How to Define Intelligence and Apply It

People will understandably have a tough time providing their benefit-of-the-doubt for this one. Ironically, that’s exactly what intelligence requires when statements are first conceived. That is, they always begin in a state of true.

The following definition is currently the best derived to date and it will stay that way until someone can find a valid reason to say why not.

Intelligence = Truth-by-default above a contradiction process.

Some Scientists Claim that Prediction is the Essence of Intelligence

There’s clearly a deep relationship between intelligence and prediction based on existing research. However it should be asked, “how does a person or a machine determine if a prediction should be embraced?” Instead consider that prediction is an initial component of intelligent thought. The more mistakes a person accumulates the better chance they have of making accurate predictions through a process of elimination. Eventually the brain becomes capable of doing this subconsciously. For example, a child learning to walk must train their brain with countless mistakes in varying situations before they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The neorcortex is widely believed to employ a single universal process for all senses and motor controls in all mammals (i.e. plasticity). Why wouldn’t that be something which is fundamentally simple and describable?

1. First it’s necessary to conceive a goal or idea through intuition.
2. Second a process of contradictions is used to rule things out.
3. Whatever ideas are left standing can be called “correct”… for the moment in the given context.

The mind is capable of having epiphanies, something that only consciousness beings are capable of. These are necessary to find the beliefs, ideas, or predictions which begin in a state of true-by-default. Intelligence and consciousness are inseparable. Machines aren’t conscious but they can behave intelligently (artificially), providing that creative and conscious humans program them by means of “mistake avoidance”. Machines are ideally suited for creating permutations, and that holds true for human epiphanies which can make it seem as if computers conceive novel ideas on their own. However, predictions begin with human programmers that know how to translate their creativity into algorithms, creating products such as Alexa and Chat GPT.

Language Jujitsu

If one understands the language protocol, and they’re not on a side of harboring contradictions, they can dominate others in a debate or discussion. It usually results in opponents rage quitting or changing the subject. However, leaving prematurely equates to losing because whoever has the last word wins. It’s a very simple process but hard to master which is why information systems are needed to keep the rules of the game in check. This will ultimately lead to a highly intelligent human race.

When conducting discussions in person, keep the following points in mind:

1. Rather than focusing on one’s own idea, first attempt to discredit the other’s belief(s). People are passionate about what they know and they’ll usually continue interrupting the dialog until faced at a dead end.
2. Once they’re done speaking, pick out something from their statement which can’t be said and then give the reason why. It is imperative to provide effective (-) Can’t (+) Because rebuttals. Not unlike batteries and magnets with dual polarity, it miraculously short-circuits twisted beliefs in the mind and forcefully shines a light on hypocrisy.
3. Stay vigilant when opponents try to change the subject, use ad hominem attacks, or introduce circular arguments. If they do, continue the process. EX: “You (-) can’t redirect the focus of the debate on my character (+) because ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with the logic of what we’re currently discussing.”
4. After the other side cannot continue further they should (or hopefully) ask, “So do you have a better idea?”. That is when a true-by-default statement is offered which exhibits a single positive polarity. If opponents object to any ideas or rebuttals, continue using Can’t/Because (this time in defense) until they are silenced again.
5. Maintain a mellow demeanor, a calm voice, and refrain from using foul language. Regardless of how others behave, use logic and words to prevail. The pen is mightier than the sword so if emotions interfere then consider conducting discussions in written form which provides time to choose words carefully.

It’s often difficult to use “Language Jujitsu” 1-on-1 because ego can interfere and the opponent may leave with the last word, “Oh, you’re just a stubborn radical.” (door slams). If these discussions take place in the home, the process may have to be repeated many times until they begin to see things from a new perspective.

The process is much more successful when conducted among a collective because it makes rage quitting harder before an audience. If performed through an information system, people without egos attached to the dialog can study the aftermath. They might continue to oppose or support the capstone (true-by-default statement) from different angles.

Disarmament

The answer is always both and it should be emphasized that conscious beings are right with whatever context they carried at the time their thoughts were conceived. Take time to understand the other point of view through another set of eyes until it’s possible to agree with everything they say. Next, ask to flip the page over and perceive the matter from a blank sheet. When disputes become heated it’s imperative that both sides admit why they were wrong when matters are cast from another angle.

It’s impossible to be right which is both the cause and consequence of duality. Duality can be clearly be seen in the quantum realm but it’s difficult to understand how it elevates to the highest concepts of thought. There’s no shame for each side to accept blame because they made decisions under alternate contexts.

When both sides understand the validity of each other’s point of view it provides 3D superhuman abilities. This permits language jujitsu matches to end cordially which is important for learning how to agree upon a common and sensible context.

Vetting the Definition of Intelligence Intelligently

“Right” isn’t something which can be assembled from building blocks because that would require axioms and authorities to certify them. Who is so special to say what axioms are correct? If ideas need to be proven before they are considered right then the axioms themselves shouldn’t be exempt.

It’s elegant, contradiction-proof, and counterintuitive to invert the process of rational thought. Simply assume that “right” is something which occurs universally from the outset, relative to an individual, in the moment, with their DNA, and life experiences. It’s easy to see nature’s way when observing toddlers who clearly trust and believe ideas by default. A broken world filled with charlatans perverts the innate and makes it difficult to see how a new world will thrive on the basis of trust/truth by default.

The Intelligence Protocol has been used below to demonstrate that the definition for intelligence is currently in a state of not-wrong because all branches of the contradiction tree end with an even count rather than odd. If people leave the argument in frustration, or because they’re otherwise incapable of responding, they’ll necessarily concede by virtue of the protocol.

New ideas surrounding contentious matters, involving countless people, will oscillate frequently between true/false when a discussion begins, but eventually the outcome will settle to one side. A dormant discussion doesn’t mean that an idea has been proven, just that it currently exists in a state of right or wrong which can forever be changed by anyone. It doesn’t matter if the reason for the contradiction is gibberish because nonsensical contributions are easy to contradict and, with the help of a future information system, they’re likely to become immediately contradicted through automation. Contradictions are free to cross over completely unrelated topics because the “Can’t indexing mechanism” is universally applicable. In other words, the larger the database grows the harder it becomes to spam it and/or recycle repetitive talking points.

The top belief has a single positive polarity which starts out in a state of true. The contradiction tree that ensues can meander, like conversations at a dinner table. However, with the help of an information system utilizing the intelligence protocol, contradictions will be replicated throughout personal databases for all time. When the databases of global contradictions are stored locally (i.e. not in the cloud), it makes censorship infeasible. This shares similarities with the blockchain except that synchronization between all participants is unnecessary. The goal should be to obtain as many contradictions as possible, share them with others, contribute more, and preserve them indefinitely. The larger the contradiction pool grows the more intelligent the system becomes because it will lead people to say things which are not wrong from the eyes of the collective.

Depending on what contradictions exist in someone’s local database, an assertion can render true for one person and false for another. It’s understandable because it’s impossible to be right. However, the quicker that databases can be synchronized amongst the collective, the sooner that consensuses will be reached.

Contradictions are comprised of a (-) negative and (+) positive component. The negative parts utilize a sophisticated indexing mechanism within information systems that automatically attach to the positive components preceding them. Abundant contradictions will eliminate the kind of repetition found in blogs, or echo chambers buried deep in the pagination of user comments. Due to the timeless nature of contradictions there’s no fear of great thoughts becoming buried, out of reach from search engines. For example, a person may enter a true-by-default statement and immediately discover that a contradiction tree has automatically attached to it. If their statement renders false it’s up to them (or someone else) to discover the single contradiction that’s responsible for changing the outcome and contradict that, if they can. Another contradiction tree might automatically attach again, and attempting to alter it could wake up a sleeping giant, spanning diverse topics, that depend upon its state.

Truly intelligent endeavors already perform Can’t/Because without knowing the underlying mechanics. Think of truly remarkable human achievements, such as landing rovers on other planets. The goal is established from the outset and countless blockers sway the outcome to false while solutions counter them. When the launch button is about to be pressed the team of engineers and scientists don’t take a vote. Any single person on the team has the power to stop a launch, but if nobody raises alarm then it’s considered that the mission will succeed on faith… unanimously. The outcome of the mission can never be proven to work because it’s impossible to be right (unexpected things can always happen). However, if failure does occur, new contradictions will be assembled after learning from past mistakes which bolsters future attempts. People learn from mistakes and should therefore teach by them.

____________________________________________________________

(1) (true) BELIEF: “Truth-by-default above a contradiction process” is the best definition for intelligence.

____________________________________________________________

— — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that something is best, worst, better, or worse, and expect that idea to receive unanimous support (+) because those are subjective terms which are merely “relatively true” from the perspective of individuals, not the collective.

— (3) — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that relative/subjective terms are unable to unanimously describe concepts (+) because there are many ideas described with superlatives which currently stand undisputed, such as the “The TCP/IP protocol is the best protocol for interplanetary communication.” If a consensus can’t be reached then it must mean that the objective is flawed and it can be redefined in such a way that everyone agrees with. For example, instead of saying “Strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream”, it can instead be said that “It’s best to let everyone choose their favorite flavor.”

— — — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that the definition of a word is capable or garnering unanimous support like other statements (+) because if an idea cannot be scientifically measured there’s no way to get everyone to agree upon what constitutes better or worse.

— — (5) — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that it’s impossible to logically measure better or worse with regards to the description of a concept (+) because all tangible memories are imperfect. Like Occam’s Razor, if there are two different ways to describe an idea, both of which are collectively mistake-free, it can be said that the smaller version is better.

— — — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that it’s possible for everyone to reach a consensus over the best definition of a word (+) because if such a thing were possible there wouldn’t be multiple companies producing dictionaries.

— — (5) — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that mankind’s reasons for competing in the past apply going forward (+) because the Intelligence Algorithm has recently been discovered and it can be a game-changer for humanity if people are willing to listen. Intelligence has pointed the way to unanimity-over-democracy and collaboration-over-competition.

— — — — — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that competition is bad (+) because capitalism has proven to outperform communism.

— — — (7) — — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that capitalism and competition is good for humanity even if it has proven superior to communism (+) because within every competing company there is a top-down power structure which inhibits bottom-up information flow. Capitalism has already proven inferior to Open Source and that was before the advent of the Intelligence Protocol.

— — — — — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that competition is bad (+) because mother nature runs upon a form of competition (i.e. survival of the fittest) which has undeniably yielded amazing solutions.

— — — (7) — — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that mother nature’s success with evolution is proof that mankind should embrace competition to maximize progress by means of separate projects (+) because it’s now possible for humanity to evolve ideas collaboratively when they compete through language on single endeavors until 100% of the concerns have been quelled. The pen is mightier than the Ford, or Chevy.

— — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that there can be a simple definition for intelligence (+) because that would be like trying to describe consciousness, something which is personal and untouchable.

— (3) — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that intelligence is indescribable in a way that’s similar to consciousness (+) because scientists have not and will not create “artificial consciousness”. If people share a goal of building machines that are capable of simulating intelligence (i.e. artificial) then it becomes necessary to accurately describe what intelligence means and how it works.

— — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that it’s possible to accurately define intelligence (+) because there’s no way to verify that it’s correct.

— (3) — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that one needs to verify that that the definition of a word is correct (+) because the very definition is founded on the idea that ideas start as correct. What’s more important is to ensure that ideas are free of contradictions.

— — — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that it’s intelligent to pursue “not-wrong” outcomes of definitions (+) because that’s not the way that dictionaries work.

— — (5) — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that dictionaries are serve as an authority on the the definition of words (+) because words are defined with other words which means that there’s never an end or a source (analogous to a dog chasing its tail). There’s never a way to be absolutely correct/perfect about anything so it becomes important to use the power of inversion and find ideas/concepts which are not wrong. As long as a person or a collective cannot find mistakes on something then it can be considered correct, which is often the case with dictionaries (even if multiple compete with one another).

— — — — — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that dictionaries should be filled with not-wrong definitions (+) because people would not use something that they are not familiar with.

— — — (7) — — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t conflate the purpose of a dictionary with a method for vetting correct answers (+) because an intelligent process of mistake-avoidance can be considered the scaffolding for deriving things which are right. Utilizing Can’t/Because is great for achieving unanimity on contentious matters but the extra work involved with dual polarity can make it feel exhausting. An intelligent process can be used by scholars to resolve conflicting opinions, but the final product should be produced in a manner that’s singular, familiar, and easy to consume.

Game of Attrition

The “contradiction tree” above is in no way exhaustive, but if many people enter the debate it would hard to sway the outcome to false because the intelligence protocol was meant to be. Resolutions are decided through a game-of-attrition (last word wins) and the brightest minds will eventually “get it” and battle the inflexible old fashioned techniques.

There’s not a more intelligent way to collectively decide upon something. If there was then people would have to say what’s wrong with this process and why. That would mean the naysayers would be fundamentally using the process which they are attempting to discredit.

See an unfinished prototype at http://hipi.tech and it’s source code at https://github.com/HIPI-Project/HIPI