We are all systematically exposed to the ideas of other people in the name of organized education, to a point that the residual bias would prevent us from thinking otherwise, interfering with the natural method of gathering knowledge.

This interference could be as simple as a basic math function that is taught to the school children at early stages, to a highly sophisticated algorithm taught to an older student at a university, both without asking the students to first try and come up with their own solution before their mind is polluted with the readily available solutions from past generations, no matter how great and acceptable those methods are.

When the mind is polluted with a solution from others, it's extremely difficult to invent a completely brand new solution without thinking about or using what one already know.

Looking at the work of other thinkers who came up with creative solutions that are agreed upon by many other peers, even today, is a good proof for how the rate of producing creative solution has shrunk over years and as the access to knowledge became easier over time and with the help of internet and better communication and knowledge sharing.

The most advanced intelligence that is collectively agreed upon is nature's survival capability, keeping plant, animal, human and all other life forms up and running for millions of years.

The most advanced formulae for major real-life problems are already invented by the nature and could be studied, decoded and reused in artificial forms of intelligence, and at some point they could also be the only understandable options left for us to solve certain complex problems.

When it comes to the subject of training certain AI models, studying the existing methods of how it's done in the nature and replicating those methods in the system under construction will be the best option, although it may need a tremendous collective effort and could take some time, but it's not impossible and the results will open doors to understanding how the organic intelligence works and replicating those methods in solving other real-life problems.

When it comes to the subject of intuition and how advanced human intelligence is compared to other non-human organisms, there are many positive and negative factors to consider.

While most animal, plant, and other life forms that we know have remarkable powers of understanding the surrounding environment and wonderful methods of communication with their own and other species, humans are lacking many of those powers, as if they are deprived of them intentionally.

To make this subject clearer, human's speed of communicating with each other is limited to a few low speed senses such as audio-visual methods like hearing, seeing or touching.

Talking through mouth and hearing by ears, reading by seeing or touching (e.g. Brail) are in fact so low speed that reading a small book could take hours, days or even weeks, making these senses not suitable for transferring large amounts of data needed to build knowledge, yet human intellect is ranked amongst the highest intelligences known in the nature.

A question that comes to mind is could humans have ended up in the current low-speed data intake situation, because their superior methods of communication have been lost or destroyed over time for unknown reasons?

Regardless of the answer, it's obvious that the current raw-data absorption rate is very low, and yet mankind is so intellectually confident that's trying to build a superb form of intelligence, artificially.

But could it be that the low-rate of incoming data has played a positive role in building one of the greatest forms of organic intelligence, in human? And if so, how to find out and extract the mechanism behind the development of intelligence, not for the purpose of human sciences or religion studies, but solely for the purpose of understanding the internals and replication on machines to gain functionalities beneficial to mankind because of currently lacking them?

And how could one compare a man-made algorithm to the actual intelligent of a live organism? If the source of the logic can be traced back to a computer program, would it still be wise or accurate to call it "intelligence"?

So far there has not been a single intelligent organism that could expose the underlying logic used in its construction, which is way above the intelligence level of the creature, but if it was originated from the same level of understanding of the algorithm designer or programmer, we have seen a tendency of making mistakes in both the understanding process and the programming part of it, respective to the intelligence and its fabrication.

NOII is a collective effort in trying to answer these questions by making examples, executable samples of computer-coded logic running over real-life data to create some form of definable intelligent, even if not as perfect as an organic intelligence, but close enough, hence the Near-Organic Intelligence.