37 2024.06.06 2024.07.02 2024.07.05 article M. Ljubičić (Amenoum)108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatia (amenoum.org)mljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com On the distribution of intelligence. biology intelligence, consciousness, mind, souls https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.12593048 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits 1 Distribution of intelligence, a holistic approach Abstract How does the number of neurons correlate with intelligence? Do the chances for the emergence of geniuses increase with the rise of population? A hypothesis is presented, aiming to provide the answer to these and similar questions. Introduction It is commonly believed that the more people there are on the planet the greater is the chance for the emergence of geniuses, like Newton or Einstein. That is an interesting proposition, but is it valid? Here I argue that it is not. What makes a genius? To be a genius, a person must be extremely creative in problem solving. Note that creativity or originality is, as everything else, relative. One may solve a particular problem in the same way as someone else but naturally that does not imply one is familiar with the solution of that someone. Thus, the fact that the same solution already exists does not imply lack of creativity. It only increases the probability that the apparent genius may be a fraud or a copycat in reality. Creativity (originality) does positively correlate with intelligence but humanity is not measuring intelligence correctly. This is why the IQ of highly creative persons and geniuses (eg. Einstein) is measured to be significantly lower than the highest scores. Why is that the case? The reason behind that is probably the bias toward skill training. IQ tests are standardized and very similar. People with highest scores on IQ tests are most likely people who have extensively trained solving IQ tests. Thus, a person who has extensively trained for IQ testing and its IQ is measured to be 180 is, in reality, likely less intelligent than a person who scored 150 but has never seen such test before. This bias in not only present in IQ tests, it's common in education systems. People with highest grades are often not the most creative people with the most original ideas, rather the most trained people. Such people do not explore and learn new things out of curiosity, rather to get high scores. The system in place awards those who seek points and careers and conform to the establishment. Such people also construct IQ tests. So there is an inherent bias in making trained people appearing more intelligent than they really are. People with highest intelligence are probably generally those who score 150-160 on their first IQ test. Those who score higher or lower than that on an IQ test, are probably less intelligent but may be more trained. Increase in average IQ of the population may have nothing to do with an increase in intelligence, rather with an increase in training. Indeed, over the last century the average IQ has been steadily increasing. This can be correlated with increasing value of education and associated degrees. People had an incentive to score higher. Lately, however, the value of degrees (eg. Master's) has been falling. And the same has been happening with IQ, particularly in top scorers. So, are people getting less intelligent or less interested in training, or both? In any case, originality should be a dominant signal of intelligence, not the ability to score high in the system which values high scores (training) and actually punishes or marginalizes deviation from the established dogma (creativity being one such deviation). Recycling of old ideas is on the increase in human population, which is a clear signal of decline in creativity and thus a signal of decline of average intelligence. The notion that increasing population increases chances for more geniuses is flawed. It assumes that the average intelligence stays constant with increasing population, or is even rising. It also assumes unchanged distribution of intelligence among population. I argue however, for the existence of peak intelligence (which is probably not correlated with peak IQ). Distribution of intelligence Based on years of research, I argue that the whole of humanity should be modelled as a mutually entangled collective of relative neurons, having a certain amount of consciousness and intelligence of its own. If brain-mind (or, brain-soul) dualism is real, here the total intelligence should not be a simple superposition of the intelligence of individuals, rather the two exist independently even though they are coupled and can affect each other - symmetrically or asymmetrically. The two may exist simultaneously in time but oscillation is another possibility, where consciousness oscillates between a singular (condensate) form (representing superposition) and fragmented form, where it is spread over multiple neurons. Consciousness is correlated with brain waves of different frequencies so it is indeed possible that consciousness itself has a frequency or frequencies of existence (corresponding to particular layer) on particular scale. In other words, there is a finite number of moments of consciousness in a unit of time. This number would then represent the frequency of oscillation between the two forms. Note that dualism here does not imply metaphysics - the singular form may be a type of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of particles. Per my theories, everything is completely relative, and this must include temperature as well. Temperature of the atoms in the brain may be on the order of room temperature and a condensate of atoms at this temperature is extremely unstable (short-lived). But particles exist on different scales and some hardly ever interact with each other, thus, temperature/pressure is scale relative. For example, photons can form Bose-Einstein condensates when confined and insulated by cavities at room temperature, but masses of photons themselves are of different scale than the atoms forming the cavities so it is inappropriate to claim that photons are at room temperature (at least absolutely), even if the cavities are. In other words, even if photons may lose or gain some energy interacting with cavities, they do not lose or gain any energy interacting with other photons (their interaction is usually negligible). In effect, temperature relative to the scale of photons is close to absolute 0 (absolute 0 temperature is relative to scale). Thus, with increasing density of photons or decreasing confinement volume, a BEC signature can be obtained. Oscillation (or frequencies of oscillation) of consciousness is probably correlated with the distribution and total amount of intelligence. To answer the introductory question, one should then compare the evolution of human population with the development of a brain, such as a human one (even if that may not be the best analogue). Development of a brain is correlated with rising consciousness and intelligence, but there is a peak point in the number of neurons and synapses. I argue that this peak is an evolutionary selected optimum number of neurons correlated with the peak consciousness and intelligence of the coupled mind. In other words, intelligence is a finite resource, limited by the capacity of the mind. As intelligence is, in fragmented form, distributed over all neurons, adding more neurons then would not increase total intelligence, but would decrease the average intelligence of individual neurons - as total intelligence is now spread over more neurons. Distribution of intelligence generally may vary, it may be polarized - characterized by strong inequality (non-uniform distribution), or neutral (more uniform, balanced). Judging by decreasing fertility of humanity, current development and state of intelligence, human population has reached and probably passed the optimum. If it has been passed, and I believe it has been passed (before settling at the optimum, the temporary and significant overshoot is normal even in embryonic neurogenesis in individual humans), the average intelligence of human individuals should be decreasing. However, it is obvious that distribution of intelligence between humans (or, relative neurons) is not flat (uniform), rather similar to normal distribution - intelligence between individuals can vary significantly. Most likely, this distribution changes similarly to the distribution of wealth (although obviously not highly correlated with it on individual level) - where the mean is currently skewing toward lower values with time in humanity (increasing polarization). Thus, as the population increases beyond the optimum, the intelligence of the majority is decreasing and high intelligence is concentrating in ever smaller number of individuals (with distribution of intelligence between them probably not being uniform either). Thus, population increase beyond the optimum does not bring the world more geniuses like Einstein, rather less of them, although some may be more intelligent. If optimum has been reached, when was it reached? This should be the time when high intelligence and creativity was spread among more individuals than it is now. The Age of Enlightenment? Or perhaps year 1963, when the peak annual population growth rate was reached? In any case, comparing this to embryonic neurogenesis, one can probably expect that population size will be relatively quickly decreased by at least 4 times once the peak population size is reached, which according to UN projections is about 10.43 billion, reached in year 2086. However, these projections are limited and probably too optimistic. Everyone is a force carrier particle Reductionism can be very useful to solve abstract and isolated problems. In reality, however, nothing is absolutely abstract or absolutely isolated. Universe is also showing relative self-similarity (fundamental recursion). It is believed that humans have evolved from microorganisms and simple cells. But humans are composed out of the same microorganisms and cells. Now, it is obvious that an organism, such as a human one, is more than the sum of its parts. It acts as a distinct cell of its own, albeit of larger scale. So why is the expression of this distinct individuality reduced to the sum of, so called, fundamental forces, in contemporary science? I argue that it is more than that. Organisms evolve from [the interaction of] smaller organisms, these evolve from [the interaction of] single-celled organisms. These evolve from [the interaction of] molecules, molecules from [the interaction of] atoms and atoms from [the interaction of] subatomic particles. The self-similarity is evident - any one of these is composed out of parts it evolved from. Anything then, which is more than the sum of its parts, should be associated with its own field and should be interpreted as a force carrier particle. As forms of life are diverse, so are forces. The association of fields with relative particles or relative organisms obviously implies dualism, otherwise the distinct field would be associated with any collective of entities even if that collective does not represent anything more than the sum of its parts. An organism is thus a relative particle coupled to a localized excitation of the associated field. Again, it is possible that a collective becomes something more than the sum of its parts at the point individual excitations associated with the parts collapse to a localized superposition. If this is correlated with consciousness, then obviously emergence of consciousness can be periodic. There are problems with this interpretation, however. If all excitations are periodic, individual excitations must be relatively synchronized to collapse into a superposition. While individual excitations belonging to the same species may have similar frequencies, how synchronized are they? Note that different species can participate in the formation of the superposition at times if associated frequencies are harmonics. This should then be probably correlated with different layers of consciousness. Another problem is encountered using recursion. If excitations represent collapse/localization of smaller excitations, this must be true for these smaller excitations as well, etc. This implies there are some fundamental excitations which do not represent a superposition, rather exist as independent quanta. All the scales of energy, from the fundamental to the topmost scale must be highly correlated/synchronized. And what would be the topmost scale? Is, for example, a human organism one such endpoint, or does it end in human population, planet or beyond (yes, I believe a planet is more than the sum of its parts)? I do not believe in the existence of absolutely fundamental excitations (why would a particular scale of energy, out of all possible scales, be absolutely special?). At least on some scales, the superposition then probably exists independently (it shouldn't then be called absolute superposition), it is only highly correlated with individual excitations (which is why it should be called a relative superposition), in other words, it is coupled to them - to form a living being. When a person dies, or, when its brain dies, the neurons of that brain die as well, but components of neurons do not die so quickly, smaller components (molecules) will live much longer and even if all molecules disintegrate into atoms, the atoms will not disintegrate into subatomic particles, they'll form other molecules. Atoms are then, in this context, relatively fundamental. With no dualism, cloned animals, or identical twins would have identical consciousness. On the other hand, dualism (mind-body coupling) may allow for some deviation. In any case, the existence of the superposition allows for the superposition to affect individual excitations just like individual excitations affect the superposition. In my theories, everything is completely relative and that includes causality, where it represents a special case of high correlation, where action-reaction forces are synchronized actions (what may be interpreted as action, or reaction, is relative). Again, one should not reduce actions-reactions to some fundamental level. This allows for the existence of action with delayed, or no, symmetric reaction. This then allows for the existence of relative free will, where one can, for example, choose (relatively) not to react on particular stimuli on particular scale. From our perspective, atoms or planets don't seem to have free will, but there are reference frames in which we don't have free will either.