What is Intelligence Really

If the computer science equivalent of intelligence is computing power - what is the equivalent of attention and concentration? How can a distributed network focus on something - and why is this mechanism important for its proper functioning - and almost completely lacking today? On the great mistake of ideological preoccupation with political science instead of algorithmic engagement

Mind Boggling (Source)

In a meritocratic society, where education and intelligence have an economic advantage, with considerable mobility, and where money has high value, meaning that a smart person can become rich or at least well-off (it wasn't always like this) - how many generations will it take until there are intelligence gaps between the rich and the poor? Meaning that the poor will actually be more stupid? And how much of intelligence is computational ability versus how much of it is the ability to focus and pay attention? The high concentration, over years and also during exams, that provides education, and allows dealing with complex knowledge and deep thinking - isn't it more important than the power of the computing machine? Let's say the power is less but can be applied for a longer time, and mainly in a focused way in the same direction, won't we get further thanks to the driver and not thanks to the engine power, or even the speed of the vehicle.

From what we know about network behavior, it is precisely the phenomenon of concentration of talents that creates an intellectual explosion, and not necessarily particularly strong individual minds, or the average capability strength in the network (for example, the average education in the population). And also in the behavior of computations - the software is more important than the hardware power, and navigation is more important than the horsepower of the vehicle in order to arrive quickly. Brute force doesn't change much, but the algorithm does. This is the basic insight behind the field of complexity in computer science. That is, if intelligence is actually the ability to concentrate and focus, men have a certain advantage in this, at the expense of multiple actions and divided attention, and this includes concentration on the goal, hunting, drive and achievement, which characterize male reproduction more, as opposed to female.

All this stands, of course, in contrast to unfocused people who are easily distracted, especially against the background of the many distractions of the modern era, whose long-term meaning is a decrease in intelligence in the population, if concentration is what creates intelligence and what really distinguishes between smart and stupid. The ability to concentrate is becoming rarer, and more important. But what is the connection between creativity and concentration, when creativity is the ability to solve a problem, for example? Perhaps, beyond intelligence, creativity is even more influenced by concentration. Because what is concentration? The mobility of the network to the center, the ability of all parts of the system to participate in solving the problem before you - for example, the ability of all ideas and knowledge in the brain to make a focused integration on a specific challenge (like an intelligence test, or writing a fragment).

Therefore, as we already see in some advanced societies, the Flynn effect can start to reverse, and the average intelligence in the population that rose by dozens of points in the 20th century will start to decline in the 21st century. In a society where smarter and more intellectual people become less religious, while religious people have more children, how many generations will it take for secular people to be smarter than religious people, and for there to be a smart secular minority and a stupid religious majority? And in general, do the limitations of human cognition stem from limitations of computational ability or much more from limited concentration ability or limited decision-making ability, which may stem from brain energy considerations? And perhaps the high energy consumption in decision-making causes even creative people to eventually become fixed, meaning human creativity is limited mainly because a creative brain requires more energy, as does a learning brain, than a brain that enters a track, a routine.

All learning itself means turning new and difficult paths that require concentration and decisions into old and routine paths that require less brain energy because they have less search and more automation. Therefore, all our attempts to make good decisions and change are expected to fail because our decision-making ability has no ability to sustain us but only habit. And all this just because of energy considerations that are not relevant today, when we have countless calories to consume. In other words, is it possible to have a mutation of a brain that is much more active and consumes much more energy, and allows eating without calculation?

Will we reach a state where we deeply internalize that the power of computing power is less relevant than the power of the algorithm? After all, this is the principled conclusion in computer science. For example, will there come a day when exponentially stronger processors will not be stronger as a power in the world even linearly? It's clear that a processor twice as strong is not twice as powerful in the world, in terms of what it can do, if it just runs the same programs twice as fast it's not worth twice as much money, for example. That is - will Moore's law not necessarily lead to intelligence as long as there are no better algorithms, or maybe we already have good algorithms, or reasonable ones, but several orders of magnitude less than what is needed, and we will achieve this ability? It's likely that the practical computing ability of the brain is orders of magnitude less than its theoretical computing ability as a machine with so and so neurons. That is, with a good algorithm we will reach intelligence long before we reach the computing ability of the brain, and with an algorithm worse than the brain's it's possible that even when we reach the computing ability of the brain we will still have a way to go to reach intelligence. This parallels the distinction between intelligence as computing power and intelligence as concentration power.

Also socially, what's important is finding better algorithms, not working harder and more diligently and correctly with existing algorithms. Democracy, for example, will not be replaced by monarchy or by going backwards, even if it collapses - but by a better social algorithm than democracy. For example, the economic algorithm is more successful today than the governmental one, and therefore more and more is going to the economy and less to the state. But in the future there may be a better algorithm than the capitalist one, and if such an algorithm is created on the network, which will manage humanity's conduct through the network, then the state and the economy will lose their power in favor of this platform. Therefore, investment in social algorithms should have been the main focus of political science today.

Nothing lasts forever - not democracy and not capitalism - but only until there are better algorithms, meaning even if they exist they still need to be socially implemented, and turn the internet network into a neural network, where people are neurons. Today it might already be like this in principle, only that who decides what input a person receives from all the neurons ("friends") they connected to and where their output goes is Facebook's wall algorithm, and only when there will be a more transparent and smart algorithm will it work. Because currently the only thing that can be transferred is posts, and the only thing that can be received is likes as a reward. But it's also possible to transfer money and reputation as a reward. And most importantly - it may be possible to transfer work as well, for example a piece of code that does something, or real work, or scientific research. And we need someone with vision who will establish this network, where the desire to do good work will stem from the fact that your reputation will depend on it. And this is what could replace capitalism - neurocapitalism. Just as democracy could be replaced by neurodemocraty.