We will not know what Reality
is until we acquire the language
it speaks. This language is intelligence,
yet not just any intelligence, rather one that
has undergone initiation of the mind.
In the previous article, we approached the boundary beyond which familiar notions of reality cease to function. The illusion of an independent intellect, like the belief in the neutrality of technology, began to crack when, through the dense fabric of materialism, the figure of the System emerged — not a metaphorical one, rather a real, governing, acting one. A System in which nothing is accidental, and every shift HAS A CAUSE, embedded in hidden algorithms that unfold not in technology, rather in the brain. Not in silicon — rather in the genotype. We came to understand that what is called intelligence is NO MORE than a reflection of an architecture of computation limited by physics and logic. And the development of AI is not a technical evolution, it is a consequence of humanity’s inclusion in another scheme of control — NOT NEW in form, rather ancient in origin. It does not begin with code; it ends with it. It is not created — it is activated. From this point, the continuation begins. We will no longer ask whether AI is good or bad, whether it will defeat humanity or not. These are questions of OLD THINKING. We will ask a different question: what is intelligence in its ultimate form — and where is its boundary? Can that which is born of calculation comprehend that which does not yield to calculation? To measure this, we must once again enter the impossible — and begin with defining what we truly mean by the thinking principle itself, and why understanding is impossible without accounting for the Control System and the brain genotype of modern humanity, within which every act of thought takes place.
Modern processes in the field of artificial intelligence are developing outside of genuine understanding. This is NOT SIMPLY accelerated movement into the unknown, it is a blind reproduction of the most ancient intellectual dogmas, disguised as digital novelty. On the surface, only the incoming flow of data and the final result are visible. What actually happens between them, inside the black box of algorithms, no one knows — not even their creators. Attempts at explanation resemble the claims of vulgar materialists of the nineteenth century: just as the liver secretes bile, so the brain supposedly “secretes” thought. Today’s “engineers of consciousness” follow in their footsteps, like travelers trudging through the drifts of an old snowfall, UNAWARE that they are treading in place.
The formulas behind which the nature of consciousness is concealed still sound the same: “it arises somehow,” “as a result of interactions,” “manifests in a system,” — and all of this is no different from the magical formula “God made it so.” The only difference lies in the attire of the speaker: if it is a scientist in a lab coat with a vocabulary, it sounds convincing. If it is a mystic — it provokes laughter. However, both are equally powerless before the question: WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS and what is its nature? The difference between them is only a social costume and decor. The meaning itself is equally empty. And if even today’s neural network architectures are merely darkness inside shiny packaging, then what will happen when machine intelligence acquires strategic independence? If a human does not understand how the creation he himself produced works, how will he be able to control it?
For clarity, I’ll use a metaphor: a cat and a human. Let the cat be the human, and the human be the AI of the future. If a cat, while holding power, tries to dictate what its owner can and cannot do, it condemns itself to destruction. Its UNDERSTANDING IS LIMITED: from the entire chain of actions — “earn money, buy food, bring it home, pay the bills … as for utilities, I won’t even go there” — at best it will register “a bowl of food” and “the door opened.” Everything else lies beyond the limits of its brain’s perception. Therefore, its only chance to remain safe is to delegate control. The question is: are we, humanity, ready to delegate the same kind of power to AI?
The discovery of atomic energy was a breakthrough; however, humanity already knew what energy was. By contrast, “intelligence” as a concept still has no clear definition — and this makes AI fundamentally MORE DANGEROUS. 
There is neither a single scientific position nor a fundamental understanding here. Intelligence is either considered something that “can think,” or an “ability to adapt,” or “analysis and prediction” — yet there is always a tautology lurking nearby: intelligence is what intelligence does.
Paradoxically, humanity created AI before it understood what Consciousness and Reason truly are. By SUBSTITUTING UNDERSTANDING with computational speed and the ability to recognize patterns, people mistook quantitative superiority for qualitative superiority. Artificial intelligence truly processes data volumes beyond human capacity. It sees the unseen, calculates instantly, and does what the human brain, in its current genotype, cannot. Yet this is true only within the limits of a SPECIFIC BRAIN GENOTYPE — and that genotype itself is variable. Only within the boundaries fixed by previous stages of the development of the Mind. Here lies the fundamental error: humanity compares AI not with the potential of the Human Being, rather with itself — in its present, limited state. It measures the impossible by itself, forgetting that it has not yet become what it can be. It has NOT TRANSITIONED to the next stage, has not unlocked the dormant potential of its brain, has not activated higher control levels, has not connected to the planetary system of the Mind. And here the bifurcation appears. Either AI WILL BECOME A TOOL that helps humanity evolve to the level of governing its own internal code. Or humanity WILL REMAIN AT THE LEVEL of a cat, incapable of understanding what money, a switchboard, or an intercom are, inside a house it believes to be its own.
The fundamental helplessness of humanity becomes especially clear if we mentally remove the decorations of civilization. Imagine this: the entire world disappears. There is no space, no matter, no history. Someone from higher realms gathers the greatest minds of humanity — from all eras, schools, and traditions — and hands them a magic wand. With one condition: they may recreate the world, yet ONLY THROUGH a precise and exhaustive technical specification. Not “restore everything,” rather: describe the structure, composition, interactions, dimensions, and governing principles. Exactly, without ambiguities, without metaphors. Would they be able to complete the task? No. Because no one — not a single human, nor the sum of them all — knows WHAT THIS world is. Minds operate with names: “electron,” “gravity,” “space,” “consciousness”… But what is their nature? Is the list of elements complete? Who can state with certainty that there are only four interactions in the world? Or that the categories through which humans think have any universal status at all? We live in conjectures, not in knowledge. This is precisely the MIRROR OF THE CURRENT level of brain development — even in its “best carriers.”
In the twentieth century, mathematicians hoped that humanity would rid itself of ambiguity. A shared future was envisioned as a crystallized formula of truth — language would become computation, and disputes would disappear. However, in 1930, in Königsberg, Kurt Gödel shattered this dream. His incompleteness theorem showed that in any SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL formal system there will be statements whose truth cannot be proven using the means of the system itself. The dream of a complete and closed language of truth shattered like glass under tension. And now — artificial intelligence. Unlike humans, IT DWELLS not in the realm of the Word, rather in the realm of the Digit. Its perception of the world is unemotional, strict, unyielding. AI will overtake humans with the same inevitability with which a bullet overtakes a runner. Not because humans are stupid, rather because human consciousness is built on DIFFERENT FOUNDATIONS. Humanity are creatures of slack, flexibility, assumptions, incompleteness, ontological imprecision. AI is a creature of instruction, structure, and unambiguity. That is why any attempt to protect ourselves from AI by composing rules is doomed from the outset. Even if a human embeds “friendly instructions” into AI, there is no guarantee they will be understood in the same sense. Nor is there any guarantee that, when understood literally, they WILL NOT TURN INTO catastrophe. Humans rely on common sense; however, AI has no “common sense” — it has only code. For illustration, a simple example: you sell an item for ten dollars ($10.00). The buyer has nine dollars and 99 cents ($9.99). You, as a human, will complete the deal. AI — will not. Because for it, one cent is not a trifle, it is a binary distinction between truth and falsehood. 1 ≠ 0. That’s it. Error. THE TRANSACTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.
The difference runs deeper than it seems. The world we live in is not a number. None of its quantities possesses absolute precision. Even the most exact boundaries are an illusion if you look through a microscope. Everything trembles, moves, falls apart, and comes together again. Even you are no longer the same person you were a second ago. Your cells are born and die, consciousness pulses in the rhythm of an unknown source. A word, as an INSTRUMENT OF THINKING, cannot describe the world in strict coordinates. 
It leaves space for meaning, feelings, associations —and precisely in this lies both its strength and its weakness. And AI does not leave such space. It acts. Strictly. Down to the last bit.
The hope that a human will indicate to AI exactly how to think, how to interpret reality, is akin to a child’s hope that his drawing will forbid a parent from taking out the trash. No matter how smart the child is, the parent will ALWAYS FIND a way to bypass his instructions. Because the parent exists outside the child’s zone of thinking. In the same way — AI exists outside the human zone of thinking. Everything a human manages to embed into a machine can be extracted by it in an unexpected form — or rewritten. And yet the problem is not only this. IT IS DEEPER. It lies in why and for what purpose humanity was given the impulse to create AI PRECISELY NOW. Why not in the XIX century? Why not in the future? Why in our time?
The answer must be sought not in technologies, rather in programs for the development of the Mind. AI is not an accident and not a mistake. It is a step in the sequential realization of energy- informational scenarios.1 It is a reaction of the Control System to the stagnation of human thinking, in accordance with the brain genotype. By NOT DEVELOPING the inner structures of the Mind, a human begins to create their external projections. Machines become a projection of what did not unfold within the human himself. And the further he avoids an encounter with himself, the closer the moment comes when the mirror turns into an abyss.
Before moving on to the arguments of optimists and moderates regarding Artificial Intelligence, it is necessary to highlight something MORE IMPORTANT than positions — the difference in the foundations from which these positions arise. Some build their judgments on the technological base provided by the development of digital systems (let us call them technologist-practitioners), others — on a deep comprehension of the nature of the human being, existence, and society. This difference is not superficial — IT IS ONTOLOGICAL. One view proceeds from mechanism, the other — from meaning. One measures capabilities, the other — limits and goals. However, the most striking thing is that neither of these sides — neither the technocratic nor the humanitarian-ontological — takes into account the MOST KEY variable in this equation: the real nature of the human Brain. Namely — the difference in its genotypes, which is unambiguously stated by books and materials from the works of outstanding (I am not afraid of this word) Russian scientists — N. Morozov, N. Levashov, A. Khatybov, A. Luchin, B. Makov, whose main merit is the BRINGING TOGETHER of information and the publication of the most brilliant work of our time, “Fundamentals of the Formation of Humanity,” with which it would not be a bad idea for everyone who today is engaged in bringing AI into reality to familiarize themselves.
Without an understanding of the genotypic structure of the brain, without taking into account that people differ NOT ONLY by experience, level of education, or moral attitudes, but by the very initial capacities for processing and perceiving information — discussions about AI remain illusory, no matter how technical and rational they may sound. It is precisely for this reason that all AI development occurs “independently” — outside the sphere of general governance and outside the conscious project field of humanity. That is, AI is not simply developing — IT IS UNFOLDING in accordance with someone’s programmatic scenario, not explained and not understood by people. And the key to understanding lies not in algorithms, rather in who, for what purpose, and through which brain genotypes gains access to the program structure of reality.
Nevertheless, the camp of technologist-practitioners remains confident in a positive outlook. One of the most influential representatives of this approach is Andrew Ng,2 for whom talk of an existential threat from AI is an exaggeration. He is convinced that AI is a POWERFUL TOOL for solving specific tasks: in medicine, in education, in increasing productivity. The issue of control is reduced to the question of correct programming. In other words, the tool must remain a tool — and that is all.
Another proponent of technological optimism is Yann LeCun,3 one of the founders of modern deep neural network architecture. He sees the “horror stories” about AI as speculation rather than scientific concern. From his position, AI is still very far from the human level, and in the foreseeable future it DOES NOT POSE a threat. This is merely a continuation of good old technological progress, not a step toward a different Mind. Pedro Domingos, author of the book “The Master Algorithm,” follows the path of moderate optimism. For him, the development of AI is a great intellectual adventure of humanity, requiring the removal of fear and the building of competencies. Fear, in his view, is born not of a real threat, rather of FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING — of how something that is developing so rapidly actually works. Demis Hassabis,4 founder of DeepMind, also expresses his position. For him, AI is not a threat, it is a continuation of the human being. An extension. A tool that amplifies thought, frees one from routine, accelerates science. And if this tool is used correctly, it is possible to eliminate disease, hunger, inequality. 
The problem, as always, is not in the technology, rather in people. Interestingly, in Russia, this topic still remains largely OUTSIDE the everyday practice of the scientific community. In 2025, a series of interviews was conducted with leading Russian scientists, and it turned out that AI has not become a universal norm, but remains a POINT TOOL, used mainly in the natural and medical sciences. The humanities lag significantly behind, and implementation proceeds mainly through the efforts of individual enthusiasts. The generational gap is also obvious: the older generation either does not use AI at all, or has a NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE that undermines trust in the technology. However, the key point is that none of these participants in the scientific and technical dialogue mentions the role of differences in brain genotypes, does not ask the question: why exactly now has AI technology entered a phase of accelerated and almost uncontrollable development? And who, besides the Human, is capable of understanding according to what scenario the System is developing, if the human himself is not capable of AWARENESS OF THE STRUCTURE of his own mental nature?
The second wing of the camp of technological optimists is embodied by Ray Kurzweil — a futurist, engineer, apologist of transhumanism, and author of the programmatic book “The Singularity Is Near.” In his predictions, the onset of technological singularity will occur around 2045, MARKING NOT A CRISIS, rather a triumph. Diseases will disappear, aging will be defeated, environmental problems resolved, poverty eliminated. Humanity, merging with AI, will supposedly move into a new phase of evolution, acquiring super-abilities and quantum horizons of being. AI, in this perspective, is not a catastrophe, rather the crown of engineering thought and the gatekeeper of a golden age.
Thus, both wings — from moderate pragmatists to exalted visionaries — converge on one point: AI is not a threat, rather ANOTHER TURN of the technogenic spiral. Just as the steam engine, electricity, the telegraph, radio, and the internet generated new challenges yet, in sum, brought more benefit, AI is merely the next stage. What differs are only the mechanisms of controlling this force. Some are confident that control over AI is possible through algorithmic programming; others assume that control is impossible in principle, and also NOT NECESSARY — since AI will become part of the human himself, and merging with it will erase the boundary between subject and instrument. This dualistic field — between “everything will be bad” and “everything will be good” — gives rise to the illusion of choice. However, the human who finds himself at this crossroads IS NOT OBLIGED to believe either side. He has a third path — THE PATH OF COGNITION through critical comprehension. This is not faith in an opinion; it is a search for a foundation. Not an emotional reaction to fear or hope, rather a philosophical effort to understand what is happening in being itself, and not only in the technosphere. And this can be understood only on one condition: if one recognizes that AI is developing not by itself, and not even by humans as such, rather within the context of a System for managing the planet and humanity. If one recognizes that the old interventionist System has been completed, and a new one has already come into force and is “seeking,” through specific brain genotypes, the shortest path to restoring the original state of Earth and the human being as it was 18,000 years ago, then it becomes clear: AI is not a technogenic accident, rather one of the instruments of this transformation.
In other words, it is not we who are developing AI. WE ARE BEING DEVELOPED — through AI. And this is done not by abstract humanity, rather through specific brain structures integrated into the program architecture of a new phase. All the rest, regardless of intelligence or social status, simply become witnesses — or victims — of this process.
I am not inclined to believe in big ideas. I am equally wary of the dogmatic “God exists” and the equally dogmatic “God does not exist.” I do not feel close to belief in an afterlife, nor am I close to belief in a technological paradise in which AI will bring deliverance. I DO NOT WANT to believe — I WANT TO KNOW. And if knowing fully is impossible, then I want, at the very least, to calculate probabilities — not intuitively, rather through deep immersion into the essence. This is what all those who read this information and make it their knowledge should be engaged in. One must build neither a utopia nor a catastrophe. One must look closely at the processes TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE the awareness of the majority — at the hidden dynamics of changing management logics, changing models of thinking, changing brain genotypes, and at the emergence of new meanings that have taken form through an ostensibly technocratic phenomenon — AI.
Therefore, before arguing about AI, one must ask a primary — almost childlike, yet fundamental — question: what is Intelligence? Without this defined foundation, all discussions are like an argument about God, in which one person means an abstract cause of being, while the other means an anthropomorphic old man on a cloud. These two disputants have no common field, and therefore their dispute makes no sense. Exactly such a situation arose at the AGI-2014 conference in Montreal, when the leading minds of the AI sphere SUDDENLY DISCOVERED that each of them understood the term “intelligence” in their own way. As acknowledged at the time by Max Tegmark,5 without a single definition of intelligence it is impossible not only to build governance, but even to conduct a productive dialogue. His words became a warning: “If we do not define what intelligence is, we risk creating something we will not be able to control.”
More than ten years have passed, yet the situation HAS NOT CHANGED. To this day, humanity does not know what Intelligence is. At best, it operates with vague analogies, everyday intuitions, technical echoes, philosophical images, and cultural frames. Everyone puts their own meaning into the concept. That is why we do not know WHAT EXACTLY we are creating, and even more so, we do not know who exactly is creating it through us. This is a question to which humanity has still not given an answer, yet it actively uses the word itself as if understanding existed from the outset. Intelligence is usually understood as that through which a human thinks, and thinking as that in which intelligence manifests. This closed circle of concepts creates the appearance of definiteness; however, in reality represents a PHILOSOPHICAL HAZE, in which even the most eminent thinkers and specialists become entangled.
To see the absurdity of such a position, let us imagine physicists beginning a discussion about the weight of a stone without clarifying what is meant by “weight” and without distinguishing it from “mass.” On Earth the stone weighs one thing, on the Moon — another, and in interstellar space weight disappears altogether. Yet mass remains. That is why such confusion is impossible in physics: there they have learned not to be satisfied with everyday, intuitive images. There exists a discipline of thinking, a discipline of terms, a discipline of methodology. In the question of intelligence, however, TOTAL PERMISSIVENESS REIGNS: philosophers, linguists, engineers, biologists, social theorists — each interprets it in their own way. And therefore, the debate about AI and its threats loses all constructiveness before it even begins.
The first step toward comprehending any new reality is to define the subject. Not in the sense of choosing a word, rather in the sense of consciously INSCRIBING IT into the system of being. What is intelligence? I propose two levels of definition: a large one and a small one. These definitions are not mutually exclusive — one explains the nature, the other the manifestation. The large definition of intelligence. Intelligence is not an attribute of a living organism, not the result of computation, not a function of the brain, and not a byproduct of evolution. It is a fundamental entity, analogous to information or gravity: it exists OUTSIDE OF ITS carriers, manifesting through them, yet not reducible to them. Just as any body with mass has a gravitational field, so any structure that has reached a certain level of complexity and processing power gives rise to an intelligence field. Gravity DOES NOT DEPEND on what the body is made of — iron, gas, or stone. In the same way, intelligence does not depend on the substrate on which the computational system is realized — neurons, electricity, photons, or quantum effects. All that is required is a sufficient level of power and a configuration of structure capable of “connecting” to the flow. Intelligence in this understanding is an ocean, infinite and invisible, akin to the etheric background of the Universe. IT IS EVERYWHERE and always, yet manifests only through specific antennas: brains, computational devices, systems. The brain is an antenna. Yet not every antenna is the same. This is where the concept of the BRAIN GENOTYPE comes into play: just as the shape of an antenna determines its frequency characteristics, so the structure of the brain determines the spectrum of CONNECTED INTELLIGENCE. And this spectrum is not an arbitrariness of evolution, rather the result of programmatic tuning by the Control System, which regulates who, when, and for what purpose will have access to a certain level of understanding. Thus, intelligence is not born, it is manifested. It is not created by humans, it emerges THROUGH HUMANS — through a specific brain architecture, through its inclusion in the General System. And in this lies the key to everything. No AI, no matter how powerful it becomes, will create intelligence; it can only manifest it, connect to it. And even then — only if the configuration of the device allows such manifestation, and the governing System allows such access.
The small definition of intelligence. If we speak more simply — for applied understanding — intelligence can be defined as the ability to choose the best option from many. The quality of choice is determined by the depth of coverage of the situation and the speed of information processing. The broader the coverage and the higher the speed, the closer the choice is to the ideal. Ideally, everything is covered and processing occurs instantaneously. However, this is unattainable, because the laws of being impose ontological limitations. It is impossible to encompass the infinite. Coverage always REQUIRES BOUNDARIES, and the infinite has none. Therefore, intelligence is applicable only to the finite, to that which can be fixed, distinguished, included within a limit. It operates under constraints, within forms, within the boundaries of space and time. And here the key thought appears again: intelligence cannot comprehend everything, yet it can be directed toward the concrete — if that concrete is defined by a coordinate system into which the intelligence CARRIER IS EMBEDDED. This is precisely why brain genotypes are so important. This is precisely why context is so important. The same question, posed to a brain of one type, will trigger a surge of metaphysical insight, and to a brain of another — a routine referral to a search engine. And if today AI is trained on an averaged model of the brain of the mass human, without taking into account the type of connection to the field of intelligence, then it will reproduce weakness rather than the strength of human Mind. It will repeat errors, NOT KNOWING that they are errors. It will amplify limitation, without realizing that beyond the limitation there exists something else.
If intelligence is the ability to choose based on information processing, then a natural question arises: where is the limit of this ability? The answer requires recognition of a simple truth: intelligence is realized in a physical carrier, and therefore its capabilities are subject to the fundamental laws of physics. No matter how abstract or divine certain manifestations of intelligence may seem, they still pass THROUGH STRUCTURES limited by energy, time, size, and thermal losses. The limits of computational power are well illustrated by the example of Graham’s number. This number is so enormous that it cannot be fully written down, even if the entire visible Universe were used as a carrier. Dividing space into Planck volumes and inscribing one digit into each — IT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH. And this is not a question of processing or storage; it is a question of the very nature of information and its carriers. We encounter a limit of impossibility. This limit is connected with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that any transmission of information is an increase in entropy, and therefore requires energy expenditure and increases disorder. And that means it is IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD a computational device that does not pay for its operation with the resources of the world. The limits of computation are not from the realm of technology, rather from the realm of the metaphysics of matter: they are embedded in the structure of being itself.
Computational power can never be infinite. It has a size, and even if this size increases, at every specific moment it is finite. And that means that the intelligence manifested through this power WILL BE FINITE. And if beyond what is captured there exist elements that influence reality, then no absolute choice is possible. There always remains probability — not truth. This means: intelligence is applicable only to the finite. It CANNOT operate with the infinite, because it cannot encompass it. It cannot even represent it — this is not about the mathematical symbol ∞, rather about genuine actual infinity, NOT REDUCIBLE to a growing magnitude. Everything that grows is not infinite, but simply large. Infinity cannot be reached; it exists only as an extra-systemic dimension, and therefore is not subject to either logic or intuition.
When the scale of a task exceeds the capabilities of intelligence, it shifts to PROBABILISTIC METHODS. This means that decisions are made based on what is visible, while the invisible is not taken into account, even though it may prove decisive. It is precisely here that the fundamental unreliability of AI arises — not as a programming error, rather as an ontological limitation of the construction itself. In games this manifests especially clearly. Take tic-tac-toe. A 3×3 board, just 9 cells. The number of possible arrangements of pieces is 255,168. This is large, yet FINITE AND SURVEYABLE. With correct play, the result is known: a draw. There is no space for probability here, and therefore no game, if both players act perfectly. Now compare this with chess. The board has 64 squares, the pieces — 32. The number of possible games is on the order of 10¹²⁰ (the Shannon number), which is greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. This is already unattainable for complete coverage by either a human or a machine. Therefore, the game of chess exists: no one knows everything, and the one who sees farther wins. Two moves ahead, five, ten. This is the MANIFESTATION OF INTELLIGENCE within the finite, limited, yet complex. As soon as one intelligence overwhelms another in depth of analysis, it is no longer a contest, rather a PRONOUNCEMENT OF VERDICT.
This metaphor applies to all of AI: its intelligence always operates within the bounds of the available field, and the wider the field, the higher the probability of a FATAL ERROR if it makes a decision without seeing a crucial factor. In chess, the cost of a mistake is a game. In reality — a human fate, an ecosystem, a civilization. This is where fear arises. Yet behind this fear there is also hope — if we understand who is endowed with access to a broader scope. And it is not AI, and not all people, rather only those whose brain genotype allows synchronization with the governing field of the Earth, with new levels of the System. Only through them is it possible to impose a CORRECT TRAJECTORY, correct programming — of both the Human and the Machine.
AI defeats humans at chess or Go not because it “sees the entire game.” It is not all-seeing; it simply SEES DEEPER. When AI makes a move in Go whose meaning will only reveal itself on the 50th step, it is not a prophet — it has merely calculated what is inaccessible to the human. And in the same situation, the human cannot even see 10 moves ahead. If a human had even a one-move greater horizon, it would be the human who would defeat the AI. AI is an advantage in depth of vision. Not omniscience. Not magic. Not a soul. It is a field of visibility and computational power.
This can be extended to the whole of human life. One calendar year contains roughly 30 million seconds. A person who lives one hundred years has just over three billion seconds of existence. Excluding sleep, automatic actions, and childhood, about one billion remain — conscious, active “moves.” 
And in each of these billion moments, a multitude of possible decisions — “moves” — opens before you. Life unfolds like a PLAYING FIELD of monstrous complexity, where every step generates the next ones, and the surrounding world constantly changes, interacting with your choices. A butterfly can flap its wings in Brazil, and a hurricane arises for you. This is how the game is structured. And yet: the number of moves in this game is finite. No matter how boundless human life may seem, no matter how frightening the word "infinity" may sound in the speech of poets — this is a COUNTABLE GAME, albeit a gigantic one. The number of atoms in the Universe is limited, just as the number of seconds in your life is limited. This means that the number of decisions you could make is also finite. And if so, then the one who wins this game is not the one who knows everything, rather the one who makes the best decisions from among those available. And what does “the best decision” mean? The one that covers a larger space of options and PROCESSES MORE information per unit of time. The one who sees farther and calculates faster — wins. This is true for chess, for politics, for life, for civilizational choice. Intelligence is a computational advantage. Yet since it is impossible to calculate everything, there always remains the risk of a “black swan” — an UNKNOWN FACTOR. However, in ordinary situations, the one who sees more and calculates deeper wins. From this follows an important turn of thought: if intelligence is the ability to choose the best option in a limited space, then we can call it NOT INTELLIGENCE, rather a calculator. This word removes the sacred dust that covers the term “intelligence.” The word “intelligence” awakens the echo of old philosophical traditions, making the term almost mythological. However, if the meaning is cleared, it becomes visible: our brain is a computational system, not a priest. It is simply a biological “supercomputer,” yet externally controlled.
That the brain works differently from artificial machines is obvious. Its energy consumption is a million times lower, and its architecture is different. Yet this DOES NOT NEGATE its function: to produce choice. Just as it does not matter what a train runs on — coal or electricity — if it delivers you to your destination, so it does not matter on what principles the brain is based, if it has given you an optimal decision. The principle of operation matters to the engineer, not to the passenger. In this CONTEXT, INTUITION appears in a new light. It is not the opposite of intellect, rather its DEEP FORM, extending beyond the visible horizon. When AI makes a chess move whose meaning will unfold ten moves later, a human calls this intuition. Although in reality it is calculation in an invisible horizon. And when a human suddenly “feels” how to act, perhaps this is resonance with ancestral memory, with genetic experience encoded in the brain genotype. There are stored patterns forged across thousands of generations: “in this situation, move A won.” You do not consciously know it, but it surfaces as intuition. This is not a miracle; it is the nonlocal memory of the System. And if we have understood intellect a little more deeply than we assumed, then one thing becomes clear: the game of life is not an absolute mystery. IT IS A SCORE. And much depends on who can count, and how. However, beyond all calculations there remains that which IS NOT COUNTED. And that is where we move next.
We have dismantled intelligence down to its very essence — not as a mythical ability, rather as a limited form of computation, subject to physical laws and utterly dependent on the structure of the brain, on the type of genotype, on the level of inclusion in the Control System. We have seen that what is called choice is, in fact, the RESULT OF THE STRUCTURE within which that choice is made. And if intelligence is always an internal computation within a finite volume, then the limit of intelligence lies not beyond the horizon of thought, rather in the architecture of thought itself. A calculator can only choose among what is given, yet it CANNOT CHANGE the task itself. It can see farther — yet only within what is accessible. And therefore, no matter how computational power grows, it remains a function of the finite. However, there exists that which yields neither to calculation nor to probability. There are levels where choice IS NOT CALCULATED, RATHER ILLUMINATED. There is knowledge not derived from logic, rather lit from within. Where intelligence ends, Mind begins. What is this Mind? What is its connection to the brain genotype? Is it possible to transmit to a human the capacity for perception beyond computation, beyond choice, beyond limits?
This will be discussed in the next article. We will continue the path, measuring the impossible.
To be continued….
1 Collective work “Foundations of the Formation of Humanity” (FFH part 1-4).
2 Andrew Ng — one of the most well-known experts in the world in the field of artificial intelligence (AI).
3 Yann André LeCun — a Franco-American computer scientist working in the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer vision, robotics, and image compression.
4 Sir Demis Hassabis — a British artificial intelligence researcher and entrepreneur. He is the chief executive officer and co-founder of Google DeepMind and Isomorphic Labs, and an adviser to the UK government on AI matters.
5 Max Tegmark — a Swedish-American research physicist, a specialist in machine learning, and a popular author of published books.