Section I
(December, 2006)
Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

Intelligence takes many forms, well beyond the simple standard testing within current education. We also explore the underlying principles of basic intelligence from the qualitative/quantitative relationship to the function/structure viewpoint, and finally the most fundamental system of all: that of orders and organisation, beautifully demonstrated in our fractal, holographic universe of ordered dimensions for the exploration of consciousness.


Current education and modern scientific knowledge relating to the structure and format of the human being---mind, brain, consciousness, etc.---is utterly inadequate and incomplete to satisfactorily evaluate forms of intelligence. Before we elaborate on this and elucidate this statement let us proceed with what we can immediately observe.

There are clearly many modes of intelligence. We might note that probably most forms are contextual, that is, the existence of useful intelligence is a development determined by the application, for example, a skill. In addition, the human may use several modes of intelligence simultaneously---but this can then mean that the combination may be simply a form of intelligence in itself as a whole and we have analysed it, broken it down into non-useful parts in our theorising. Varieties of intelligence have been recognised by scientists and educational writers but only those forms have been given attention that are functioning clearly within our society and limited by existing models of the mind and personality.

Should we assign a level of intelligence to any ability? Perhaps not. For example, an insect might have phenomenal flying skills but this we know is due to an inborn programme we call instinct. Thus creative intelligence should not be required. But if we were to assign intelligence to our computer and robot mechanisms then we must also give intelligence to the insect. At this point we shall simply acknowledge that the origin of this mode of intelligence---programmes, the collective, nature, God---is highly intelligent, but not the creature. Even so it is not so simple since how do we know the insect's consciousness does not contribute some control, even if small, over the mechanism and actually does occasionally make simple choices. We shall come back to this.

Intelligence involves behaviour of some kind. This may be mental, physical, emotional, with biological and genetic influences; intelligence must include programmes and learning patterns. We might consider theoretically that raw (native) awareness---a more pure form of consciousness---to contain potential wisdom but for our reality purposes this awareness needs to have an application, that is, needs to be formatted---this then becomes directed or specific intelligence.

Before we attempt to put any order into this broad subject, let us list some general features and expressions of intelligence: the ability to recognise and solve problems, apply logic and act rationally; rate of learning, memory, and the ability to acquire and hold information; ability to evaluate importances; put order into disorder; persistence in achieving a goal in spite of obstacles; consciously hold a focus; ability to imagine (experientially) some new experience which is merely observed in another; recognise differences between harmony and disharmony; self-evaluation and, in particular, the ability to recognise prejudiced perception in oneself; to draw from the intuition; recognise behavioural objective contexts of society that are acceptable; higher sensory perception; abilities in coordinating a body; musical and artistic talents; quantity of relevant data detected in the environment; common sense; animal type of intelligence ranging into psychic intelligence; the ability to step outside closed systems of thinking or programming; and of course we can hardly leave out responsibility.

Let's make a few comments on these before looking for more basic categories. Most of them are fairly obvious and useful abilities. Common sense would tend to relate to being rational most of the time and not be influenced by personal aberrations and prejudices and exercising a natural ethics. These people will not be over-programmed, are not likely to be dogmatic, and are more capable of giving an unbiased opinion.

Responsibility is fairly obvious as an intelligent trait, but it would also include the ability to confront situations. That is, not to push aside certain unpleasant circumstances in the hope they will go away (the ostrich effect).

Psychic type of abilities have not so much taken time to appreciate as they have been suppressed. Let's forget these 'charged' (programmed) labels such as psi, ESP, paranormal, and simply recognise that we are talking about higher sensory perception, which clearly should not be omitted, and should be regarded as an essentially and inevitable feature of evolving intelligence. If one person detects more of what is going on in their environment than another then obviously they could more easily solve problems, or make the best choices, embracing fringe areas of common existence, and should be regarded as more intelligent in this regard. These abilities require a functioning right brain in which the intuition is not disabled significantly.

We mentioned the ability to detect or observe quantity of data for solving a problem. This is an awareness of not only an amount of data---a span of detectable information---for solving a problem or making a decision, but the selection of relevant information. This is also an example of how complex the evaluation of forms of intelligence can be. One may have the task of handling more 3D logistic type of problems, such as in certain business or practical activities in which relevant overt data must be focussed upon. A philosophical thinker might 'over-think' the circumstances and thus not be as successful. Thus the philosopher is manifesting less intelligence in this specific field but it may be that the philosopher has greater awareness in general, which could 'cause' too much perception to enter, in the above cases. But clearly the greater awareness represents an aspect of greater intelligence, in particular, in his or her own field.

Thus the lesser overall perception of the practical operator may be beneficial in a specific intelligence application. The practical person may be more positive, but is so, owing to limited data that nevertheless may be relevant to the problem/decision, whereas the individual, more sensitive to a wider spectrum of energies, may be more vague---too much data may be drawn in for an evaluation requiring a more simple solution. A person spanning too much information may become confused (fusing of too much data).

The ability to step outside programming or brain washing is an important intelligence in a society which is mentally manipulated---this is more than 'common sense.' It is the perception enabling one to recognise that an apparent closed system of knowledge is in fact open to a greater integration.

Can we narrow down the above list to fewer more basic categories? We can see that some abilities appear more qualitative than others, which are more quantitative. Before discussing this, let us present some relevant physics background.

Only physics can give a proper objective understanding of phenomena and enable this understanding to be communicated to another and be potentially understood. Thus agreements about what is true can be achieved. The individual may also, of course, evaluate truth by intuition but this is no good to someone else unless they also exercise a similar intuition.

Physics, when sufficiently advanced, will be recognised as the basic subject since we are beginning to understand that all phenomena and expressions of existence are in effect energy patterns. Thus if we understand the physics of behaviour, of nature's computer system, how everything works, we would be better able to evaluate intelligence. In fact we may find that there are degrees of intelligence which may range down to a single atom. According to quantum physics every particle is under continuous creation. We might surmise that even an atom is capable of modes of behaviour and may respond according to what operation is performed on it, or what interference is encountered. This would be intelligence but containing and based on simple programmes. The simplest programme and intelligence could be the sine wave (that is, what it represents---a particular oscillation, to maintain a condition).

Let us now look at the nature of quantity and quality. Quantity would be a group of separate parts but this would include parts (particles/atoms) held together by forces. Quality would be true unity which would be when the parts are in unison (in phase, resonance) forming a single whole quantum state. Quality is thus putting special order into quantity.

There may be a problem with the word 'quality' and its use here. 'Quality' tends to be used very loosely in our society for anything in which a standard is being evaluated. We are using it in a specific physics sense, in particular, the degree of unity, in the sense that the parts are harmoniously related. This condition would be found in music and art, also behaviour, and moreover any entity in the universe, in which there is an underlying unity, such as a cell, planet, star system, galaxy, etc. (Keep in mind, leading quantum physicists have regarded the natural entities such as the above as being undivided wholes.) The quality of a good painting will be in the ordered relation of the bits of paint and will be a whole energy state in the mind (the aesthetic concept) when appreciation occurs, but we can hardly consider that the quality of, say, paper is an energy state. 'Quality' has very wide usage, as mentioned, but many qualities from the physics viewpoint are quantum whole states of energy in themselves---and this may apply to far more examples of quality than is likely to be believed. For example, one might consider the quality of life to be poor---this is simply a deduction---but if a sufficient number of people focussed on this state of mind it would become a thought form---a whole energy state.

A brief look at the subject of morals might tell us that they are governed essentially by one's perception of other's viewpoints, and therefore this would be a mark of intelligence. It wouldn't be the same, however, for a person to be trained to behave morally to a degree that there is little or no free will; in other words, is compulsive---this wouldn't carry the same level of intelligence, even though outwardly it may look the same.

Quality then, in terms of physics, will contain whole quantum states (true unity). An application might be the performance of a genius in, say, sporting activities, such as football. It is possible the genius at some point in their development does not have greater skill or athletic ability than other able sportsmen (within the quantitative elements comprising what skillful performance is). However, this genius will experience fleeting moments of higher unification (qualitative) of the parts, including the environmental data forming an instantaneous pattern of behaviour which now spontaneously controls this behaviour. A synchronistic pattern of events and movements have been fused into one whole, which includes the target and success. Although we state that this genius footballer may not have higher (quantitative) skill than other best players, what generally happens is that these unifying qualitative states of higher consciousness in producing flashes of extraordinary coordination links for complex sequences of movements bring about extra development of the learning patterns.

Thus we see that qualitative and quantitative traits are quite basic in our quest for understanding intelligence. Each will clearly have fundamentally a different kind of intelligence but they combine inevitably in different degrees. An inner qualitative state, capable of achieving greater integration of the quantitative components, enables that extra special talent to manifest. The quality is the achievement of harmonious order within quantity.

Now quantitative intelligence would be more third dimensional, which means abilities controlling the relationship between parts; such as with the intellect, analysis, logic, and also physical abilities. Language would be quantitative regarding control over words but underlying the language such as in poetry or novels, creative ability would bring in unity and the qualitative aspects. In fact each word becomes (in the mind) a whole energy state. Technique in playing musical instruments would be quantitative but musical ability is whole and qualitative. Thus abilities which can be learned might be categorised as quantitative since they are built up bit by bit, such as physical skills, or language skills. Talents would be a qualitative category---something inborn and inherent and which cannot be learned (blocks may be removed though to make it appear that it can be learned, such as in artistic abilities). Note that quantitative abilities are based on past knowledge, are learned, whereas qualitative are in present time, acting now---such as musical ability or intellectual cognition.

Quantitative forms of intelligence might be argued to not require consciousness; for example, a robot can be considered to manifest forms of intelligence but we do not consider them to have any consciousness (at least at this relatively low level of robot creation and elementary simulation of human behaviour). But qualitative forms of intelligence can more easily be seen to require consciousness. As we have repeated over and over, quality of this kind has true unity (see other educational articles). True unity is a whole quantum state of energy and can only logically and satisfactorily be explained by relating it directly to consciousness which will be found to be a spectrum of energies (mainly scalar waves) acting in unison, with multidimensional aspects. 'Unity' in physics hasn't remotely been understood; that's one reason why it has been ignored---see article on unity.

An intellectual structure is made up of parts joined, but an emotional state is wholeness---to take only a part of this energy is meaningless, except that it would give the whole in reduced intensity, and again we arrive at the conclusion that wholeness or unity is holographic. Qualitative is more experiential and emotional (but not lower, or negative emotions).

Tentatively at this point we see that qualitative and quantitative appear to be basic forms. Our educational system tends only to recognise essentially quantitative values, such as logic, memory, solving analytical problems, etc. This is the ability to manipulate parts, to see the relationship between separate elements and put order into them: to apply logic, to analyse; to break down into parts for further comprehension, and also to synthesise. Thus solutions give the unity of the appropriate links to satisfy the conditions. The solution may, however, still be representational (objective) and is a composite unity of the parts. Basic intellect will operate on deductive abilities, but if it is to bring in new information it must combine with the qualitative.

Qualitative would be the ability to manipulate wholes; to sense meaning without reducing a thing to parts. It is always greater than the sum of the parts when these parts are manifest materialistically: a whole cell will be a quantum state, or a whole planet, and these will be greater---contain more information---than the sum of the 3D particles, molecules, etc. In a good work of art the understanding (the ordered bits of paint) is a mind-energy state which is more than that conveyed by the separate bits of paint.

We might immediately see that the above qualitative and quantitative factors are not independent; both are contained in almost any activity. Thus we are dealing with degrees. In quantitative or intellectual analysis, a perception of new relationships of the parts leads to a condition for a new functional state to operate---a solution to a problem, which is a separate energy pattern from the parts. We see that left-brain consciousness relates to the quantitative characteristics: intellect, logic, analysis, objectivity, representational, indirect and non-experiential knowledge. Compared with the right-brain consciousness, which is discouraged in our education and science today, which relates more to intuition, subjectivity, direct, emotional/experiential knowledge and imagination. This is the cognitive process which experimental psychologists talk about---two or more parts, ideas, bits of data, information, fuse together to form a new whole---this whole is not made up of parts stuck together; if it was it wouldn't make any sense.

We could say that any element which has even a simple automatic repetitive programme has a degree of intelligence, or contrarily we could decide that intelligence must include the ability to form links in the programme in a creative way (not automatic), which means deliberate thought has intervened in the quantitative, mechanistic process and formed a new relation. 'Deliberate thought' is a measure of the ability to take a course different from the one being presented---can a hungry animal think 'I won't eat now but later'---say, deciding a weaker stimulus needs attending to first. But even this implies the perception of a bigger picture, more data to correlate, and one could again say that the bigger stimulus is in fact now being followed. Note that this forms a potential hierarchy going from a small span of attention to the greatest as one whole, indicating a single source. This brings in the subject of free will, which we won't pursue here.

Further examples of the relationship of quality and quantity are: perceiving beauty and order in mathematics and science and sensing the unity that the science has with nature and the universe. The representation (such as an equation or model) matches the physical concepts and observations, creating now an experiential effect within the participator from this unity--- right brain and qualitative---even though the objective and quantitative aspects have sufficient validity for this particular objective purpose. As a completely different example, one practises to perform a specific coordination of movements (for instance, a skill or sport, etc.) and attains a unity of these separate parts---a single whole state of mind now operates a myriad of parts (see articles on skill).

The model that is being proposed here is that qualitative comes first and manifests in the form of whole quantum states from minute (like a physical quantum of energy) to a universe or source/God. These qualitative whole states impinge into our 3D (from inner and higher space). This is clearly a digital effect---on and off---and would have to be since the quantum states (of unity) are not of spacetime (see article on Source of fractals). This means all natural entities such as an atom or planet or galaxy, even though made up of particles as observed in 3D, have whole states underlying the particle representation (note that some quantum physicists proposed this long ago). The diagram of Figure 1 presents a rough guide to this underlying process. All the circles interconnect internally. Qualitative traits come from internal states (the 'within', inner space). Quantitative relates to external interaction of the parts, particularly particles. As one moves away from Source, fragmentation increases and frequencies reduce. A large sphere (or circle in the 3D plane) might represent a galaxy, and smaller spheres ones for planets, atoms, etc. Art and music are expressions of the qualitative unity, but smaller quantum states---paint brush strokes and musical notes---must be used to bring in these artistic concepts.

The reader may have noted that in comparing quantity and quality we have been keeping them separately defined, but as we give examples and applications we see that larger whole qualitative states, such as cognition or musical appreciation, are expressed lower dimensionally (in 3D) by smaller qualitative states (that we have been placing in the quantitative category---for simplicity). Thus we could say it is all qualitative but the intelligence of existence is how large, extensive (ordered or organised) are these quantum states. However, the smaller parts are building bricks of the qualitative state (function) and are objectified, separated away from function (even disowned). Scientists will eventually establish that the external environment is in fact mind extension objectified. Thus we still must draw a line between quality and quantity.

Is there a more basic condition that will help us here for the evaluation of intelligence than even quantitative and qualitative? Can we reduce the 'software,' conceptual, aspects of qualitative and quantitative to a still more basic hardware approach. At what point does the quantitative become the qualitative? We shall resume the implications of this in Section II.

Return to Home Page