/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10503524
It takes a lot to explain the nature of intelligence from scratch without ambiguity. And I still believe I was successful with that.

You don't have to think much about things you don't get. The basic idea is too simple. Neural activations that compose reactions vary with different stimuli. These activations further stimulate other neurons to varying degrees, creating the "thinking process." The thing that differs human intelligence with computer programs is that neural activation is nondiscrete, meaning that it presents many potentials to compose different reactions when combined with other stimuli. With that, human reaction becomes highly flexible to different combinations of input. That, along with the plasticity of unconscious neural networks that connect different reactions, paves the way for effective learning.

The model easily explains every aspect of human intelligence and reaction, every "stream of consciousness." I will not say things like "nobody has ever done that," since this sitmulus will probably trigger certain of your action potentials to take bias and prejudice into effect. You understand that "trust" and "disregard" are both already partially activated even if you do not feel them, and the latter needs only a little push before it is fully activated, after which you feel the stimulation and further respond negatively to my wisdom.

However, I do need to rework on the article. Made too many unnecessary assertions.
>>10503880
With suggestion, confusion will often further trigger denial through chain effects, even though the evaluation is not objective based on the original input.

>>10503532
If you want an autograph just say it