Intelligence is Applied Logic - Hyperlogicus Logicus Hypologicus Alogicus

Intelligence is Applied Logic

Hyperlogicus Logicus Hypologicus Alogicus

Larry Neal Gowdy - Copyright ©2024 - January 16, 2024

Redon Beatrice

(PD) Odilon Redon Beatrice

(The following is an expanded version of the article Hyperlogicus Logicus Hypologicus Alogicus. The first sustineo reciproca quote is from the 2021 article Care About Other People.)

"Again, it is the only teaching I have ever felt needs spoken: care about other people. Caring about other people is continuous mental activity and extended analyses that occur before a physical act is committed. I give two genres of human: sustineo reciproca and canatim sapientes. The genre sustineo reciproca implies 'sustained reciprocation', and points to 'sustained cyclic analyses of one's own thoughts'. Caring about other people requires sustained thinking. The conscious analyses do not stop before, during, nor after an act. Caring about other people is not a slogan to uncaringly scream in protests. Caring about other people is what a person does inwardly themselves, and the resulting outward behavior exhibits how much thinking occurred. Most humans literally cannot care about other people. Most humans cannot think. Scientists and teachers openly admit that they are unable to remain conscious more than about ten percent of the time, and therefore are incapable of being sustineo reciproca, and also incapable of caring about other people.

Canatim sapientes implies 'dog-like learned', or 'like-dog scholar', and points at the dog-like behavior of memorizing 'ear to mouth' words like how dogs are trained. Dogs are able to learn a small amount, but cannot process the memories to form analyses of self-guidance."

Definitions of Hyperlogicus Logicus Hypologicus and Alogicus

Logicus is the Latin word for 'logic, reasoning'. The four terms alogicus, hypologicus, logicus, and hyperlogicus refer to four general categories of how well an individual is able to think and to apply logic.

Alogicus is the incapacity to mentally connect two or more facts, and to then apply reasoning between the facts to mentally self-create a third mental concept. In 2003 the Sensory Quotient (SQ) tests of mental cognition verified that none of the observed individuals (some of which were in high IQ societies) were able to mentally connect three concepts into a fourth self-created concept. Further observations verified that the inability to mentally connect only two concepts into a third self-created concept is much too common amongst the observed population. Therefore, the word alogicus is simply an easy term to classify an individual who is not mentally able to connect and to apply logic to one's own thoughts.

Hypologicus is the capacity to weakly mentally connect two or more facts, and to then apply reasoning between the facts to mentally self-create a third mental concept, but the self-created third mental concept is irrational. The individual is also mentally unable to progress further within one's logic, nor is the individual able to accurately apply the third mental concept.

Logicus is the capacity to mentally connect two or more facts, and to then apply reasoning between the facts to mentally self-create a third mental concept, but the individual is mentally unable to physically apply the mental concepts within their own lives.

Hyperlogicus is the capacity to mentally connect two or more facts, to then apply reasoning between the facts to mentally self-create a third mental concept, and to then continue connecting the self-created mental concepts, with each analysis becoming another fact to be combined and reasoned with all others. Also, the individual is mentally able to physically apply the mental concepts within their own lives.

Specie Specific Mental Traits

Although most all animals share similar mental traits, each specie of animal has its own blend, quantity, and quality of each trait. Canines are able to be loyal, caring, compassionate, to hear voice tones, and to reason, but canines are not able to retain a string of reasoning that would enable a dog to build its own dog house. Road Runner birds have similar mental qualities as canines, but the Road Runner bird has different quantities of the same traits. An example is of dogs having a narrow range of vocal communication, as compared to Road Runner birds having a sizable width and depth of vocal communication.

In comparison, and in many respects, human vocal communication is more intricate and complex than the vocal communication of canines', but the Road Runner's vocabulary is more intricate and complex than human vocal communication, while the canine's nonverbal communication is superior to the human's and Road Runner's. That which is easy for a Road Runner and canine to observe and to communicate, is very difficult for most humans.

Parallel is that most humans may share similar mental traits, but each individual has a different blend, quantity, and quality of each trait. Some traits are innate of body design and ancestral history, but most traits are developed relative to each individual's foundational emotion responding to the individual's environment. The end-product of an adult's intelligence is dictated by the individual's own self-chosen self-effort to self-develop one's own traits beginning at the first moment of conscious thought.

Humans possess the physical design to exceed the logic of what dogs and birds are able to process, but if an individual does not self-exert self-effort, then there will be no mental self-development much beyond what most other animals are able to mentally do.

Within the human population, it is observable that specific types of humans exist, with each displaying their type by how the individuals behave. The first grouping, which is useful for contrasts, is to segregate humans into two general categories: sustineo reciproca and canatim sapientes. Aside from the human language, the canatim sapientes exhibits a behavior that is not much beyond what is observable within large canines. On the other end of the scale is sustineo reciproca, which exhibits a behavior that no other animal is capable of achieving, even if the other animal were able to self-choose the self-effort to try.

From the group of sustineo reciproca and canatim sapientes, human behavior can be further segregated into several different types, with each type exhibiting its nature. For use in this article, the alogicus and hypologicus are always of the canatim sapientes group. The logicus group is as a torque curve beginning to rise beyond canatim sapientes, but has not yet achieved an optimal rpm/torque ratio of sustineo reciproca. The hyperlogicus group is always sustineo reciproca.

All things in the universe are different. Nothing is identical, the same, nor equal. All humans are different. All humans have different quantities and qualities of different traits. No two people can share the same quantities and qualities of traits. The classifications of alogicus, hypologicus, logicus, hyperlogicus, canatim sapientes, and sustineo reciproca merely point to an easy method of segregating different types of humans that have similar types of traits.

It is beautiful to watch a black panther run across one's land at about 50mph, but seeing a common fat house cat lazing in the grass is not much interesting. Panthers and house cats are both felines, but they are not identical. Some two-legged mammals might be named 'human', but none are identical. Hyperlogicus sustineo reciproca is fast and beautiful; alogicus canatim sapientes is slow and lazy.

Supportive Background Research

The Sensory Quotient (SQ) tests of mental cognition began in the late 1990s, and continued off and on up until around 2015, of when the tests changed to focus on how behaviorisms illustrate mental cognition. The SQ tests collected data from over 10,000 individuals from all walks of life. The SQ test scores had become a qualification for membership in the SesquIQ high IQ society. Amongst the several core validations within the SQ tests, the one that best illustrates normal human potential is that less than one person in 10,000 is capable of adequately describing objects, thoughts, or anything else.

Within the act of describing a thing, the depths of descriptions illustrate several key mental traits, one of which defines how many levels of logic that an individual is capable of mentally processing.

The SQ data far exceeds modern psychology's knowledge of intelligence.

After over twenty years, in 2021 the SQ project finally fully stopped collecting data when the normalcy research project was finalized. The item that helped bring a close to the normalcy research project was the historical evidence that no known published western author has ever been mentally capable of combining two or more facts into an accurate third concept. All of the authors (predominately college professors) were alogicus to hypologicus, with none being logicus nor hyperlogicus.

Of the numerous elements that describe why the authors were alogicus-hypologicus, one is that no one is able to reason a topic that they know nothing about. Since the authors themselves did not possess knowledge of specific topics that can only be acquired through the applied logic of firsthand experiences and firsthand observations, then the products of the authors' writings were incoherent imaginations of things that could not possibly be true.

Combined with the normalcy project, the SQ data is extensive and replete of documented evidence that proves the limitations of the alogicus-hypologicus mind.

Examples of Alogicus

Alogicus is easily observed within the global warming and environmental protests. The protesters themselves live in large homes, drive automobiles, and use wireless devices which include cell phones. The individuals possess the knowledge that large homes consume more energy than small homes, but the individuals are unable to connect their knowledge with what the individuals believe, nor connect their knowledge with how the individuals behave.

A quick observable summation of alogicus is of the individuals' inability to mentally control their bodies to agree with their own beliefs.

An alogicus individual may be able to see a two-piece pictogram of a penguin and a keyboard, and to then reason that the pictogram implies a Linux computer, but the alogicus individual is only able to connect the two ideas because the individual had previously memorized the knowledge of what Linux computers are. However, if a two-piece pictogram is of a non-visual concept, then the alogicus individual will be unable to assemble the pieces into one. An example is of . The top part infers a 'field', and the bottom part infers 'earth'. No known American nor English academician has been able to assemble the two ideas into one. All known academicians have merely given the dictionary definition of 'neighborhood', which is fully incorrect.

Even when an alogicus individual is told that implies 'inner', still the alogicus individual is unable to self-create a comprehension of why field and earth implies 'inner'.

Alogicus individuals rely upon memorized knowledge.

Alogicus individuals are unable to adequately describe anything.

Alogicus individuals score 90 on the SQ tests (which is technically a zero).

Examples of Hypologicus

Hypologicus implies a primitive logic, of which is vague, disconnected from Reality, and is incoherent. Predominately, the hypologicus individual may attempt to connect thoughts, but the resulting self-created concept is bizarre and does not relate to the reason of why the thoughts were connected.

Thousands of examples reside within James Legge's translations of ancient Chinese texts. One example is of how James Legge translated Li Ren paragraph # 3: "The master said: It is only the truly virtuous man who can love, or who can hate, others." Legge did not know what virtue is, nor what love is. All of Legge's translations illustrate a demented mind that attempts to connect two or more ideas, but the results are extraordinarily bizarre, fully incorrect, and of a negativity that illustrates the person's own personality traits.

Western philosophers have done similarly for almost 3,000 years, of debating ethics, morals, and virtue without the philosophers knowing nor having the mental ability to comprehend what ethics, morals, and virtue are.

Other excellent examples are the Chinese words and . All known western scholars claim and believe that means 'evil, wicked, hate', and the scholars also claim and believe that means 'think'. The bottom portion (radical) of each word suggests the idea of 'heart'. The top portion suggests something related to the 'heart'. The mental ability to reason how the two things (top and bottom radicals) combine to create a concept, does not exist within any known academic writing.

The inability to connect the Chinese radicals, coincides with the fact that the individuals cannot accurately connect concepts in English either.

Numerous scholars have publicly admitted in books and videos that the scholars do not actually know what and mean, but still the scholars continue to believe that their definitions (which were memorized from dictionaries) are accurate and valid.

The hypologicus individual may attempt to connect two or more thoughts, but the resulting self-created concept is fully illogical and wrong.

Hypologicus individuals cannot adequately describe anything.

Hypologicus individuals score 90 on the SQ tests (zero).

Examples of Logicus

Logicus individuals may sometimes be able to combine two simplistic ideas into a third similarly simple concept, but the string of self-created mental combinations then ceases. An example is of a logicus individual knowing that he has to replace batteries in his flashlights, remote controls, and laptops, but the logicus individual is not able to continue the string of logic to arrive at the conclusion that an electric car must also have its battery replaced, and that the battery itself must be manufactured by first destroying the environment and living beings, the same environment and living beings that the person had reasoned would be saved if he drove an electric car.

As a general trend, the logicus individual may be able to continue a string of simplistic logics to a certain limit, but never does the string expand beyond a flat line of reasoning. The logicus individual may be able to mentally reason how to build a house, a car, and a spaceship, but the logicus individual must rely upon technologies and designs that already exist: the logicus individual is not able to think nor to create beyond memorized knowledge and flat reasonings.

Logicus individuals are sometimes able to describe objects better than alogicus and hypologicus.

Logicus individuals score 90 to 180 on the SQ tests.

Examples of Hyperlogicus

Hyperlogicus individuals are able to invent new things that have never before existed and are not based upon preexisting technologies, because the hyperlogicus individuals' logic is fluidly continuous, and not sporadically flat. An example is of an extremely simple device that can be used to heal infections and nervous system damage; the device's design is composed of over ten elements functioning in unison. To recognize the design's effects requires an active logic of over ten concepts being rationalized simultaneously.

Of primary importance is that hyperlogicus individuals are able to intricately describe anything with complex details, including and , which proves that their logic is active and fluid.

Hyperlogicus individuals are able to intricately describe what beauty is, and how beauty is perceived.

Hyperlogicus individuals score 720 and above on the SQ tests.

Comparing Phantasia to Logicus

-Phantasia believes that seeing imaginary imagery is smart. -Logicus proves that the ability to accurately think is smart.

A popular belief is that hyperphantasia implies higher 'cognitive load', while aphantasia implies no 'cognitive load'. The belief is alogicus-based, and very much false.

The proof is able to be firsthand observed throughout the world that not all hyperphantasic individuals can be intelligent because hyperphantasic individuals [1] invent irrational beliefs, [2] their behaviors never reflect the people's beliefs, and [3] they participate in the destruction of the planet.

"It takes no great intelligence to recognize that Earth is humanity's only home, but it takes great ignorance to destroy it." (From the 2007 article IQ Questions and Answers)

Some hyperphantasic individuals might be intelligent, but the vast majority are no smarter than any other alogicus individual. The ability to see or to not see imaginary imagery has no relevance to functional intelligence.

If a person believes that eyesight alone were enough to know what a thing is, then the person would be able to look at and , and to then describe what the words mean. Seeing an image is of no usefulness if the mind is unable to further process what was seen. The ability to mentally process sensory perceptions is not common within the human specie.

SQ Tests and Phantasia Projects are not Similar

It is important to state that there are vast differences between the SQ and phantasia projects.

[1] Social Media Versus Firsthand Evaluations: Phantasia projects have predominately relied upon participants from social media, emails, and student bodies. As most everyone who has used social media knows, social media can be useful for chatting with friends and family, but social media is not useful for evaluating a global percentile of mental traits through use of a few radical social media users. Social media tends to attract too high of a percentile of people who are impolite, illiterate, and have personality problems. (The Mensa High Intelligence and Autism News article adequately covers the parallel problem with some individuals having created an email survey of Mensa members.) Some email responses might be useful, but the alogicus-hypologicus mindset will invent claims that are not true. As a whole, all known phantasia projects have predetermined their outcome, and then chose participants that would substantiate what the projects' designers wanted the projects to conclude.

The SQ project began through postal mail to high IQ society members, but quickly expanded to firsthand observations of people from all walks of life. As the Mensa High Intelligence and Autism News article also pointed-out, people of similar personalities tend to congregate into cliques, and thus it is expected that the groups will not be indicative of the social norm.

Therefore, the phantasia projects' participants predominately arrived from a tiny percentage of the general population who had preplanned to participate, while the SQ project's participants were of the common public who made no preparations, nor were they told what specifically was being evaluated.

[2] Multiple Choice Answers: Phantasia projects rely upon multiple choice questionnaires, all of which can easily be cheated on, and none of which permit a finding that is not in agreement with what the test designers wanted the results to be. The SQ data arrives from the individuals' own firsthand reports, without multiple choice questions, and without the individuals being guided of which answers to give.

[3] Word of Mouth Versus Firsthand Observations: The phantasia projects predominately collected the data of what people claimed verbally or in writing. The phantasia projects were not able to firsthand observe the individuals actually seeing or not seeing imaginary imagery, nor were the phantasia projects able to quantify whether the participants were telling the truth. The SQ project firsthand observed individuals attempting to describe objects. Regardless of whether or not a participant may have attempted to be dishonest, the collected data was of the nature that summed the individuals' actual mental performance. Individuals who attempted to cheat on the SQ tests, all of them said crazy things while displaying specific behaviorisms that proved that the individuals were pretending to do what they could not do. If an individual were to pretend to be mentally blank (none did), it could easily be proven untrue by how the individual inadvertently answered the question. (For obvious reasons, the details of how deceit was observed and recorded are not made public.)

[4] Firsthand Knowledge: The phantasia projects could not intricately describe what the act of seeing or not seeing imaginary imagery is. If the phantasia projects held knowledge of how the mind assembles imaginary imagery, then the projects would have at least alluded to the information, and too, the projects would not have relied upon photos of fMRIs nor any other forms of visual record. The full absence of details within phantasia projects strongly infers that the projects were vacant of potentially defining 'phantasia' itself. The SQ project is based upon an in-depth knowledge of how the mind forms specific ranges of thoughts and ideas, as well as why some people's pupils may or may not dilate when imagining imagery. The SQ data is based upon a wide array of background information that was collected from firsthand experiences of firsthand observations that began decades prior to the first SQ tests. The phantasia projects spent a few hours looking at images, and then invented conclusions.

[5] Confidential Data: The phantasia projects measured brains, measured pupils, and did little else beyond making measurements. The phantasia projects fully omitted the absolute most important ingredients of the mind – the projects not so much as alluding to the ingredients — which leaves no other plausible conclusion but that the phantasia projects are alogicus-hypologicus. The ingredients not spoken of in the phantasia projects, are in the SQ data. The ingredients, of course, will remain confidential so that no one will be able to memorize the words and then pretend that they themselves possess the ingredients.

Perhaps it ought to be humorously noted that the more that a person pretends to possess the ingredients, the more that the person proves that they do not have the ingredients.

Summing Thoughts

The conclusions within this article were mostly derived from the SQ project during 2003. The differences between alogicus to hyperlogicus are obvious, and very easy to observe and to evaluate, but the reasoning of why alogicus-hypologicus people were unable to describe anything was elusive. It was not until around 2016 that a chance interest in the ancient Chinese texts revealed a method of ascertaining specific mental behaviors. Much of the background is briefly spoken of in In Appreciation of Oxford University - Review of Scholastic Standards. Details of the method remain confidential and will not be made public because it is expected that any future projects researching the topic would be tainted and invalidated by participants having memorized the details' words, and the participants would attempt to cheat by pretending to be 'doing' what the details described.

The terms hyperlogicus, logicus, hypologicus, and alogicus were chosen partly in jest, but also as a means of contrasting the popular beliefs within hyperphantasia, phantasia, hypophantasia, and aphantasia, while also providing an easy method of giving classifications to different manners of human intelligence. To my knowledge, the logicus terms have never been used before, and, so, if the terms lead to a new frenzy of Internet myths, then I accept the name blame.

Related, it is very interesting that over 3,000 years ago there were some individuals in Asia who invented written words that rely upon the reader being able to mentally assemble two to six simultaneous ideas, and to then form a self-created concept of the whole. No known European nor American academician is able to mentally assemble the two simple ideas within , , nor within thousands of other ancient Chinese words, which raises eyebrows and appears to validate other conclusions within the early SQ project.

A few years ago, a writing was found that suggested that the author may have been hyperlogicus. The writing's comment was very brief, but the wording partially described what would have earned at least a 360 SQ score. The author was a man from the ancient China region.

It continues to appear that alogicus and hypologicus may in part be a mental effect caused by an excessively prolonged education of memorizing words in schools, but since the effects are witnessed within historical documents dating back almost 3,000 years, then education alone cannot be held as a primary cause.

The sum, therefore, is that alogicus is the normal state of the normal human, and for as long as the alogicus individual does not exert the self-effort to think, then so will the individual remain alogicus.


All animals share a similar behavior. The method of the behavior is indicative of each specie, genre, physiology, and mental development.

The human canatim sapientes behavior is similar to all other animals'.

The human sustineo reciproca behavior is unique, and is not known to exist within any other animal.

There is no known written record that speaks of the reasons of why the sustineo reciproca behavior exists, nor is there so much as a written record that speaks of the sustineo reciproca behavior's existence. The absence of descriptions suggests that the records were written from the canatim sapientes point of view.

Canatim sapientes also state that the physics of sustineo reciproca cannot be possible, which therefore verifies that canatim sapientes themselves are mentally unable to correlate observable data with what the canatim sapientes believe of their own science's physics.

The canatim sapientes behavior has become almost universal in movies, commercials, and the Internet.

The animalistic behaviorisms, the absence of written records, the mental inability to correlate observable data, and the predominance of canatim sapientes behavior in society, further verifies that alogicus-hypologicus-canatim sapientes is the norm for humans.

Related articles are in the Intelligence section.