"Did you ever feel like an alien who somehow became stranded on a planet called Earth where nothing seemed to make any sense?" A quote from "Ming The Merciless"
Recovering from civilization can be brutal but neccessary if we are to become truly free from it's influence. Kick the civilization habit here!
With that said, from what perspectives will our purposes be served here? We have two extremes that we can begin with. We can look at the Human as an individual and see how a higher level of intelligence might manifest itself on that level, and we can look at the entire Human species and consider what it might look like from that perspective.
Each view will render perceptions that are different as well as similar. We are hoping that taking advantage of the broad range of viewpoints between these two extremes, will provide us with a deeper understanding as we are able to look across the entire Human landscape with the concept of intelligence in mind.
We can make a temporary assumption here. That in many cases, the general character of the mindset of the individuals of a species will determine the general character of the mindset of the entire species. The danger here is that this assumption is highly generalized and so must be used with great caution. If it is applicable at all, it could only be used to a certain extent. And the results will also be generalized and have limited value, because of that very fact.
But as shaky as this territory might be, we still might benefit if we restrict its use to a few specific areas. If for example the majority of individuals of a species, for whatever reason, became stalled at a certain level of general ignorance, would it not be reasonable to expect that this condition will manifest itself at the species level, in many of the same ways it does at the individual level? So, an example might be in the area of social responsibility and specifically in the area of choosing leaders that will be making decisions that affect not only the individual, but the species and the world environments. If the general population of the worlds communities are ignorant to the extent that they cannot think through issues logically and reasonably, then they are vulnerable to making bad decisions for themselves, one of which is to leave themselves vulnerable to the manipulations of those who may have agendas other than the best interests of the general population in mind. Such ignorance leads to selecting leaders who themselves are not qualified to make good decisions and the consequences of bad decision making are all around us today.
One of the important points here is in the area of relevance and appropriateness. Back when the Human footprint was much smaller, bad decisions didn't have the impact they do today. Today the Human species must make decisions that reflect current realities, and one of those realities is that we can no longer isolate ourselves in small specialized groups. That is, making decisions based only on local considerations as if we are not a part of a world that is getting smaller almost daily.
Such reasoning supports the need for the establishment of a global minimum level of species wide intelligence, which of course might benefit from this projects efforts.
We created broad, flexible and open assumptions to begin with in order to allow us a lot of flexibility and latitude in our efforts to define and describe and refine all the further assumptions, ideas and concepts that we will need in order to build our conceptual framework for Human intelligence 2.0.
The natural world seems to use a balanced healthy systems management BHSM approach to successfully carry out its agenda, which we call 'The Agenda of Life' rather than nature. So, initially we propose using this model for our purposes and adjust it where necessary. We start with the additional assumptions that a true higher intelligence couldn't possibly be built solely around the mental dimension. It must reflect all the ways in which we connect to and experience our realities. Besides being mental, we are emotional, spiritual and physical as well. So, a model begins to form. If each of these components were a system that must be balanced and healthy in order to function properly so that together they could, through an integrated effort, achieve a higher consciousness, then if we investigate each of them and find that they fit the model, perhaps we will have something to build on.
Keeping in mind that this model and all the assumptions we are currently working with, including the assumption that a model that works for the Agenda of Life will work for not only individual Humans but the entire species, are only temporary devices we are using for the purpose of constructing possible conceptual frameworks for a new definition of Human intelligence. Perhaps a little brainstorming is called for now.If we adjust our point of view of the Human life form to a slightly less personal and prejudiced position, and see ourselves as more of a construct of potential rather than the sometimes strange and definitely limited definitions we now embrace, maybe we can get passed those limitations and consider some unusual ideas. If we are going to work with the balanced healthy systems model as our basic structure, we need to visualize what we are working with so we can begin to drill down and explore each system.
All of which need to be balanced and healthy by themselves and work together to create and maintain a state of higher consciousness that will be able to manage all these systems on behalf of the complete life form. Once this higher consciousness is developed, we can tentatively make the assumption that we have achieved the initial stage of creating intelligence 2.0.
We start with the mental domain because it is a critical basic input output resource. So basic in fact that we question whether the existence of the other three domains could even be perceived, beyond direct experience, without this capability. For example; we could feel the experience of pleasure and pain resulting from various levels of contact with fire, but could we build an abstract category like the concept of emotions to explain, organize and understand those feelings? We believe that without the brains ability to make associations between identified events, objects and experiences, we would only be a reactive creature. Perhaps we wouldn't even wonder or imagine.
To view the brain as only one tool would be to make the same mistake of limiting our perceptions through narrow points of viewing, that we may have been making all along. We think a better view is that the brain, or the mind that seems to be created by the brains activity represent a number of capabilities. Our concern at this moment is; just how deeply do we need to explore the mental system to serve our current intent of building a basic conceptual framework for Human intelligence? This is a concern because all along we have been advocating a high degree of awareness through quantity and quality of perceptual input. In other words, the more data mining we can do, the greater our understanding will be. But data mining the brain could turn into a PHD thesis, and that depth of understanding may not be necessary here.
Also, after doing some research on this subject we have come to the realization that there is little actual knowledge concerning the brain and Human behavior, and most of what is passing as the truth, is actually speculation. Even Freuds views on the id, ego and superego are just his speculations on how things are or may be. So all we can realistically do here is look at what is actually known, consider what is not known, and perhaps do some speculating of our own.
It is only recently that science has made progress in the area of brain research and come up with what many people intuitively knew for a long time, that the brain was much more flexible and elastic than science had believed for years. Yet even now we are clueless about the mind. What is it? Where does it come from? Is the mind a consequence of our brains? Or is our brain a consequence of our mind? Is the mind an abstract construct of the brains activity? Can the mind exist without the brain? And visa versa. This is the landscape of speculation. But we believe that if we are careful with our assumptions, we can reach some fairly reliable conclusions, even in this unknown territory. For example; on a very basic level, the brain seems to function as a data processor. However, the brains ability to perform that function can be interfered with to the extent that it can produce any kind of results. But interfered with by who or what? And is this where we introduce the idea of the mind?
There have been some who thought that the idea of self awareness was an indication of intelligence. While this is a bit too much of a leap for us, self awareness does seem to be important because we ask the question 'without self awareness, could any mind exist?' And if it could exist, who would know it? And How? We also ask, 'what might the minds true function be?' Could it be the brains management department, assuming a much higher level of development than it is at present? Both past and present, the mind has been at least as much of a liability as it has been an asset. And this assessment sounds just like we would talk about any other tool, that the use of which, isn't yet fully understood.
So at this point we can at least say that the mind, awareness, consciousness are, if not the same thing, closely related in purpose and function. And that any or all of these concepts can interfere with the brains ability to process data. We are assuming that the brain is a tool used by our conscious mind, and if this assumption holds up then we have something to work with because the implication is that any or all input presented to our brain having first been filtered by our mind will only be as accurate and or valuable as the health of the mind involved. This is why we believe that acquiring critical thinking skills is a first priority. Because garbage in garbage out. An untrained and undisciplined mind isn't likely to manage a brains capabilities well at all.
The further implication is that the mind can be trained and disciplined. From our own direct and personal experience we know that this is true. The only people who will object to this, are those who are heavily invested in avoiding personal responsibility and power. Earlier we said that ' we believe that without the brains ability to make associations between identified events, objects and experiences, we would only be a reactive creature.' But now, that doesn't seem to be the entire equation because the brain could make all the associations it wanted to, but without the mind, what would be the point? Would the brain give meaning to the associations it makes? How? Was this why the mind came into existence in the first place? Is the mind the brains greatest evolutionary adaptation? The one that opened the door to infinite possibilities and potential? Did our mind evolve in order to give meaning to the brains associations? Or did the mind require the brain to begin to make associations?
We don't have to know where it came from to learn how to use it. Remember, this is unknown territory and we will have to take some things on faith, at least temporarily until they prove useful or otherwise. The next critical question is; if the brain is a tool, is the mind a tool as well? And if so, who uses it? Or is it being used at all? Which leads to; how many minds do we have? How many minds can we have? Why would we need more than one mind?
At this point we need to make some decisions on what speculations we are going to go with for our purposes, otherwise we may get lost going down every rabbit hole we encounter. We feel that to begin with, a one mind model should be sufficient. The conscious mind. We can add more as the need arises, but first we want to explore options such as; is the subconscious mind really just a capability of the conscious mind, or just a different manifestation or extension of the conscious mind? The reason for this is that we are not entirely sure that the regular conscious mind isn't the higher consciousness before being fully developed. That is, we believe that there are so many dimensions and domains of the current manifestation of the Human life form today, that have had their growth and development interfered with or in some way inhibited to the extent that they are effectively disabled or in some degree ineffective or just underdeveloped, that we are never sure how things could be or would be without the interference, and we won't know until we work with them for awhile and see what happens. Remember, the current model was built from a particular view point, what might we find if we view it differently? We are certain of at least one thing. Some form of consciousness, that exists in the form of awareness, in the here and now, is critical to any definition of real intelligence, especially our conceptual framework for the new Humint 2.0.
It is this mind that we will focus on to represent the mental Human domain of our model. So, we can begin to consider details of this definition of mind by recalling how Humans create realities. Recall that we create an abstract representation of the thing we want to create, we visualize it, then we begin to build the conceptual framework by populating it with more and more detail, always checking whether it is compatible with currently accepted reality, and then selling it. When we are selling it, we don't just sell it to others, we are in effect selling it to ourselves as well. It is a new idea.
We can start with what we do know. Current science has recently realized that the brain is not a static repository that once it is programmed it is done. We now know scientifically how elastic, adaptable and programmable the brain is, but that could only be true if there is something like mind in the mix otherwise what would be the point? We also know that both the brain and our mind interact in a mutually influential manner, that is; the brain can influence the mind, and the mind can influence the brain. The importance of this knowledge is that it reveals a source of our power.
Also, one of the dynamics of this interaction is heavily involved with the principles of conditioning and mind sets. The brains firing and wiring capability depends on repetition in order to establish the pathways we want established. Problems arise when the brain fires and wires input that we are not aware it is receiving and wiring. We need to be in control of this functionality and only the minds ability to be aware can enable this control.
We need to be sure that the mind that we are creating is a healthy one or we will only repeat the mistakes of the past. This new mind framework might be one with multiple capabilities that span the distance between the subconscious and the higher consciousness. Another reason why we decided on first trying to work with the one mind model is that we are hoping to realize more practical usefulness and control over our mental functionality. For instance; When Humans adopted the view that the subconscious, conscious and the higher consciousness are separate, the act of separation itself may have created unexpected limitations by placing the subconscious mind out of our sphere of influence and or control, whereas if we include the concept of the subconscious as a capability of the conscious mind, perhaps this perception will open up possible opportunities for exploration and growth. We will never know until we try, and we will never try if we think we know.
Our definition should also include the idea that the here and now must be the natural habitat of the conscious mind. This may seem intuitive or natural to some, but we know that the conscious minds of very few Human life forms spend much time in the here and now. Mostly we are in the past or future or fantasy lands of one kind or another as part of our denial and avoidance strategy. But that is another rabbit hole we can't go down just yet. But if our definition of the conscious mind is going to include the subconscious, the conscious and the higher consciousness, just how might it accomplish this? Just what miracle of management might be necessary, or what levels of awareness might it take? How will we need to see this in order to generate valuable useful perceptions? Who can we get to fill this management position?
Who am I? What am I? Am I what my 'mind' identifies with? And just what is that? And when is that? The 'I' can be incredibly elusive. It is probably the greatest chameleon of them all. To rummage around in this rabbit hole is fraught with danger. The I, me, my, ego, image, self and the id have been so used, misused, defined, redefined and interpreted to death, that they carry so much baggage, that these concepts are all but useless in any practical sense. So, we feel that a fresh new symbol representing a new concept is called for here. Lacking any inspirational input just now, we can temporarily call it the 'center'. And the concept that we will use to represent it is partially barrowed from the spiritual techniques and strategies of the Eastern faiths.
Candidates for our management position must be able to maintain a detachment from special interests, such as all the I's clamoring for attention and gratification of their particular agendas. The candidate's awareness capabilities must be flexible, adaptable and broad in order to achieve understanding of the fine details of the particular, all the way out to a general or global understanding. It cannot allow itself to be seduced by anything or anyone. It must be able to be free of all limits it does not choose to temporarily adopt for its own purposes. Is this a realistic job description? Yes, it is and it has been achieved by many Humans, but in the service of an altogether different agenda than ours here. This state of consciousness is usually achieved for spiritual purposes. So, our conscious mind is now the 'center' and this mind can only exist in the here and now. It will not allow itself to be seduced by the past or the future although it can use them for its purposes. It's anchor in the here and now is the act of breathing. The loss of the awareness of breathing indicates that it is no longer in its natural habitat of the here and now and is no longer the I. Perhaps we should adjust our symbol to be more descriptive at this point and use the symbol 'centered mind' for our new concept.
It is not appropriate here for us to go into the various meditation techniques that allow the Human life form to achieve this state of consciousness. However, the reader can go here to get exposed to a sample meditation technique.
The reality here is pretty much the same as we faced with acquiring critical thinking skills. The good news is, with time and practice, we can achieve this state of consciousness, the bad news is, with time and practice, we can achieve this state of consciousness. We should be at least intelligent enough to realize some truths here; there is no return on investment without an investment, and the quality and quantity of the return will be in direct proportion to that of the investment. This is not so much knowledge, as it is understanding based on knowledge gained through experience and performance.
At this point we encounter a possible problem with our one mind / consciousness concept. Can we be conscious on more than one level at the same time? Put another way, can we be the thinker and the observer of our thinking at the same time? Can we be emotional and unemotional at the same time? Can we be purely physical and be mental at the same time? It seems that many of these questions would also apply to the multiple consciousness model. Just what might our conscious mind be capable of and what characteristics might it possess? What limitations might it actually have, as opposed to those we place on it out of ignorance? Do we need to rethink our one consciousness idea? But even if we did, how will that help? Can two consciousnesses be operating at the same time? How?