What really do we want from our future? Are we heading in the direction we are supposed to? Do we really have a goal and a path to follow? Or does our own definition start flummoxing us with mysteries? The future as it seems, would be a jugglery of the game played by the masterpiece of intelligence – our brain, keeping us baffled with the idea of being conscious and alive. The column is dedicated to unravel the mysteries and controversies of human mind to master the art of the future and many dimensions of natural intelligence, which are beyond the grasp of science. The concepts, which are being labeled today as mere philosophical ideas, will one day form the foundation of our ameliorated future, and the driving force behind every such phenomenon would be the human brain.

The question whether we really know the constituent of intelligent behavior is more relevant today than ever before. The idea and definitions of intelligence that have been withheld for centuries may have certain vague characteristics, which prevented us from synthesizing the real character of intelligence. Do we really need to look at our prevailing definitions and renew our model of intelligence before we go further in this direction?

The first person that has showed intelligent behavior- either in the form of generation of fire by rubbing two pieces of stone together or by any other means should be regarded as the father of intelligence. For his attempt to try something out of order forms the foundation of crude definition of intelligence, which is still relevant today.

But is intelligence really producing out of order behavior? Or is it looking for some interesting patterns while analyzing situation? The idea behind what makes a pattern or behavior intelligent could change the whole meaning of the intelligence in the future. It will not only help us in searching extra terrestrial life forms in the space, but will also help us in determining and respecting those out of order solutions which we so far rejected as merely unintelligent.

One of the most important considerations about intelligence is whether it is really absolute or relative. Could it be possible to apply the same set of solutions arising out of an intelligent act to another similar situation? Even if the whole set cannot be applied because of different kind of restriction, could it be possible to apply a fragmented set of rules deriving out of many similar situations? If yes, what are those rules, which makes two situations in different scenario altogether similar, even if the constituents involving in both the situation vary a lot in both physical as well as mental compositions. In short, could we have a credible theory of intelligence to provide us a clue of what makes one solution feasible for other species and how?

What really is intelligence? Even repeating a previously successful set of solutions in the similar situations will definitely not account for the intelligence. Computers are doing this for years now and if repeating particular set of rules invokes intelligence, they would have been intelligent enough by now to rule the whole universe. But they need human even for adding two numbers. The idea of invoking intelligent behavior by repeating them does not holds the key to intelligence. If only interesting pattern could account for the intelligent behavior, the static behavior of the electronics circuitry prevents computers from going into a state of intelligence making them suitable only for repeating the solutions at ultra fast speed. Even getting out of order solutions from a particular circuit would account for only an erroneous solution and not an intelligent response. What is that then that governs whether the solutions are out of order or in order and further whether they are intelligent or not?

There seems to be a line separating the learning process from an intelligent one, the in order solutions from out of order solutions, the stupidity from intelligence. If there are rules governing the intelligent and which can detect whether the solutions is intelligent or order, those rules will also be the outcome of the same process for which they are accountable. So what are makes the rules of labeling intelligence as rules? If there were no such rules, the whole definition of intelligence would collapse onto the ground.

While electronic circuitry works in one way, the neuronic circuitry seems to be working two ways. The logic behind these assumptions can be understood simply by analyzing the behavior of electronic circuitry vis a vis neuronic arrangement.

Electronics circuit provides one-way communication. In the above gate figure, A and B will always produce the output of C. Though the inputs to A and B are variables, the output will have static characteristic (C=A+B) of patterns making them suitable for repetition but reflecting no interesting patterns of information. Moreover, reversing the process in other direction would not reverse the process (A+B =C) and bring back the constituent A and B. Whatever be the output, it will remain static throughout the process.

Consider an equivalent comparative case of neuronic gates:

The dynamic behavior of neuronic arrangements gives birth to the interesting patterns, which could be one of the basis of intelligence behavior. First of all, similar to electronics gates, a neuron fired to its connecting neurons when the input reaches certain threshold. This is similar to electronic circuitry except that the neurons are not permanently soldered but are left floating. Therefore, although the process of firing will remain same, the point of reaching the threshold level of firing will depend a lot on the initial energy content of the connecting neurons, contributing towards the varied output pattern in different case. Thus, neuronic gates are reflecting both static and dynamic behavior at the same time. Moreover, the output of the neuron is going to be fed the same neurons over and over again. This is like digital circuits where once the circuit is designed the outputs and inputs are going to fixed. Thirdly, since the output circuit is not fixed, the variation in output is going to happen, this makes the output different in different case. Mathematically, A+B will surely be equal to C, but the time this output will take to reach the level of firing could change the whole timing of the process as well as the chain of thoughts, giving rise to newly born patterns.

This makes the final output depending upon the chain of connected neurons. Each neurons will have its own energy content independent of the others. So the final outcome will comprises of the patterns, which has been activated by the connection and disconnection of such temporary intermediate contacts. Therefore, the outcome is bound to differ if it follows an entire new path of connected neurons. Moreover, the same outcome may result even though the different paths have been followed with reduced or greater number of energy transformation. This is analogue to the digital circuits in that the same output can result with different combination of logic application with different level of level transformation. If the connection process of neurons results in the same output with reduced number of connections required, the better solution will replace the previous one. Thus, during the process of learning solution, the connected neurons which contributes towards a solutions will becomes the link to the solutions and in the future if similar conditions arises, the same sets of neurons will be activated as memory, providing the solutions. During the continuous interaction with other neurons, the process of searching the new possibly shorter path have been revealed contributing towards more intelligent implementation of the solutions. This would be similar to having learned the path to a particular building, connecting it some other paths, finding out new path and following that path if it exceeds the previous one in terms of quality, perfection and timeliness. So, where will the process stop? Since there are billions of neurons in human brains and therefore possible infinite paths of connections among themselves, the process seems to be infinite. Once the value has been fed, it will simply be transferred to the connecting neurons in an endless loop. The only problem is it may combine with the other patterns already stored and after every transformation gives rise to interesting patterns. But there seems to be no way, which can we can stop the proceess although we can take the output at any stage. Confusing?

To explain the process, let us analyze the process with an example. Think about an orange. Starting with a figure, its color- orange, taste, smell, each link will continue to follow more links. The output of processing can be taken out at any stage. One can feel that after thinking about the figure, the mind will automatically provides the smell, color, taste, and any other memories associates with it. Finally those memories will refresh the link to other memories and the process continues forever. So now what is the real output of the processing- the physical properties of the fruit, or every other outputs which are having any association with the triggering activity. This shows that every memory is connected to every other memories n the brain and that it’s only the number of steps that is crucial for determining the output. The morale of the story - at any stage the output is valid. And this makes the whole journey of intelligence more interesting and tough. It makes every output valid and more or less intelligent.