability to acquire and apply knowledge, than an elephant. An elephant's brain is many times the size of a bee’s, with many times more neurons, which includes a much higher capacity for storing knowledge and skills. It might be able to remember 100 different elephants + 100 trees + 100 water locations +.

Life circumstances may be more questionable, in its effect on intelligence. By the definition of intelligence, an individual only requires the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. It is possible that a person or animal could have the same ability whether or not they have the circumstances to apply it. On the other hand, it is fairly well known and proven in studies, that development of the brain during childhood has a relevant effect on capabilities later on in life. This proves that at least to some degree, intelligence can be integrated into an individual's life, as their brain is developed through use in their circumstances of childhood. If someone is born and raised in a pitch black room with no interactions with others, they will have less ability to gain and apply knowledge or skills in that moment of capability, than someone who has been brought up regularly, with friends and school. 

At least when it comes to humans, ability to acquire and apply knowledge can be dependant on concepts of knowledge previously gained. Concepts such as the various laws of physics, can increase someone's ability to apply new knowledge. For eg, if someone’s bike is slower than others, they can use the concepts of aerodynamics, friction, etc, to more effectively acquire and apply knowledge about the bike’s functional properties. As another aspect of knowledge previously gained, learning and saving memory of specific details would be less useful for general circumstances of new variables in life. Memorizing details could be applicable for future knowledge or skills gained, but only in situations involving those specific variables. 

The more generalized concept of conscious comprehension, should be another eg of a concept, which may increase the ability to apply knowledge in a high variety of potential new circumstances. In my previous post; Conscious Mindset, I questioned, and attempted to distinguish the potential significance of learning this concept effectively, and gaining the ability to apply it effectively to many situations in life. The generalized applicability of this concept is to awarefully analyse any situation, determine differences in the cause and effect of relevant variables, and make a more accurate prediction. The concept of making accurate predictions, allows the ability to make preferred and beneficial adjustments. In a post from 3+ yrs ago; Intellectual Intel, I described how an aspect of this concept seems to cause differences in intellect (as a category of intelligence). This concept  seems to have the potential to significantly increase any individual’s ability to acquire and apply varying knowledge and skills. If more applicable and useful concepts are learned and practiced, the concepts should be better routed into memory, for better application of future knowledge gained.

So it seems, for any given degree of intelligence, someone must be born with inherent brain functional capabilities, but also have development integrated into their circumstances, up to that degree. Higher levels of intelligence or intellect for humans, seem to require further knowledge of concepts to be learned and practiced, beyond basic average upbringing development of the brain. Both seem to be significant and required conceptual elements of Intelligence; Inherent, & Integrated

Conscious Mindset

Can the subconscious mind be conditioned with a mindset to be conscious?

By the term “mindset” I’m basically referring to a mind reaction which has been set to be more likely to be used (in circumstances related to any given factors). I further explained mindsets, and the relevance of being aware of mindsets in a post from 3+ yrs ago; Minding Mindsets. In that post, I mentioned the potential of a mindset of being more conscious, but didn’t go into much detail on the plausible function of the concept. In a post from 1 month ago; Subconsciously Conscious, I determined that it seems plausible that the subconscious could be conditioned to be more likely to become conscious of certain factors, based on an ease of neural access to commonly used neural pathways. If the commonly used pathways lead to a neural combination which allows consciousness of any given factor, this could allow increased probability of accessing that same combo while in a subconscious state. I further explored the potential of this function, in the plausibility of the subconscious using the same neural pathways as the conscious mind, in my last post; Neuronic Territory. But this method would only cause an individual to be conscious of factors which they have been conscious of previously (and likely repeatedly). Now, I am wondering if a mindset can be created to cause a higher probability of the subconscious mind leading to conscious neural activity of new factors. 

In order for a mindset to be created which could influence the mind to more commonly use conscious thought when regarding new factors (with no previous conscious neural combo’s routed for the new factor), the main factor which would have to be accessed regularly and connected to generally almost any mind function, would have to be the concept of consciousness itself. What I mean by “the concept of consciousness”, is basically being aware of any given factor and its interaction with its environment or other factors. I explained in more detail (and the function of which), in a post from almost 2 yrs ago; Conscious Comprehension. The factor of this concept seems that it would need to be saved as a generalized mindset. It seems it would have to be a well routed neural pathway to this concept, in order for it to be applied to new circumstances and factors, for which it could be applied. 

If the concept of consciousness was well routed for ease of neural activity, then it should be more likely to be accessed in any general circumstances. If positive reinforcement is connected with the concept, after repeated use of the concept, and positive results, this should increase the likeliness of implementing the concept, after it has been accessed. If this mindset is in place, it should cause an increase in probability of the individual applying the concept of consciousness in any general circumstances. This should be applicable in situations of using both types of mind function; subconscious or consciousness, so that it will be used, whether someone is already consciously considering something, or subconsciously reacting.

It seems counterintuitive and contradictory, that a mindset can cause the subconscious to be conscious, but as I explained in “Subconsciously Conscious”, the subconscious can be the initial state of mind, and the mindset can lead to further conscious thought (whether that’s only temporary, or not). 

Once a mindset is created, it can be implemented and applied in a 2nd way as well. Typical mindsets have the potential to be used entirely in a subconscious state, even if the initial mindset was created, involving a factor which required conscious comprehension. The conscious concept is simplified when used in a subconscious state, without memory access to the details of the interaction between factors. But with this mindset in particular, of causing conscious comprehension, it would require the individual to be triggered to become conscious (at least temporarily). 

If it is utilized often enough, with positive reinforcement (typical requirement for mindsets causing a continued action), it seems the mind can be programmed to commonly access this concept. This would be a seemingly huge benefit, of accuracy of decision making and general intelligence, by implementing conscious analysis and comprehension in common circumstances. When it comes to conditioning the subconscious, perhaps the ultimate in usefulness, is a Conscious Mindset.

Neuronic Territory

Do subconscious and conscious processes utilize different neurons?

By “subconscious”, I basically mean processes in the brain, which the individual is not aware of (more detail on the function, here; Subconscious Subjection). By “conscious”, I basically mean processes involving data which the person is aware of (more detail on the function, here; Conscious Comprehension). 

It seems as though both processes influence the other, but whether they use the same neurons and pathways for saving and accessing memories, would be another question. What should be relevant for determining if they use the same neural data, would be whether or not 1 process, accesses the same data of the other. In a post from last month; Conscious Subconscious Memory Access, I explored why it seems difficult for someone to consciously access memory data which was saved subconsciously. Since a lot of data which is saved subconsciously, is less accurate than consciously saved data, because of a lack of focus on detail, the subconscious data seems to be saved utilizing mostly different neural combinations (to represent memories). But data which is saved consciously, using focus on detail and connections between factors, does seem to be easily accessible for the subconscious (as I tried to further explain in a later post from last month; Subconscious Conscious-Memory Access). 

This suggests that the process of subconsciousness does use the same neurological areas as consciousness. The key seems to be that the neural combo data must be saved consciously, for either process to use it. This could make sense, since memory data which is saved subconsciously is less accurate in detail of sensory perception measurement. It's almost like, when the subconscious records something, it is a blurry picture, with fewer pixels of detail. But when someone consciously saves something in memory, it’s an HD picture, with a lot more pixels and detail. The more detailed memories, saved consciously, would make sense for effectiveness, as a high priority for ease of neural access (whether being accessed consciously or subconsciously). 

Perhaps blurry subconscious data is less likely to be accessed, because it will have a less accurate match. Data which is saved consciously, has more accurate sensory measurements, and distinguishes separate factors more accurately. Since factors are more distinguished, being represented in memory by a neurological combination, those factors are more likely to be recognized accurately. Once they are more effectively recognized by sensory perception, the more accurate neural combo is more likely to be accessed repeatedly. The more times a neural combo is accessed, the easier it is to be accessed in the future. More accurate recognition of memory, could explain why consciously saved data is easier to access.

Consciously saved memory data seems to be more likely to be accessed than subconsciously saved data, but both processes seem to access the same consciously saved data, and Neuronic Territory.

Subconsciously Conscious

Can your subconscious be conditioned to be conscious? 

By definition, you cannot be conscious while subconscious, since subconscious specifically excludes being conscious. But, as I discovered in a post from last month; Mind Driver, it seems your subconscious can react 1stly, to steer the direction of conscious thought. Does this mean your subconscious can be conditioned to regularly continue to use the function of conscious thought, rather than a more basic subconscious reaction? 

It seems plausible to condition your subconscious to react in certain ways, as I further explained in a post from 2.5 yrs ago; Conscious Conditioning. But considering the difference in physical function during the process of subconscious, compared to conscious, it seems initially unclear whether you can be subconsciously conditioned to be conscious. Normal conditioning of the subconscious, causes a basic reaction to sensory stimulation, based on previous positive or negative reinforcement saved in memory (more detail in; Subconscious Subjection). 

So normally, the process for reaction of subconscious conditioning would be, sensory stimulation triggers an emotion, based on previous experiences. That emotion then causes the individual to react physically, and typically pursue or avoid the scenario. When reacting subconsciously, an emotion caused by previous positive or negative reinforcement, usually seems to drive a physical reaction. This is different than causing a further memory mechanism, in the mind, such as conscious awareness. 

But, of course sometimes humans do react with the further memory mechanism of conscious thought. Perhaps the question is whether this occurring, is affected by the subconscious, or whether the further memory mechanism occurs based only on physical infrastructure of the brain?

It seems obvious that infrastructure of the brain is required for conscious thought, assuming it occurs based on an explainable mechanism, but which factors cause that conscious mechanism to occur, should be relevant. It seems likely that amount of activation of neurons, would be a required factor to cause the conscious mechanism, since being more awake, seems to cause more conscious awareness and thought. If the amount of activity of neurons was the only factor which causes conscious thought in a person who already has the infrastructure, then it seems like a subconscious mechanism, could typically only increase neural activity, if it triggered a chemical (such as adrenaline), which then in turn triggered more neural activity. This likely does occur on occasion, but seems unlikely to be a method for conditioning your subconscious to trigger conscious thought, in common, repeated, circumstances. 

Other than your subconscious using positive or negative reinforcement of past experiences, it also utilizes repetition of common neural pathways. The more a pathway is used, the easier it is for your subconscious to access. Perhaps this could be an element involved in the potential to condition your subconscious to trigger conscious thought. If you repeatedly use neural pathways which lead to neural combinations required to be conscious of a factor, then it seems plausible that your subconscious would be more likely to access that same combination. Even without increasing neural activity (such as being more awake), it might be possible to subconsciously (with less neural activity) trigger access of conscious neural combos. 

Even in a state of subconsciousness (eg, drunk, dreaming, tired) it seems you can be conditioned by repetition, to have conscious thoughts. By definition, once you access the conscious combo, you would no longer be subconscious, but after the conscious thought subsides, and you go back to being subconscious (in your state of mind), you should be more likely to again access conscious thoughts (even if fewer than when more awake), if you are conditioned so. 

It would still be your subconscious which triggered the conscious thought, because of the repetition of previous conscious thought, rather than usual increase of neural activity being the cause. This seems it would only be effective for factors which you’ve been conscious of repeatedly in the past. Perhaps saving a repeated neural combo connection in memory, to the concept itself, of being conscious, could be another question, in whether subconsciously triggering that concept, could allow you to then further apply being conscious; to new factors?