Sensual Hypothesis of Intellect

The Sensual Hypothesis of Intellect

Based on Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory of adaptation, natural selection is a foundational mechanism by which organisms adjust to their environments, increasing their likelihood of survival and reproductive success. Through natural selection, advantageous traits that improve an organism's "fit" within its surroundings are more likely to be passed on to future generations (Darwin, 1859). This theory highlights the role of genetic variation and environmental pressures in driving species evolution and adaptation. Recent expansions on evolutionary theory suggest that alongside genetic variation and environmental pressures, there may be an additional "creative" factor at play in enhancing species survival: the ability to learn from environmental changes. This capacity for learning can be understood as the development of new sensory abilities or heightened awareness that enables organisms to recognize previously unnoticed environmental changes and respond adaptively (Gould, 2002; Dawkins, 2016).

At birth, each species possesses a genetically determined baseline set of sensory capabilities that facilitate initial survival in their natural habitats. However, ongoing interactions with dynamic environmental forces encourage the development of unique sensory combinations, shaped by both genetic predispositions and acquired responses. Over time, species evolve sensory specializations that are finely attuned to specific environmental niches (Mayr, 2001). This evolutionary capacity for environmental recognition is crucial for survival, leading to the hypothesis that species with enhanced abilities to detect and respond to environmental changes possess an evolutionary advantage.

In recent years, advances in genetics and neuroscience have deepened our understanding of the interplay between heritability, learning, and environmental adaptation. While genetic and epigenetic factors provide a foundation for learning, experience-based adaptations can enhance or suppress innate abilities (Meaney & Szyf, 2005). Brain plasticity, or neuroplasticity, enables the brain to reorganize itself in response to external stimuli, leading to structural and functional changes that improve cognitive adaptability (Kolb & Whishaw, 2015). Neuroplasticity underpins diverse cognitive functions—working memory, cognitive control, attention, intelligence, executive functions—as well as resilience and motivation. These cognitive capacities are in turn governed by neural connectivity and gene expression, which respond to both genetic and environmental inputs (Linden, 2006).

Despite considerable research into learning and brain plasticity, the traditional view of learning focuses on the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, and preferences, often without explicit reference to sensory adaptation (APA, 2020). The Sensual Hypothesis of Intellect, however, offers a novel perspective, suggesting that learning is fundamentally an adaptive process driven by sensory enhancement. According to this hypothesis, learning is essentially the process of identifying environmental changes to develop new sensory perceptions that facilitate survival. This redefinition shifts the emphasis from cognitive outcomes to the sensory-driven recognition of environmental change.

The Central Dogma of Learning in the Sensual Hypothesis of Intellect

The Sensual Hypothesis of Intellect proposes a framework for understanding learning as follows:

Existing Senses → Change in Environment → Development of New Sense
A feedback loop, where the prolonged absence of certain environmental stimuli may lead to the degradation or loss of associated senses.

This model suggests that the evolutionary advantage lies in the capacity to adaptively develop and refine senses in response to environmental change, rather than relying solely on inherited genetic predispositions. Over time, the continuous feedback between sensory adaptation and environmental conditions facilitates a progressive, responsive adaptation that supports survival in changing conditions. This central dogma offers a streamlined model for understanding learning as an evolutionary adaptive mechanism.

The empirical application of the updated definition of learning, in conjunction with the Central Dogma of Learning, suggests that intellect emerges as an adaptive mechanism that evolved in species with high adaptability. This perspective leads to the following definition of intellect:

Intellect is the cumulative effect of neuronal processes that detect changes or potential changes in both internal and external environments. This occurs through various neuronal functions—such as memory, emotions, cognitive control, attention, and intuition—which work collectively to develop and acquire new forms of sensory awareness.

Adopting this definition, grounded in the Sensual Hypothesis and the Central Dogma of Learning, provides a systematic framework for studying, analyzing, and documenting cognitive, behavioral, and intellectual capabilities. This approach is applicable across individual species (including humans) and groups within any taxonomic classification, regardless of domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, or genus. Measuring both innate and acquired sensory abilities thus becomes a key method for evaluating specific intellectual activities, and assessing sensory thresholds can help identify the limitations and defining traits of individual species or groups. However, this requires a reexamination of the classification and categorization of sensory systems, given that current frameworks are limited to primary, innate senses and exclude other potential sensory inputs, thus constraining the scope of spatial attention. Without a comprehensive inventory of senses, any study of intellect risks narrowing its focus to primary sensory inputs, neglecting a broad range of sensory contributions, and potentially skewing results toward either rational evaluation or intuitive assessment.

This gap in sensory classification can be addressed by categorizing senses based on their processing domains into three main classes: Neuroception, Proprioception, and Perception.

Neuroception: This category encompasses unconscious, inherited senses primarily associated with internal body awareness, often termed interoception. Neuroception includes senses such as olfactory (chemical detection) and mechanoception (motion and acceleration detection) (Porges, 2003). Neuroceptive senses provide essential information for maintaining homeostasis and ensuring survival, and they operate independently of conscious awareness. For instance, attention—whether semi-conscious or conscious—does not directly influence neuroceptive processes, as these senses deliver undetected stimuli to neuronal networks for processing without conscious detection. Neuroceptive senses operate in a single sensory input mode and are central to internal physiological regulation (Craig, 2002).
Proprioception: This category includes senses that are generally subconscious, either inherited or acquired, and they focus on external body awareness. Proprioception represents a cross-modality between interoception and exteroception, especially in the way internal signals influence external responses. Examples include the vestibular sense (balance) and nociceptive sense (pain detection) (Proske & Gandevia, 2012). Proprioception plays a critical role in coordinating movement, maintaining posture, and spatial orientation, as it provides the brain with information about the body’s position and movement. Unlike Neuroception, Proprioception integrates multimodal sensory input and is fundamental for spatial and kinesthetic awareness (Goldstein, 2009).
Perception: This category covers all conscious and acquired senses associated with social and environmental awareness, often referred to as socioception. Perception involves interpreting and integrating sensory information to form a conscious understanding of social and environmental contexts. This includes visual and auditory senses essential for recognizing social cues, interpreting facial expressions, and understanding language (Adolphs, 2009). Perception is crucial for social interactions and communication, as it enables individuals to navigate and adapt to complex social environments. Senses classified under Perception involve cross-modal attention shifting, a dynamic conscious process that enables focused awareness in response to multiple stimuli (Posner & Petersen, 1990).

A refined classification of senses can have significant implications for understanding and treating various psychological and neurological conditions. Accurate assessment and categorization of sensory inputs could enhance the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of ailments that are currently difficult to address due to the absence of a taxonomically systematic classification of sensory processing. This refined framework could be instrumental in addressing emotional dysregulation, a condition characterized by impaired emotional control, by understanding how sensory stimuli from different classes interact to influence emotional response and perception (Gross, 2014). For example, emotions triggered by internal stimuli (neuroceptive processes) could be moderated through conscious rationalization (perception), even if the original stimuli remain unconscious (Gross & Jazaieri, 2014). The proposed classification could also further research on attention flexibility, enhancing systemic approaches to cognitive and sensory exploration.

In conclusion, the proposed classification—based on the Sensual Hypothesis and the Central Dogma of Learning—promises to advance our understanding of short- and long-term brain functions, especially in pattern recognition, learning, and the tendency to perceive patterns across both related and unrelated stimuli (termed apophenia). This systematic approach could enable more nuanced studies of intellectual development and mental adaptability, furthering research in fields ranging from cognitive psychology to artificial intelligence.

References

Adolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: Neural basis of social knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 693–716. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(8), 655–666. doi:10.1038/nrn894

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray.

Dawkins, R. (2016). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford University Press.

Goldstein, E. B. (2009). Sensation and Perception (8th ed.). Wadsworth.

Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and practical issues. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Guilford Press.

Gross, J. J., & Jazaieri, H. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: An affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(4), 387–401. doi:10.1177/2167702614536164

Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2015). An introduction to brain and behavior. Worth Publishers.

Linden, D. J. (2006). The accidental mind: How brain evolution has given us love, memory, dreams, and God. Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. Basic Books.

Meaney, M. J., & Szyf, M. (2005). Maternal care as a model for experience-dependent chromatin plasticity? Trends in Neurosciences, 28(9), 456–463.

Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325

Porges, S. W. (2003). The Polyvagal Theory: Phylogenetic contributions to social behavior. Physiology & Behavior, 79(3), 503–513. doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00156-2

Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012). The proprioceptive senses: Their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiological Reviews, 92(4), 1651–1697. doi:10.1152/physrev.00048.2011